Lightroom/Camera Raw: Disable built-in lens profile

  • 47
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (Edited)
I own Micro43 and compact cameras, where lens profiles are integrated in RAW files. With software like Capture One Pro, I can easily enable or disable theses built-in profiles. Actually, there is even a slider allowing to enable 0% or 100% of the built-in profile, and whatever percentage in between.

In LR (CC, Classic or LR6), the checkox for enabling or disabling profiles does not work with built-in profiles, which always stay enabled. This seriously limits the possibilities of several cameras which possibilities get unleashed by actual RAW developpers like Capture One Pro.

I'm actually a COP user (after switching from LR) but DAM sucks with COP and this built-in lens profile thing is the only deal breaker for me to come back. So please let users disable built-in lens profiles, or at least offer workarounds.

As a workaround, a dumb "zero" profile that would replace the built-in one (not coming on top of it) could do the job.
Photo of Tokumeino

Tokumeino

  • 13 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 47
Photo of Pierre Gérard

Pierre Gérard

  • 11 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I've just bought a Fuji XT30. There is an in-body option to enable or disable lens distortion correction, which means that Fuji - just as Nikon - is perfectly fine with using the sensor uncroped. Unfortunately, LR doesn't honor the user choice and forces the profile to be enabled.

This feature request beeing 1 year old, and still not taken into account by Adobe, I now beleive that they will never put the 1/2 day developer effort to solve the issue. I've now switched to Capture One Pro which lets the user the creative choice of which correction to apply. For multi-device work, backup and face recognition, I subscribed to Mylio which compliments COP just perfectly. So bye bye, Adobe.

It is really a shame that an official rep of Adobe doesn't even write a word or too, even "we won't support that because we want to force you to crop your sensor". At least, we would know. It was a memeber of the support team who asked me to post here to get feedback, and I have none.
Photo of Dirk Hobman

Dirk Hobman

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Automatically and irreversibly applying built-in lens profiles is also a serious bug in Adobe Camera Raw. When processing DNG files from, for example, a drone like the DJI Mavic 2 Pro, Adobe Camera Raw automatically applies the lens correction built into DJI’s DNG files. As a result, lens distortion is applied and CANNOT BE UNDONE. The lens distortion correction is so extreme that it causes serious image degradation, especially in the corners. Adobe: What is the point of a raw file if you force the user into accepting edits that cannot be undone?! Adobe has just turned all the advantages of a raw file into all the limitations of a JPEG.

To get around this problem, I’ve had to switch to a raw editor that does not do this. As a result I purchased Affinity Photo. The more I use Affinity Photo, the more I like it. And I especially like it in consideration of Adobe’s recent threat to price their Photo plan at $20 per month instead of the current $10 per month. To be honest, I’m now one step away from leaving Adobe once and for all, and this is coming from a professional photographer!

Photo of DP HOME

DP HOME

  • 90 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
> To get around this problem

just use exiftool and get null the tags in DNG files ...
Photo of Bryan Hansel

Bryan Hansel

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I tried to figure EXIFtool out and it doesn't make much sense. It would be nice if there was an easy way to use EXIFtool in Lightroom.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4571 Posts
  • 1224 Reply Likes
Here's how to remove embedded lens corrections:

1. Convert a folder of raws to DNG using Adobe's DNG Converter:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

2. Run ExifTool over the folder to remove the lens corrections:
https://forums.adobe.com/message/10070106#10070106

3. Import the modified DNGs into LR.
Photo of Daniel Binkard

Daniel Binkard

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
We need to have the option to disable built-in lens profiles from being automatically applied. Not having this option takes away from the freedom we should have to work with raw files. There is no good reason to force users to accept a lens profile, particularly when image data might be cropped out, as seen in some of the above examples. I have no problem with the profiles being applied by default, but I want the freedom to turn them off.

The current arrangement is little different from being locked into a high-contrast color profile, with no option to use a neutral color profile.
Photo of Autumn Eden

Autumn Eden

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Two years later, and we still don't have a fix?

I was in a drone forum today, where someone was sure his "RAW files were being
cropped" and I assured him this wasn't the case. Until someone said that
Capture One allows you to disable the embedded lens profiles, and that opens up the final "cropping" step after the bit fiddling the lens fixing does.

So we have a large group of people (drone fliers), who see one thing on their screen, compose the shot perfectly, shoot in RAW (like we should almost always do), and when they open it in ACR or Lightroom, they are FORCED into this weird cropping, which removes visible data, and there's no current way to turn the application of these embedded lens profiles off.

Please consider a checkbox option to allow us to disable embedded lens profiles in ACR and LR. (I use LR CC Classic and have an Adobe Creative Cloud account.)

Thanks!
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4562 Posts
  • 1221 Reply Likes
It's frustrating LR doesn't let you disable the embedded lens profile. But there is a tedious workaround: 
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/disable-built-in-lens-profile?topic-reply-lis...
Photo of Autumn Eden

Autumn Eden

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yeah, I saw that workaround and it's less than ideal. I shoot thousands of images per day, and I don't want to add another two or three steps to my RAW workflow.

I can't imagine this would take Adobe more than a day to implement, test and push out with the latest Adobe CC release. Why isn't this a thing yet? Have any engineers replied? Two years is unacceptable.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4562 Posts
  • 1221 Reply Likes
I agree, it's a tedious workaround for a trivial omission from LR.
Photo of Guy Tal

Guy Tal

  • 21 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
The thundering silence from Adobe employees on this thread likely suggests that it's a business decision, and not a product (user-oriented) decision, perhaps to curry favor with some manufacturers. Can an Adobe employee please comment on this thread to let us know the real reason you chose to take control away from your users, rather than empower us to make our own choices?
Photo of Bryan Hansel

Bryan Hansel

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I agree. It's like when Nikon was saying that all Nikon users should run the RAW files through Nikon's software before using Adobe's software. It was a business decision and not one that favored users.
Photo of Bryan Hansel

Bryan Hansel

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I've also noticed that panoramic shots using Photo Merge aren't stitching right when this setting is on. You still have to go into the drop menu and find the right lens. Shooting a D850 and Z 7 next to each other with the same lens and the same pano gear results in near perfect results with the D850 and messed up results with the Z 7. There shouldn't be much if any difference between the two when it comes to getting a good stitch. 
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4571 Posts
  • 1224 Reply Likes
Camera Raw Engineer Chris Castleberry has stated that Adobe obeys the wishes of Sony with respect to external lens profiles:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/disable-built-in-lens-profile?topic-reply-lis...

So it's a reasonable assumption that Adobe is also obeying the wishes of manufacturers with respect to embedded lens profiles. If that's true, people should be complaining to the manufacturers at least as loudly as to Adobe.  (In my opinion, both are equally negligent in ignoring the desires of their customers.)

The underlying dynamic is likely driven by Adobe's legal department, rather than a business or product decision for "currying favor" with camera manufacturers. In another context (reading capture-date time zones from metadata), an Adobe engineer indicated that Adobe's legal department believes that Adobe software should not, without the manufacturer's legal permission, read information from non-industry-standard, manufacturer-specific metadata fields (e.g. Makernotes and raw information). 

Thus, it appears that Adobe needs contractual permission from each manufacturer to read their raw files. This gives the manufacturers like Sony negotiating leverage with Adobe over what LR may do.

I don't know of other software vendors who have adopted Adobe's legal interpretation about non-standard, manufacturer-specific data fields in raw files. There's certainly a lot of software out there that reads all sorts of non-standard manufacturer-specific metadata.  I spent some time a couple years ago looking online to learn if this legal interpretation was used by other companies and couldn't find anything. In general, laws about "reverse engineering" are a complicated mess and vary by country (and even within the US). 
(Edited)
Photo of Guy Tal

Guy Tal

  • 21 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I'm not a lawyer but I would be very surprise if Sony, or any other manufacturer, claimed legal rights over how the files produced by their products are used (can you imagine Microsoft demanding to have a say in the content of documents created on MS-Word?).
Manufacturers have a vested interest in forcing certain settings to make up for possible weaknesses in their products (e.g. softness at edges of some lenses, or imperfect color rendition). Adobe should not. And users deserve to know what the data actually looks like when making buying decisions.
Perhaps Adobe has consented to this in exchange for early/better access to manufacturer specifications, but clearly this comes at a cost to users. I see nothing wrong with allowing manufacturers to provide their own profiles, and to give users the option of using them, but they should not be forced onto users. If Adobe is legally bound to do so, whoever negotiated this deal, perhaps unwittingly, has put their RAW conversion products at a disadvantage as other software vendors clearly do allow users to override these profiles.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4571 Posts
  • 1224 Reply Likes
According to Adobe Principal Computer Scientist Simon Chen, the Adobe legal department believes that Adobe needs permission from manufacturers to read non-standard data fields: 

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/iphone_video_capture_time_is_shifted_upon_imp...
Photo of Guy Tal

Guy Tal

  • 21 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
That shouldn't be an issue here since the suggested workaround strips this data completely and RAW conversion still works.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1539 Posts
  • 522 Reply Likes
I've been testing the Luminar Flex plugin for LR by Skylum software. It allows opening the LR raw image file using its own raw converter with built-in distortion correction disabled. It's a destructive workflow, but another way to achieve that objective. I then use PS's Adaptive Wide Angle Filter to correct distortion with very little loss of image area. See below link:

https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/disable-built-in-lens-profile?rep...

Here's the Luminar Flex output file with no distortion correction compared to LR rendering. Skylum doesn't seem to have any issues with disabling the built-in lens corrections.


Photo of DP HOME

DP HOME

  • 93 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
> According to Adobe Principal Computer Scientist Simon Chen, the Adobe legal department believes that Adobe needs permission from manufacturers to read non-standard data fields: 

dear, to read the data is one thing - and what to do about it is another story ... for example PhaseOne is also not a one man shop that might be under the radar of camera manufacturers and yet they allow users to disable profiles... so please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy... 
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 206 Posts
  • 68 Reply Likes
They don’t need to read any data fields, simply give us the raw data as they are in the file and don’t apply the profile
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4571 Posts
  • 1223 Reply Likes
Technically, of course, it's trivial to allow the lens profile to be disabled. But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns.  Adobe believes it needs contractual permission from the manufacturers to read their proprietary raw files, which gives the manufacturers negotiating leverage to ask Adobe not to allow disabling of lens profiles embedded in those raw files. 
Photo of DP HOME

DP HOME

  • 93 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
>  But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns. 

PhaseOne example clearly shows that it does not
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 388 Posts
  • 130 Reply Likes
Different company, different or no contract.
Photo of DP HOME

DP HOME

  • 93 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
indeed - different companies, different attitudes towards what the users want :-)...  take Fuji for example - Phase One has a deal with Fuji and there is a free Capture One Express Fujifilm ... Adobe has a deal with Fuji and not only we don't have a free LR Express for FujiFilm but we can't switch off profiles :-)
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 2185 Posts
  • 902 Reply Likes
Maybe that’s the deal...
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4571 Posts
  • 1224 Reply Likes
"please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy"

Trying to understand Adobe's behavior is hardly advocating for them or agreeing with their decisions. Indeed, I wrote above, "In my opinion, [Adobe and manufacturers] are equally negligent in ignoring the desires of their customers." 

I also wrote above that Adobe appears unusual in its legal interpretation regarding non-standard, manufacturer-specific data in photos and that other companies haven't adopted that interpretation. Observing that Phase One may be one of those companies doesn't help us understand Adobe's position or contradict my analysis.
Photo of Tarek Al-Shawwa

Tarek Al-Shawwa

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Option to Disable built-in lens profile corrections in camera raw and Lightroom.

I've highlighted in red my issue
There should be a toggle that allows us to turn off automatic corrections
Individuals that use these tools want control over their image and evey step of the process, please let us turn this off, sometimes I want natural vignettes in my images, sometimes i want barrel distortion, and chromatic aberrations can be used artistically as well, please let us turn off the built-in profiles, thank you

Photo of Tarek Al-Shawwa

Tarek Al-Shawwa

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Has anyone from adobe responded or do they just not care about their customers anymore?
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Fuji automatic profiles.

I shoot interiors and layer multiple shots with varying opacities. Using a Fuji X-T2 with the 10-24, the shots are often slightly misaligned, which makes it very hard to blend them. Usually Photoshop's Align won't handle it either. Today I opened two misaligned images in Capture One, where I can turn off the automatic corrections which Lightroom gives no control over. Sure enough, they do actually align, but there seems to be two different corrections being applied to the images in Lightroom, so they are misaligned there and once I move them into Photoshop for blending.
The ability to turn off the automatic lens corrections is badly needed. I'll either have to switch cameras, or software.

Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
From Lightroom (no Transforms applied):



From Capture One:

Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Looking more closely, it might not be the automatic lens correction itself, but some information getting corrupted in the files? In Lens Corrections, neither of these images say anything at first, and when I turn on Enable Profile Corrections, it says "Unable to locate a matching profile automatically" and "None" in the drop down menu. Then, in the drop down menus, the 10-24mm isn't available.

Most of the other images from the same shoot say "Built-in Lens Profile Applied" in Lightroom, without checking Enable Profile Corrections. If I select Enable Profile Corrections, it then says "Built-in".

Looking through previous shoots, I find a few images that also can't locate a matching profile. Maybe that's why I only have the problem intermittently. So the problem might be that without any other indication, Lightroom is applying some unseen correction? Because as you can see, out of Lightroom, the two shots are different (one is distorted), in Capture One, they're the same.

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
Please post one of the RAF files that display the issue to a file sharing site for examination.
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Here you go: https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/82c04574-6d40-45eb-b087-372add482811

That's three files, the two shown above, neither of which Lightroom can find the lens profile for, and one from the same series for which it can (robertson-1).
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
They all show as 'Built-In' Lens Profile Applied.' However, the robertson-3.raf file was shot at 11.5mm and the other two at 12.0mm. Because of that they won't align properly. Perhaps the Zoom ring on the lens may be slipping or got nudged.

Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I see that too, but it's actually false. Here are two shots from the same series, but bracketed with no contact with the camera between shots. One shows as 11.5mm and the other as 12mm.
https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/5b051946-21b9-49f0-85c9-deb038815941
Also, that doesn't explain why the photos do align in Capture One (which also shows one photo as being at 11.5mm and one at 12mm).
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Of the five shots in the bracket, the first shows as 12mm, then 11.5mm, then 12mm, 12mm, 12mm. And as I said, no contact with the camera during the series.
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Strange too on the Built-in Lens Profile showing for all. That's what I had thought I'd seen at first, but now I get this when Enabled.

Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
When I first import them into Capture One, one image, robertson-2, has no Distortion correction in Lens Correction, however robertson-3 has Distortion set at 100. They appear the same then as they do in Lightroom. Setting Distortion back to 0 on robertson-3 brings them into alignment, as in the gif above.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
I examined the EXIF data and the robertson-1.raf and robertson-2.raf file focal length show as 12.0mm and the robertson-3.raf as 11.5mm. LR reads these value and applies distortion correction based on that value, which is obviously slightly different. I opened the -1 and -3 files in Luminar Flex, disabled distortion correction, and exported to TIFF. Examination of the lower-left corner of the Luminar Flex TIFF files at 1:1 Zoom view reveals a very slight difference in -3 image file. This can only be caused by the lens focal length ring having been moved.

The only suggestions for now is to try not to touch the camera between shots by using a remote trigger or Fuji tethering software, which will also allow changing camera settings.  For your currently shot image files you can use the below plugin to change the focal length so they all match. That may work since LR will then apply the same distortion correction to all three files.


https://www.lenstagger.com/
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
As I say, it does that even without touching the camera, in the middle of a multi-shot automated bracket of five pictures. So somehow, it seems to misinterpret the information. Which is shown by the fact that setting all lens corrections to 0 in Capture One for both images makes them align perfectly. Which raises the question of why Capture One sets Distortion correction at 100 for one image and not for the other.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
Which is shown by the fact that setting all lens corrections to 0 in Capture One for both images makes them align perfectly.
That is incorrect. Please reread my post and view the two C1 export files inside LR using Compare mode. The posted robertson-3.raf is slightly different with no distortion correction applied, but it's not enough to cause alignment issues inside C1.

So somehow, it (LR) seems to misinterpret the information.
LR is reading the camera distortion information correctly, but it's different in the robertson-3.raf so LR applies different distortion correction. You can't fault LR for reading different settings and properly applying the distortion correction. The fault lies with your camera–Denying that will not make it go away!
Here's the metadata your camera is placing into the RAF file and what LR is reading and applying:
File Name                       : robertson-2.raf
File Modification Date/Time     : 2019:07:31 16:56:28-04:00

Geometric Distortion Params     : 327.7272727 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 -0.075 -0.153 -0.236 -0.326 -0.458 -0.693 -1.062 -1.552 -2.122 -2.734

Field Of View                   : 90.0 deg
Focal Length                    : 12.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 18.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 0.90 m

File Name                       : robertson-3.raf
File Modification Date/Time     : 2019:07:31 16:56:30-04:00

Geometric Distortion Params     : 327.7272727 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 -0.086 -0.181 -0.292 -0.428 -0.634 -0.98 -1.482 -2.121 -2.805 -3.515

Field Of View                   : 93.3 deg
Focal Length                    : 11.5 mm (35 mm equivalent: 17.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 0.81 m
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Todd,

I opened both images exported from Capture One in Photoshop and compared them by turning on and off one layer, and then setting one to 50% opacity. I see no practical difference between them. They blend fine, unlike when exported from Lightroom (with automated corrections) to Photoshop.

Those two were taken in two different steps, so it's impossible to rule out human error. The second lot I sent above, the 5 bracketed shots, were taken with one push of the shutter-release on an automated AE bracket, not touching the camera in between shots, on a solid tripod. And yet they show a difference in focal length. Number 2, which also shows as 11.5mm, shows the same distortion, most obvious in the upper left beam. Importing it into Capture One shows Distortion set at 100, whereas number 3, reading as 12mm, shows no Distortion correction.
I'm perfectly willing for the fault to lie with the camera, but it seems to be its interpretation by Lightroom that causes the problem, as it's useable from Capture One.

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
The difference between the -1 and -3 image files with no distortion correction applied is very small and only visible as I outlined in my last reply. That is why there is no issue aligning them, but it is indicative that the lens zoom focal length setting was physically changed. This is also verified in the RAF file's distortion correction metadata that is different for the -3 RAF file. LR simply "reads" this metadata written to the file by the camera.

Concerning C1 showing Distortion set to 100 for some files and 0 for others is something you'll need to discuss with C1 Tech Support or in their forum. I see no settings in the file metadata that should cause that to happen.
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks Todd. The point here on those two images is that being able to turn off the automatic lens corrections would solve my problem. As all I really want to do is blend them. Which I can do with the files as exported by C1.
However, physically changing the zoom focal length doesn't explain the same problem in the auto bracketed set where the camera wasn't touched. So I assume the problem is actually elsewhere.
From that I also assume that what's causing C1 to apply Distortion correction to one image and not the other is the same as what's causing the difference between image 2 (distorted) and the other four in the auto bracketed images, also visible in Lightroom. And also that it's that unknown that's causing image 2 of the bracketed set to read as 11.5mm and the other four as 12mm.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
It could be due to a defect with the lens, but I don't see any differences in the -3 file metadata other than the 11.5mm vs 12.0mm correction data. Do you see the same issue when using a different lens?
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
No, but I don't do any bracketing with other lenses.Looking through my Lightroom catalog, the similarity I do find in files from other lenses is that sometimes I get one which doesn't say anything about 'Built-In' Lens Profile Applied.' in Lens Corrections, and when I turn on Enable Profile Corrections, it says "Unable to locate a matching profile automatically" and "None" in the drop down menu.
Looking further I find many like that from the 56mm, 35mm and 23mm. Sometimes they seem to be the first one or two images from a shoot, but in other folders it goes on throughout the shoot. Lightroom identifies the lenses correctly in the upper righthand panel but can't find a profile for them. But then other times it does find the right profile. Very strange! Thanks for prodding me to look further. So it seems more a camera issue than software or lens.

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1478 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
So it seems more a camera issue than software or lens.
Try searching the Fuji XT forum for this issue:

https://www.fujix-forum.com/forums/
If you don't find anything add a new post there and please post back here if you find an answer. Thanks!
Photo of Hunter Robertson

Hunter Robertson

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for your help Todd.
Photo of Pieter Kers

Pieter Kers

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Feature request: having the choice NOT to apply lens-corrections in the case RAW-....

LR has the habit to automatically apply the lenscorrection profile if that comes with the RAW-file.

even in such a way that there is no way to NOT apply it.

Some other RAW converters can ignore this lensprofile and give the photographer a way to choose.


There are many situations that you do not want to have the lensprofile
applied. ( one is when making panoramas, another is if one likes vignetting)

Therefore it should be a choice of the photographer to
apply the lens-correction or not, as is the case when the RAW-file does
not have the lens-correction information built in.

I would very much appreciate it if the LR designteam finds a way to add this feature.