Adobe Lightrooms most important (and least known about) feature

[tonyjuliano]

Automatic (yes, AUTOMATIC) input sharpening and noise reduction of images captured in RAW format.

Read all about it Dead Link Removed.

 

[markbarendt]

Uhmm Tony,

From the article you linked.

Shooting in RAW poses a challenge as this type of data capture usually does not contain any in-camera sharpening or noise reduction, necessitating this being done later in your editing work-flow.

Actually, sharpening is a built in setting.

Sharpening, like White Balance and contrast, is embedded by the camera in the raw file. I'm going to oversimplify here for clarity.

Inside a raw file there are actually a subset of files or packets or bags full of data. One of these bags holds the raw sensor data, one holds all the camera settings.

The raw converters provided under Nikon's label, or Canon's, actually read and use the embedded settings from their cameras as a starting point.

This means that everything can be done in camera. There is no necessity to go into Lightroom or any other third party converter to sharpen or set WB or...

Heck, there is even a complete jpg image stored in the raw file that has been sharpened, white balanced, and contrast adjusted by the camera, but let's stay on point for now.

What actually happens with third party converters is that they can or will disregard all or most of the embedded camera data.

Back in history a ways there was actually a big row between Nikon and Adobe because Nikon wouldn't even allow Adobe to read the WB settings in their NEF files. There are still proprietary things in the NEFs.

Adobe and other converter makers don't have their software in the camera so they have to wait until you download then they put their settings files outside the original files.

Lightroom's presets are a perfect example of this. Raw sensor data, from the NEF plus a LR preset equals a certain image. Change the preset, new image.

Setting the default settings in LR isn't that meaningful, it's just a place to start.

Sharpening, if you want to get the best from any image, needs to be done specific to output, not input.

The sharpening needed for an iPhone screen and for a 16x20 print are two different animals.

 

[tonyjuliano]

The article specifically deals with the input sharpening, the initial sharpening step that renders the image for display on screen - of course output sharpening is a supplemental step for use when exporting or printing.

It also takes into consideration that in-camera sharpening of RAW image data is not ALWAYS desirable. I don't allow much in-camera sharpening, as I find it is not as accurate as what can be done supplementally, after time of capture.

The same applies to noise reduction.

If you are completely happy with the in-camera sharpening and NR that your model can apply automatically, then so be it.

Many others are not.

 

[markbarendt]

You miss my point, I'm not saying I'm always happy with in camera anything. LR is a great tool and a fine way to work.

What I'm saying is that this:

Shooting in RAW poses a challenge as this type of data capture usually does not contain any in-camera sharpening or noise reduction, necessitating this being done later in your editing work-flow.

Is a myth and mis-information.

Shooting raw doesn't mean editing later is a requirement and all these types of data are embedded in the raw file. Also, "in camera" sharpening with raw files is just another "preset" itself and a truly nice place to start. It's still fully editable/changable later.

Adobe raw & LR just don't read certain parts of the info available in the raw file, it is simply not true that it "does not contain' that info.

I do agree that tailoring your presets to a specific camera is a time saver in LR but there's no need perpetuate myths to sell that idea.

 

[donbga]

Sharpening, if you want to get the best from any image, needs to be done specific to output, not input.

Capture sharpening is a separate operation from output sharpening. The degree of capture softening is not dependent upon the output media or size of enlargement but related to the camera sensor structure and to some degree the exposure and subject matter. Sensors with Bayer filters usually require more sharpening that those that do not use an AA filter over the filter. And by comparison the Sigma Foveon <sp?> sensor needs yet a different level of sharpening.

The Leica M9 and S2 as well as the new Pentax 645D don't use an AA filter and as a result require less capture sharpening though the image may need treatment for Moire effects.

Additional sharpening or blurring can be made at intermediate post processing steps for creative effects.

Don Bryant

 

[donbga]

Automatic (yes, AUTOMATIC) input sharpening and noise reduction of images captured in RAW format.

Read all about it Dead Link Removed.

Import presets are widely know by experienced LR users. Whether or not they are utilized is another consideration all together.

Don Bryant

 

[markbarendt]

Capture sharpening is a separate operation from output sharpening.

Well that's just a matter of perspective.

Two things happen after the camera; picking the keepers and then the keepers enter the editing process.

1- Picking the keepers, requires some visible form of output; monitor, proof, contact sheet... To get a visible image from raw sensor data, all the settings questions must be answered for the computer, even if that is done by default.

2- For the editing process we typically want workable, somewhat standardized, output from our initial (or as you describe it "capture" processing (whether camera or LR preset) to enter our post process. Corrections like the sharpening differences you describe between different cameras are a good example.

 

[donbga]

Mark,

1- Picking the keepers, requires some visible form of output; monitor, proof, contact sheet... To get a visible image from raw sensor data, all the settings questions must be answered for the computer, even if that is done by default.

One doesn't need to do any processing (including sharpening) to choose keepers as you say. Whatever automatic processing occurs to make the image file visible by the image viewer is usually passive and not controllable by the user.

Don

 

[markbarendt]

Mark,

One doesn't need to do any processing (including sharpening) to choose keepers as you say. Whatever automatic processing occurs to make the image file visible by the image viewer is usually passive and not controllable by the user.

Don

Without processing/rendering raw sensor data via some form of settings file you have no image, period.

Sure, the automatic processing in LR has default settings installed by Adobe, the passive settings, but they are completely controllable/adaptable/changeable by the user.

These presets can include automatic LR adjustments or can have specific/absolute settings like B&W. LR doesn't care, it just does what it's told.

Presets are essentially the equivalent of the camera settings in the LR workflow. It's just the application of a certain "LR preset" to the raw sensor data, just like the camera settings, nothing more.

Any preset in LR can be applied to any image downloaded from the camera by "default" or by "choice".

That's part of what Tony is is trying to rightly get across in his article and it goes right down to the specific camera and lens.

 

[donbga]

Without processing/rendering raw sensor data via some form of settings file you have no image, period.

Sure, the automatic processing in LR has default settings installed by Adobe, the passive settings, but they are completely controllable/adaptable/changeable by the user.

These presets can include automatic LR adjustments or can have specific/absolute settings like B&W. LR doesn't care, it just does what it's told.

Presets are essentially the equivalent of the camera settings in the LR workflow. It's just the application of a certain "LR preset" to the raw sensor data, just like the camera settings, nothing more.

Any preset in LR can be applied to any image downloaded from the camera by "default" or by "choice".

That's part of what Tony is is trying to rightly get across in his article and it goes right down to the specific camera and lens.

:munch:

 

[markbarendt]

Don,

Whistle all you want, misconceptions about how raw files and raw converters, like LR, abound.

If one understands what's happening when and how raw workflows are easier to understand.

 

[donbga]

Don,

Whistle all you want, misconceptions about how raw files and raw converters, like LR, abound.

If one understands what's happening when and how raw workflows are easier to understand.

What ever you say Mark.

 

[tonyjuliano]

Point of clarification...

The methodology described in this post refers to what is commonly known to as “input sharpening”. This is the first sharpening step in a 3-step process.

3 pass/step sharpening:

1 -Capture/input Sharpening is applied early in the image-editing process, and just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process.

2_ Creative Sharpening is usually applied locally to focus on specific features in an image. For example, people often give eyes a little extra sharpness in head shots.

3_ Output Sharpening is applied to files that have already had capture and creative sharpening applied, after they’ve been sized to final output resolution, and is tailored to a specific type of output process (ie type/size/quality of print).

 

[donbga]

Point of clarification...

The methodology described in this post refers to what is commonly known to as input sharpening. This is the first sharpening step in a 3-step process.

3 pass/step sharpening:

1 -Capture/input Sharpening is applied early in the image-editing process, and just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process.

2_ Creative Sharpening is usually applied locally to focus on specific features in an image. For example, people often give eyes a little extra sharpness in head shots.

3_ Output Sharpening is applied to files that have already had capture and creative sharpening applied, after theyve been sized to final output resolution, and is tailored to a specific type of output process (ie type/size/quality of print).

Yeah this is all very old news. The three pass sharpening method is usually credited to Bruce Frazier and to a lesser extend Jeff Schewe.

 

[tonyjuliano]

Yes, "old news" to some...

Just trying to convey to others (who apparently do not possess your vast library of knowledge) this useful information.

 

[Bob Carnie]

If we are talking about input sharpening for scans I would be hesitant to do so'
For colour work we never sharpen on the colour channels, but go to L or K for this , fringing and artifacts can occur if you sharpen globally.
If you want to input sharpen I would suggest only after you are sure your image is nuetralized.

Yes, "old news" to some...

Just trying to convey to others (who apparently do not possess your vast library of knowledge) this useful information.

 

[donbga]

If we are talking about input sharpening for scans I would be hesitant to do so'
For colour work we never sharpen on the colour channels, but go to L or K for this , fringing and artifacts can occur if you sharpen globally.
If you want to input sharpen I would suggest only after you are sure your image is nuetralized.

Thanks Bob, for the context of this thread we were talking about digital RAW capture (exposures).

Don

 

[JBrunner]

Not being the strongest at digital techie stuff, I thought the whole idea of RAW was to have all of the information in an unadulterated manner. Isn't anything else (sharpening etc) simply part of the post process at whatever stage according to the workflow one chooses/prefers?

 

[markbarendt]

Not being the strongest at digital techie stuff, I thought the whole idea of RAW was to have all of the information in an unadulterated manner. Isn't anything else (sharpening etc) simply part of the post process at whatever stage according to the workflow one chooses/prefers?

Yes.

The sensor info isn't ever modified.

That doesn't get you anything on the computer screen though.

That raw sensor info has to be rendered by software, like LR, with a user defined set of instructions.

Various sets of instructions may be applied at any point and ignored later.

For example the Camera embeds white balance and sharpening and contrast settings in every raw file.

LR is under no obligation to use those settings. On download LR can apply a completely different set of settings, a preset.

The camera may have been set to Tungsten WB, low contrast, and low sharpening but LR can completely ignore the embedded camera settings and apply a shade WB setting, high contrast, and medium sharpening.

The sensor info doesn't change, the processing instructions do.

 

[donbga]

The sensor info doesn't change, the processing instructions do.

+1!

Don