Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

3 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Sun, Aug 23, 2020 1:51 AM

Solved

Camera Raw: Canon R5 Raw images are underexposed

Canon R5 RAW images are underexposed by 1.5 to 2 stops when imported into Lightroom. 

Responses

Official Solution

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

a month ago

Greetings,

 

Updates for the Adobe Photography Products were officially released on 10.20.2020 that include fixes for these issues. Please install the most recent update and confirm that your issue is now fixed. Please let us know if you encounter any issues.

If you have large numbers of affected previously-edited images you can:

  • Use the Library Filter to only show images from the Canon R5 with edits.
  • In LIbrary - Grid Select All
  • Use Quick Develop to adjust exposure to -2/3 (Small Left-facing Arrow clicked twice)
  • This should restore your edits to the expected state. 

 

Thank you for your patience.

(edited)

Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

Thanks for the update. I'm in the process of looking at the results now.

3 Messages

 • 

82 Points

The problem now is that previous R5 images which I have applied an increase in exposure to compensate for the bug now appears overexposed when re-exported from Lightroom Classic 10. Luckily I do not have too many of them. R5 RAWs that were converted to DNGs prior to import into Lightroom do not seem to be affected. 

3 Messages

 • 

80 Points

@Rikk

When will adobe have camera matched profiles for the latest canon cameras .... can adobe please make a statement as to what the issue with this is? Thanks

(edited)

4 Messages

 • 

156 Points

@Rikk Thanks so much for this quick fix.

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

@Rikk Thanks Rikk, very useful to provide the retrospective steps to fix the malalignment. 

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

3 months ago

You can't know anything about the exposure without viewing a raw Histogram and none exists in ACR or Lightroom. 

The images appear too dark with perhaps a default rendering. You can adjust image brightness with the controls provided, but this has nothing to do with exposure (Exposure only takes place at image capture, the result of the amount of light striking the sensor so just Aperture and Shutter). 
If you want to evaluate actual exposure, you need a tool like RawDigger to view a raw Histogram. 

Articles on exposing for raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

3 Messages

 • 

150 Points

3 months ago

What I meant is that they are very dark when imported even though the exposure is correct in camera. I have to bump up the exposure to 1.5 to 2 stops. This didn't happen with my other Canon cameras. 

79 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

What do they look like imported into ACR?  Since ACR and LR use the same algorithms, you can determine whether LR, ACR or the algorithm is at fault.  What do the metadata say about the photos.  You say they are 1.5 to 2 stops underexposed when demosaicked, but do the metadata match your original camera settings that you say are correct?  If I read the 9.4 release notes for the R5, it seems to say that support is preliminary.  That suggests further optimizations will come in subsequent releases.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

Adjust brightness as desired and make an import preset. Now again, they may be under exposed but there is no way to view actual exposure in LR. Upload a raw, I can examine in RawDigger or you can with its demo.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

3 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Well when the images are imported I see a jpeg preview which is the right exposure but then then when it loads the RAW, it becomes very dark. Would you say that is normal? Didn't happen to my other cameras. 

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

The JPEG preview has no bearing on the raw exposure. Again, exposure of raw can only be evaluated with proper tools outside of LR.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

1.6K Messages

 • 

28.4K Points

the jpgs have camera settings baked into them and LR doesn't recognize those settings.

this is an incredibly common issue and there are countless articles about the subject. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=lightroom+changes+color+after+import

611 Messages

 • 

9.4K Points

What you are seeing IN Camera is a JPG file that is Embedded into every RAW file. No camera that I know of uses the RAW data to show you an image on the cameras built in screen.
Also that embedded JPG is using whatever options you have set in the cameras menu system, the RAW data does not use them.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

LR recognizes the jPEG the camera generated for previews and you could keep them but they are useless and don't represent the JPEGs (or previews) LR  must build to represent the current rendering settings. So it rebuilds them. Been this way since day one. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

Having the same issue!! Every previous canon camera body I’ve had have been close enough the same to the camera preview that it was not obvious.. not it is significantly darker!!!

79 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

Adobe has acknowledged this as a bug.  They are working on it.  People need to understand that Canon does not cooperate with Adobe in any way, at least so far as I know.  It takes time to reverse engineer the RAW file format.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

And better news is the bug has no effect on the raw data itself. Make a temporary preset until the fix.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

12 Messages

 • 

296 Points

3 months ago

I am not seeing any problems with the R5 RAW images I have imported. Using LR Classic 9.4

22 Messages

 • 

490 Points

3 months ago

This is what has been noticed. When you open RAW files from the R and the R5 of the same image using Canons DPP the exposures are fairly equal. When you open those two flies using LrC 9.4 the R5 files are about 1/2 a stop darker.            

Champion

 • 

1.6K Messages

 • 

28.4K Points

isn't DPP compensating for the in-camera settings?

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

When you open RAW files from the R and the R5 of the same image using Canons DPP the exposures are fairly equal. When you open those two flies using LrC 9.4 the R5 files are about 1/2 a stop darker.             
No, the exposure is the same, the rendering isn't. 
This has absolutely nothing to do with exposure. It has everything to do with some default rendering that lacks 'ideal' brightness which can easily be corrected. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

I've noticed this also - same settings, same scene, all auto in-camera stuff turned off (lens corrections, etc.), same WB setting, same aperture, shutter, ISO, same lens - open the RAW files in DPP and the exposure is within 1/6 of a stop, actually very slightly brighter on the R5. Open the same two images in LR, and the R5 image is roughly 1/2 stop darker across the frame. 

The cameras appear to be exposing the same, but LR is rendering the CR3 file from the R5 slightly darker for some reason. Yes, it can be adjusted in PP, and I've set up a preset to bring things closer (modest changes in the calibration panel as well to true up some colors) to what it should be. 

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

 Yes, it can be adjusted in PP...

What's important here is EVERYTHING you see in ACR or LR is 'PP'. It is always rendering based on some setting; the default out of the box or one you've made. It never shows you the actual raw which would look something like this:

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/ThisIsRaw.jpg

The exposure is what it is, why LR might preview one raw from a camera differently than other isn't unusual (even from the same manufacturer). 

The point is:
1. If anyone here is concerned with actual exposure of the raw data, no Adobe product gives you that data. 
2. An image can look ' over exposed' (actually too bright) or 'under exposed' (actually not bright enough), a slider called Exposure doesn't affect exposure at all. It affects the brightness via rendering the raw along with lots of other sliders. 
3. IF the default doesn't appear as you desire, make a custom default. 
4. An optimally exposed raw will nearly always look way, way to bright with the out of the box default settings. Which is why those of us shooting optimal raw exposures always have a custom default setting to ' normalize' the rendering for ideal raw exposure. 
5. The JPEG preview from a raw is based on the exposure for that raw and if it looks 'ok', the likelihood is the raw is grossly under exposed. That camera JPEG is over-written in ACR/LR based on its current rendering settings and again, this has no bearing on the exposure of the raw. It is simply a preview with one, maybe close or close to ideal rendering or one that isn't anything like the ideal rendering. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

I'm just concerned with the rendering itself - it seems like Adobe isn't accurately rendering the exposure on-screen and thus requiring additional adjustments. When I open a RAW file to further develop, I like some fidelity to what was originally captured. I'm not saying that adjustments aren't going to be needed, but I would expect to be starting at a point that doesn't "appear" to be underexposed.

I noticed that if I instead use a camera-generated JPG, the exposure retains that 1/2 to 2/3 stop greater brightness. Of course, you lose the dynamic range benefits of the RAW file that way, but the initial presentation on the screen is truer to what was photographed.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

 it seems like Adobe isn't accurately rendering the exposure on-screen and thus requiring additional adjustments.
There is nothing ' accurate' here. The raw is essentially a grayscale file. It has to be rendered into RGB and that's done based on the current settings. 
You use say Adobe Standard profile, you get one rendering and a different rendering doing nothing else but picking a differing DCP profile. Or a slight adjustment of WB etc. Nothing here is accurate, it's all subjective. 

I noticed that if I instead use a camera-generated JPG, the exposure retains that 1/2 to 2/3 stop greater brightness.
Again, the camera generated JPEG is just another subjective rendering of the raw data produced by a machine, not a human. It isn't any more or less accurate than any other preferred (subjective) rendering and it isn't based on the exposure of the raw. 
You could make a default adjustment of /2 to 2/3 stop greater brightness, open the raw, it would look as you desire. And that's probably what you should do but recognize again, the actual (optimal) exposure is still unknown. You must view the raw data to know about that attribute of the raw data. 
Of course, you lose the dynamic range benefits of the RAW file that way
No, you lose it by not exposing the data ideally in the first place! And that toothpaste is out of the tube by the time you're in LR/ACR. See:

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

I think you're posting in a more intricate, detailed level than I am - which is Ok because I'm learning a little something here too. 

I shoot raw because it has additional latitude over the JPG image, but the camera's rendition of what the final JPG will look like is very good. 

I have actually made a preset "tweak" that includes about 1/3 stop increased brightness, a little adjustment to the contrast, and some tweaking of the colors in the calibration panel to try to mimic, as best as I could, what my camera-produced JPG image renders. It helps having that little color checker panel as well.

Yes, I agree, it's all somewhat subjective. What it actually looks like - vs - what you think it should look like, what you remember it looking like, and what Canon, Adobe, and the Dell monitor think it looks like - well, it's a lot align.

Thanks for the insights and the links.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

I shoot raw because it has additional latitude over the JPG image, but the camera's rendition of what the final JPG will look like is very good. 
Exactly, Ideally you want to stick with the raw data. The JPEG engine that processes the raw massively clips and compresses highlights. We often don't when editing the raw. This compression can clump midtones as much as 1 stop while compressing shadow details! People incorrectly state that raw has more highlight data but the fact is, the DR captured is an attribute of the capture system; it's all there in the raw but maybe not in a camera proceed JPEG.

A raw capture that's 10 or 11 stops of dynamic range can be compressed to 7 stops from this JPEG processing which is a significant amount of data and tonal loss! So when we hear people state that a raw has more DR than a JPEG, it's due to the poor rendering or handling of the data to create that JPEG. The rendering of this data and the reduction of dynamic range is from the JPEG engine that isn't handling the DR data that does exists as well as we can from the raw! Another reason to capture and render the raw data, assuming you care about how the image is rendered!

And with ideal exposure for raw, you can better deal with DR as outlined. 

Now Rikk states this rendering is a bug that will be fixed, but again, the exposure is what it is, so in the meantime, adjusting the rendering brightness to compensate should be a temporary fix. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

3 months ago

This is a known issue and I've linked this thread to our internal bug report. It should be fixed in an upcoming release. 
Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

5 Messages

 • 

102 Points

Thank You!

135 Messages

 • 

2.1K Points

Lets hope this won't take half a year and longer like other acknowledged bugs. Could be worth betting what happens sooner, Canon resupplying the R5s or Adobe fixing something. :D

4 Messages

 • 

156 Points

We just photographed a wedding using three Canon EOS cameras (5D Mark IV, 1DX Mark II and new R5) and imported just over 10,000 RAW files (multi-day, two photographers) as usual into LR Classic as we have done for many years with success. I can confirm that every photograph from the R5 initially looked fine when LrC was reading the internal JPG made in camera, but once LrC made its own 1:1 previews, every R5/CR3 image was presented around 2/3 stop too dark/underexposed and looked very flat (in dire need of some color saturation). I also note that LrC applied ZERO noise reduction whatsoever to CR3 files on import and that's unfortunate as it needs a bit of NR as usual to make images look best. The CR2 files from the other two cameras looked perfect as usual so it was easy to pick out the unfortunate R5 CR3 rendering. I believe there is an issue here and we anxiously await an update to LrC to address this as we live or die by LrC in our business. Many thanks.   Denis Reggie - Atlanta

6 Messages

 • 

230 Points

Thank you! Please get a software update to us as soon as possible to fix this issue.

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

Thank you for acknowledging this bug. :-)

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

4 Messages

 • 

156 Points

The LrC bug means the R5 CR3 image rendering needs +.8 stop to match in-camera appearance of same image.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

Yes exactly, a rendering adjusted for brightness.
The exposure is what it is.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

@Rikk just wondering, has this been addressed in the latest release of Lightroom? Applying additional settings at import time isn't the end of the world, but would be great to get Lightroom's default rendering to be closer to that of the CR3 embedded previews.

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

It has but the solution breaks all existing edits brought over from v9.4 as they are now made brighter. So it's roll back to 9.4 until Adobe fixes the fix.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

@Andy_Jones_Spp

There isn't an additional fix planned. Images will need to be modified in Lr 10 if they were edited previously. 

Apologies for this. 

Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

Sorry Rikk but it needs to be fixed because the behaviour of images brought over from v9.4 is unacceptable. When selected in the develop module they get brighter. When de-selected they darken again. This is only seen on R5 images.

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

@Rikk I've made a short video showing the effect in action. This is in the develop module, every time I switch image it first shows a darker (how it looked in v9.4 version) before jumping the brightness up for the v10 look. If it did this just the first time it wouldn't be so bad, sure we'd have to re-edit images, but the effect happens every single time I choose an image that came from v9.4, even after subsequent edits in v10. The library view also reverts to the darker version. Whilst it might fix the brightness issue from 9.4 the issues it introduces are severely affecting workflow.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QAtjkRzKsOamhMOZGxU2zpVxSSEdr3gN/view?usp=sharing

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

Have you tried rebuilding your Preview Files in Library. 

Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

Yes, it makes no difference. Files imported into v9.4 just keep doing the flip between how they looks in 9.4 and the brighter v10 version.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

Readjust the brightness. Zero effect on the actual data. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

@andrew_rodney that's not the issue. Even if I fix the brightness I still see the image get darker again when it's not selected. Watch the video and you'll see the effect, there's no way I can find to stop the brightness only being correct when the image is selected in Dev.

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

The only way I can think to describe it is when LR detects a file from v9.4 it knows it should increase the brightness but then for whatever reason the fix isn't persistent.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

What if you disable GPU? 

Do so in the preferences. Any better?

If not, recalibrate and build a new ICC display profile, the old one might be corrupted.

If you are using software/hardware for this task, be sure the software is set to build a matrix not LUT profile, Version 2 not Version 4 profile.

If turning OFF GPU works, it's a GPU bug and you need to contact the manufacturer or find out if there's an updated driver for it. 

(edited)

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

25 Messages

 • 

648 Points

@andrew_rodney this is only happening with R5 raw files so I can't see how it could be GPU or ICC profile specific.

@Rikk bingo! Clearing the cache and deleting the previews folder seems to have sorted the issue, thank you.


7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

3 months ago

sure hope the fix is coming soon!  images look so good in camera but are so dark and lack color when downloaded, and fixing in post cases some quality deterioration...  :( 

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

No deterioration; raw is raw. Now if you under exposed yes. But the wrong rendering is the bug; no effect on the data prior to this. You adjust the rendering and you get a better appearing image and the data is what it is before and after. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

I am finding the quality loss to be in the dark that is being lightened, it gets a bit grainy.... I did late night sunset shots that were amazing in camera, but suck on my computer and I've never had this happen until now :( 

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

If the rendering is stretching the shadows/ shifting the blacks of the exposure data that are in the raw that would change the noise floor. 

Hold out for a fix from Adobe on the profile sometime, don't give up on the raws or in the meantime Capture One (13.1.2) now supports the R5.

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

The loss exists with or without your edit. Because you under exposed the data. 
Analogy: You have a perfectly exposed negative and you place it into an enlarger. The ideal exposure for the print paper is at X seconds at F5.6. You set the enlarger at the same time but at F8 and the print is too dark. That has zero effect on the perfectly exposed negative. 
Another analogy. You have a perfectly processed digital image that appears as you desire. You turn down the brightness of your display, it looks too dim. That alteration of the display had zero effect on your digital image.

Raw is raw. This bug has ZERO effect on that image quality. The bug is as if you opened an image with defaults and the " Exposure" Slider is set to minus 1 stop. The bug shouldn't show that but it does. You alter the " Exposure" slider so it doesn't look one stop too dark. It  had ZERO effect on the raw data. IF doing so makes the image look worse in the shadows, that's utterly due to your under exposure of the raw data in the first place; the raw wasn't affected one bit by the move of the slider. 

The bug is a bug that should be fixed but the bug has no effect on image quality of the raw. That was all your doing when you actually exposed the raw and exposure is solely an effect at capture based on shutter and aperture. 

The rendering is not stretching the shadows or shifting blacks, causing data loss or degradation but it is showing you that you didn't ideally expose the data. The rendering can't alter the original raw data. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

Thanks Andrew, I did not realise you had been able to look at this bug with a Lisa's R5 file yourself to check that there was no loss of image data in the rendering from ACR.

My take on it had been - Using your analogue analogy, the potentially perfectly exposed negative (the raw file) may indeed have had all the shadow detail and black in the right place, but if the "development chemistry" is done incorrectly (the bug in ACR)  there may result a very dark image.

This could be processed to look ok (boosting the "exposure" in ACR)  but may not be optimum in terms of noise level, hence the OP finding a noisier image than they were expecting.     

I am not saying you are not correct that no data has been lost I am just saying that it could potentially be the case- if black was being translated .8 of a stop blacker than it should be. 
That would quite easily be measured of course.

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

I don't need Lisas raw to understand, perhaps unlike you, that raw rendering has no effect on the raw data. It is utterly non destructive and raw is READ ONLY.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

ironically the image in camera looks great!  exposed just as I wanted it, but way dark and nowhere near as vibrant as in camera either....  that is what isn't making sense to me!  I have always had my images appear on my computer as they have been in camera!!

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

It looks ' great' because that's a JPEG, and has little if any bearing on the raw data itself. The Histogram is the JPEG and tells you nothing about the exposure of the raw data; you need a tool like RawDigger to do that. This JPEG is built from the raw, using the cameras  proprietary processing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the raw itself or what another converter may render from that raw. 

Further, LR/ACR and anything but Canon's DPP will rebuild the camera JPEG preview at some point based on the raw data plus the current rendering settings of a raw converter. Again, now using that converter's proprietary rendering. 

Bottom line; unless you shoot a JPEG, the preview on the camera is mostly science fiction in terms of the actual raw data and what any 3rd party raw converter will show you of that actual data. The Histogram is a lie:



Author “Color Management for Photographers"

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

but why has it always been accurate prior to the R5?

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

It isn't accurate. You like the current rendering which has nothing to do with the underlying data. 

Again, download a demo of RawDigger IF and only if you want actual information about raw exposure. I outlined a number of URL's above about exposing for raw. 
A JPEG that looks perfect on your camera could be a good 1-2 stops UNDER exposed. You simply cannot use LR/ACR and nearly any other raw processor to gauge raw exposure unless the Histogram is showing you the raw data, NOT a currently rendered image. 

You can have an image that looks 1-2 stops OVER exposed and it isn't. The articles above show this. But this one nails it visually ( Waterfall image):
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

There IS a bug with your camera and that's why it looks worse, but even when fixed; it's not accurate with respect to exposure of the raw data. Until ACR/LR provides a raw Histogram, you will never know exactly the conditions of the raw exposure. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

Lisa, it is a known Adobe bug, they will fix it.

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

3 months ago

Lisa, Denis’s point above about careful setting in the Details (and NR/masking) settings may help too, your in camera Preview will have in camera processing applied too, which might point to your noise issues.

Adobe’s default NR and detail settings are far less than ideal for most uses, even if they are scientifically more accurate. Tackling the currently rather unfriendly method of setting up an ISO variable preset is worth the effort.

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

Adobe’s default NR and detail settings are far less than ideal for most uses, even if they are scientifically more accurate.
What is scientifically accurate NR default settings, how is it measured and defined scientifically and what software product provides such defaults? 

Can any default be less than ideal for most all users? I believe that's possible and why users are provided options to alter defaults or make their own. Subjectively. 

I don't find the process of setting up ISO presets unfriendly or difficult but I suspect those that haven't learned how may. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

The process to create a variable ISO preset (hacking a text file) is hardy a simple process, especially if you have several variables that you tweak as you vary ISO.

Raw digger is lovely n all, but the in camera histogram is what people have to use on location. I have my cameras set up to match as closely as possible RAwdigger and what I get in ACR pleases my clients. Although they are not 1990s blue chip ones obviously.

I knew you’d bite at “scientifically” my point was they are “rawest” -looking without being shockingly ugly.

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

I need to look into RawDigger? thanks for the help!

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

The process to create a variable ISO preset (hacking a text file) is hardy a simple process.
It may have been a difficult process for you Ash. 

At one time yes, no longer Ash; please read how this now works:
https://helpx.adobe.com/in/photoshop/kb/acr-raw-defaults.html#SetrawdefaultsspecifictoISOvalues
Raw digger is lovely n all, but the in camera histogram is what people have to use on location
It may be what you use on location. If you prefer to assume about exposure based on incorrect data from a camera Histogram, by all means do so. That isn't a necessity for everyone fortunately.

Some
here were making optimal exposures, on transparency film in the field before camera histograms existed. There is absolutely no need to use a lie of a Histogram to expose anything. 

Some here understand how cameras meters work, they understand by testing how to expose optimally for raw data, on location without any need for a camera Histogram or LCD. 

Photographers have been exposing far, far longer without a crutch that lies about exposure than those who use this misinformation about exposing their raw data (or film). 
 Although they are not 1990s blue chip ones obviously.
Obviously if you say so. 
I knew you’d bite at “scientifically” my point was they are “rawest” -looking without being shockingly ugly.
I kind of knew you probably couldn't answer the question addressed to about the comment, using science. 

You can still try to explain yourself scientifically. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

Andrew you have an almost unbelievably bitter way of responding.  

Fortunately some of us are different to you.  
At one time yes, no longer Ash; please read how this now works. 
Thanks for that genuinely useful bit of information.  A genuine iterative improvement for me there from 12.2.

I know you do have loads of very useful information  - heck I even have read your book - but please accept that different races require different cars we do not all want to achieve your approach, style and standards of imaging.
 



This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.7K Points

Thanks for that genuinely useful bit of information.
You are again, most welcome. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

37.4K Points

3 months ago

As a quick sanity check please make sure that Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) and any other in-camera settings that affect exposure are set to ' Disable.' If enabled the images will look OK in Canon's DPP because it can read and apply those settings to the image, but the exposure in LR and ACR will appear incorrect. Can't hurt to check!

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

3 months ago

Lisa, would you like to send me a raw file - would be happy to examine it!
mail@ashmills.com


This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

359 Messages

 • 

7.7K Points

Thanks for the pic Lisa. 

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

7 Messages

 • 

164 Points

looking forward to your reply!

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

a month ago

I just noticed a really annoying bug with LRC 10.0 : the brightness of my images is different when I look at them in the Library or Develop menu. In the library menu they are 1/3 f-stop darker. When I switch to the Develop menu, they are displayed with the same brightness at first, but after a few moments they become 1/3 f-stop brighter. This happens only with the CR3 files of my Canon EOS R5, with the CR2 files of my Canon EOS 5DSR, the brightness remains the same in both modules. Now, I don't know which display is correct and relevant for the output. 

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Different brightness level in library and develop module (LRC 10.0 /Canon CR3 files)

3 Messages

 • 

82 Points

The issue was that LR classic 9.4 was rendering R5 RAWs underexposed by default. 10.0 does it correctly now but unfortunately the images you corrected manually in 9.4 are now re-rendered overexposed once you enter the Develop Module. I had to dial back the exposure in Develop but then the previews in Library will appear too dark. Rebuilding the previews in Library seems to solve this problem. 

Adobe Administrator

 • 

8.6K Messages

 • 

122.3K Points

a month ago

Note: In the official post I have included instructions to correct your previously edited photos, 

Adobe Photography Products

Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy

3 Messages

 • 

82 Points

@Rikk I missed that. Thanks!