Lightroom Classic: Trouble with Canon 5d Mark III aspect ratio

  • 11
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Not a Problem
  • (Edited)
Today I imported RAW images I shot on the Canon 5d3 with the camera set to Add Cropping Information set to 4:5 ratio. Crop lines are displayed on the camera LCD but you see the full frame outside of the crop when review files. Alarmingly, when I imported them to LR 4.1 RC, the images appeared cropped to 4:5. I though ok, I'll just go to the crop tool and I will see that a crop has been applied and I'll remove it. Unfortunately, there was no file beyond the crop lines, it could not be removed as far as I could tell. I called Canon and they told me to try Digital Photo Professional, a program that I never pay attention to. Sure enough, the images were intact when viewed there. There appears to be a bug when LR 4.1 RC encounters the crop tag on the raw file.
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 11
Photo of LRuserXY

LRuserXY

  • 426 Posts
  • 41 Reply Likes
This is a general problem that also applies to other cameras as well, e.g. compact cameras like Canon G12, Olympus E-PL1, etc. - and probably future DSLRs that have the same feature.

With that in mind, I think it is a duplicate of http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

P.S. The raws can be fixed using exiftool with option -m and the tags aspectratio, aspectframe, CroppedImageWidth and CroppedImageHeight (depeding on camera), but this may be risky depending on the raw format.

P.S. II: Proposal: Instead of "hard cropping" such raws, LR should apply a "soft crop" using its standard cropping tool on import. Using this method, the information in the metadata is not lost, but can be overridden anytime by the user. Furthermore, the crop tool can be modified that it contains "Original" (= crop as the camera settings) and "Full Frame" (= whole raw image area). A reset of the crop tool or the develop settings should revert it to "Original".

However, I see a problem here for photos already imported in LR3+4 using "hard cropping" because they have to be converted to "soft cropping", taking into account existing "soft cropping" and the coordinates of local corrections. Tricky, but should be manageable.
Photo of Axel Becker

Axel Becker

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Absolutely agree to the P.S. II proposal above! I have the same issue with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 on cropped images. Please just apply a soft crop according to the camera settings by default instead of "hard cropping" the image!
Photo of Tim123

Tim123

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I created a little LightRoom plugin, which automates the exiftool process and stacks the new raw on top of the old one:
http://tim.jagenberg.info/projects/de...

It's my first LR plugin, so it is quite possible that it still is somewhat buggy. So far I only tested it with Olympus ORF raws.
Photo of Tim123

Tim123

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I updated the tool and now it should work on mac. I also successfully tested DNGs on windows:
http://tim.jagenberg.info/projects/de... -> DeAspect 0.1.2
Photo of Nick Gould

Nick Gould

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
The crop marks should be a hard crop with a jpeg image and go back to default (2:3 ratio) when processed in RAW. There needs to be a way to revert back to the original full frame image!
Photo of Nick Gould

Nick Gould

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I tried your patch but was having trouble, can you help out for the common lay person on a step by step.
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Why hasn't Adobe acknowledged this issue? It's so easy to test and verify. Granted, it may not bother that many people, but if there is a bug, at least acknowledge it. It seems like it would be pretty easy to fix.
Photo of LRuserXY

LRuserXY

  • 426 Posts
  • 41 Reply Likes
It seems like this behaviour is intended, so there is (at present) no problem to acknowledge. See the post of Eric Chan at the end of the similar problem thread: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 620 Posts
  • 123 Reply Likes
Official Response
Correct, this is intended behavior.
Photo of Jason Grow

Jason Grow

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Intended or not, the point of RAW images and Lightroom being non-destructive is that we have the OPTION of changing our minds later on.... I have to add my voice that this is not a good fixed option to impose on users.
Photo of Allan Olesen

Allan Olesen

  • 64 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I will repeat a posting in another thread here:

Eric, could you please describe the intended behaviour?

I have a camera with a 3:2 sensor. If I set the aspect ratio in the camera to 16:9, I still get a full 3:2 raw file (verifiable in RawTherapee) with metadata saying that the aspect ratio is 16:9.

When I import such a file into a raw converter, I expect one of two behaviours:

1. Ignore the 16:9 metadata and show a 3:2 image.

2. Use the 16:9 metadata to "pre-crop" the photo to 16:9, but still make the full image area availiable in the crop tool.

Instead Lightroom does this:

3. Crop the photo to 16:9. Throw all available image information outside the crop area away with no option for the user to use that information in the crop tool - even though the information is still there in the raw file and occupying space on the disk.

If #3 is really the intended behaviour, I think that a lot of us would like to hear Adobe describe the rationale behind this. It is very much against the tradition behind raw photography.
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
How could this be intended behavior? It's destructive editing! Doesn't that go against the principle of Lightroom and working in RAW? Why make anything that can't be undone? The camera is sending all of the information and Canon's software, Digital Photo Professional, gives you the entire file. Obviously that is the intention of the camera manufacturers. It must be a simple issue of how LR choses to read a meta tag. I think Adobe should re-evaluate it's position on this and give the user the option. Otherwise the feature on the camera is not usable. I am a magazine photographer. I shoot a few covers and full page photos and I need to be able to shoot to layout. With 4x5 crop lines shown on my LCD, I am reasonably close to the correct format. But I can't use this feature if LR is throwing away information! Please reconsider!
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Evan, did you read Eric's post in the linked thread? Here, I'll re-post it for you:

"Understood. In the future, we may be able to implement a mechanism for retrieving the full (uncropped) image data. I did not mean to suggest this was impossible, or that we hadn't considered it. We actually did consider it this time around, but it didn't make the cut for various reasons. "
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Just read it. They obviously spent time developing this new behavior. I think it's totally unacceptable and needs to be addressed in the next release. It goes against the core values of RAW workflow. When you set White Balance in the camera, the WB setting can be changed in Lightroom. What is the difference? It's basic fundamentals.
Photo of Tim123

Tim123

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hey Eric,

as you are considering implementing a solution: I think it would be great, if that aspect-ratio meta data was mapped into a "Crop" development step applied after the initial import. This way, the photo would appear "as shot" after import, but the user would retain full flexibility to change his mind later on.

Greetings
Tim
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
"Didn't make the cut" implies they agree and want to implement this, but didn't have time given that there are always many more features to be implemented than there is time to implement them, so they prioritize and my guess is that this one was low on the list because it has a very simple workaround - don't set the camera to crop. I certainly agree that the new defringing controls are vastly more important and I would most certainly have chosen that feature over this feature every day of the week, had I been making the choices.
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
My point is that they could have saved even more time by not changing the way it used to work. I do not think you can conclude that implication from his comment. If that's what he meant, he should say so.

For me the crop marks in the camera are vastly important. It effects how I shoot. The shoot is irreversable. If you don't shoot a job they way it needs to be done, you can not always reverse it. In the past I have had custom focusing screens with crop marks but you can't change the screen in the new 5DIII.

It's better not to implement a feature than to implement it partially.

I don't use the de-fringing controls much. For the lenses I have, I don't find them very necessary

We all have our own priorities. If this is not a priority for you, why are you following this thread?
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
What was changed? I wasn't aware of a change here.
Photo of evan

evan

  • 12 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
LR 3 ignored camera crop information and did not apply it to the RAW. LR 4 crops the raw. That is the change they implemented. You can read Timo's post here: http://gsfn.us/t/2v4fr
Photo of LRuserXY

LRuserXY

  • 426 Posts
  • 41 Reply Likes
That is not exactly true. LR3 already used the camera crop information to crop raws, e.g. for Olympus XZ-1 or Canon G12. There was no general change - at least not from LR3 to LR4. However, it could be that there were changes for specific camera models.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
That was my understanding as well, but I admit I'm not completely up on this so maybe, like you said, there was a change regarding some cameras or something.
Photo of Alastair McAra

Alastair McAra

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I totally agree that the user *must* be able to access the raw data - it really does partially defeat the idea of shooting raw. Adobe - please make it so that the crop is applied, but that when you go into crop you get the full sensor data! This really seems to me the only logical thing to do. Honor the setting in camera but be able to access the sensor original information.
Photo of Mika Huisman

Mika Huisman

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This is something they really should correct right away. In camera should be able to undone in LR 4.1. Right now I'm struggling with this problem and photos go to customer.. actually they're not because I have to make re-shoot. One days work for nothing.
Photo of Nick Gould

Nick Gould

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Mike, you can use the Canon software Digital Photo Professional to remove the aspect ratio, but then you still have process the raw images with the Canon Software (DPP) program.

I wish there was a way could have the crop marks displayed on the back of the Mark III without impacting the actual image. As it is nice to be able to view the 4x5 ratio as a reference.
Photo of Mika Huisman

Mika Huisman

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'll do that. Thanks mate!
Photo of Kyle J

Kyle J

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well I just got screwed by this today. The CR2 have already been deleted after conversion to DNG, and now I discover that Lightroom has distructively edited the RAW files without any confirmation. Apparently I can't get the original image content back, and the client is waiting for her now-ruined photos. Brilliant.

Adobe, make fixing this a priority please!
Photo of David Claiborne

David Claiborne

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Is there any intent on fixing this issue in a LR4 update? I sure hope so, otherwise I have about 75% of 1000 files from a couple of recent outings that will probably be worthless. Needless to say, I have turned the cropping info feature off, way too late. I would be satisfied if they could come up with a fix that totally ignored the crop info, actually I would be elated.

I did try removing the crop in Canon DPP and re-saving, didn't work. Even tried removing crop and doing a save-as, no fix. If you remove the crop and save as a tif file, the crop is removed, but the file quality was degraded.

Also PO'd at myself for not verifying the crop data feature before shooting a bunch of photos.

The worst part may be watching LR4 crop the image as it is being imported. That is rubbing salt in the wound.!
Photo of Allan Olesen

Allan Olesen

  • 64 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Your images are not lost. You can use exiftool to remove the crop from the image before you import.

Unfortunately, the command is a little different for different cameras, probably because the crop information is in a proprietary format. I don't know the correct command for a Canon. You will have to look in the exiftool output for a cropped and an uncropped image to find out what is different.

Perhaps you can find some inspiration in the commands for Sony and Olympus:

For Olympus, you can use this:
exiftool -AspectRatio=”" -AspectFrame=”0 0 0 0′′ -DefaultCropOrigin=”" -DefaultCropSize=”" -o target_filename.ORW source_filename.ORW

For Sony, you can use this to change a cropped height of 3376 pixels to 4000 pixels on a 24 MP sensor:
exiftool -sonyimageheight=4000 -exifimageheight=4000 -o target_filename.ARW source_filename.ARW
Photo of Kyle J

Kyle J

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
David, I used the De-aspect plugin for Lightroom, discussed here:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/43436...
It may work for you as well.
Photo of Axel Becker

Axel Becker

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/ca...

It's not mentioned in the release notes of LR4.2RC but under CRAW7.2RC they say: "This functionality is available to the newly supported cameras in both Lightroom 4.2 RC and Camera Raw 7.2 RC."
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4412 Posts
  • 1621 Reply Likes
Consider it a hint that things are heading in the right direction.
Photo of Kyle J

Kyle J

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Good news! :)
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Yes, unfortunately we could not directly provide this functionality for already-supported models, but on the plus side we will have a solution for you before long.
Photo of Axel Becker

Axel Becker

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Does that mean, it will only work for the newly supported cams? Not for Olympus OM-D, not EOS5-III?
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4412 Posts
  • 1621 Reply Likes
Axel, just read Eric's comment again. The functionality you can see in the RC is only for new cameras, but they have something else up their sleeve for existing ones, which would include those you mentioned.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Yes, the release notes also state that the built-in functionality is only currently available for newly-supported camera models.
Photo of Kyle J

Kyle J

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
When might the solution for the other cameras be available? I'm a 5DIII owner, and this thread was started by another 5DIII owner, so I imagine there is a lot of interest in the solution for that camera.

Also, will the fix for DNG files be part of the "built-in functionality"?
Photo of Selena Salfen

Selena Salfen

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Please fix this "intended behavior." This is unacceptable performance. I spent 3 1/2 hours on tech support with Adobe's inadequate call center in India trying to get this issue taken care of. Obviously, I wasted my time. Why would Adobe not fix this issue? Come on Adobe! Don't ruin my love for your product.
Photo of Selena Salfen

Selena Salfen

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So, obviously Adobe doesn't plan to fix this. What is the work around? Does Aperture handle this problem correctly? I am not satisfied with the processing results in Canon's Digital Photo Professional.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
The simple workaround is just to shoot native in-camera. There's really no reason not to.
Photo of Selena Salfen

Selena Salfen

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
There are many reasons not to. If you shoot for magazines, you need a very specific crop. It is much easier if you can compose this in camera.
Photo of Selena Salfen

Selena Salfen

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Why so antagonistic?
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
I was just giving you the solution. You have plenty of pixels available to crop so just eyeball it and shoot slightly loose if recover edges is an insufficient solution for you.
Photo of David Claiborne

David Claiborne

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Adobe has a "DNG Recover Edges" Plug-in will allow you to recover the full image file. But, the file must be converted to DNG first. A little time consuming, but it does work. I haven't checked to see if LR4.3 fixed the problem.
Photo of Selena Salfen

Selena Salfen

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you David. I am working on the DNG conversion now. LR4.3 did not fix the issue. Let's hope for a fix in Lightroom 5!
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Possibly, but unlikely, as stated above:

"Yes, unfortunately we could not directly provide this functionality for already-supported models,..."
Photo of László Mudra

László Mudra

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
This is also a problem for me with 5d iii files with embedded cropping information.

Let me point out that if i shoot raw with my canon s110 compact camera which shoot natively in 4:3, when importing to Lightroom, i get a soft cropped 3:2 image, that's cropping can be modifyed. I see no difference why it shouldn't work the same behavior with my 5D iii's raw files.

This is ridiculous Adobe.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
Unfortunately, we can't change the existing 5D3 support (even though technically we know how to do it) because that would post a backward compatibility issue for the images that folks have already shot.  In particular, many 5D3 images that have already been cropped by the user in ACR/Lr would suddenly appear to have a different crop, and that would be far worse.  My suggestion:  If you have a 5D3, don't set the in-camera crop (always leave it to full 3:2 aspect ratio).
Photo of Michael Willems

Michael Willems

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Too late, Eric. Poor decision. I now have a huge shoot I have to redo since I was not aware of this design anomaly. Very poor thinking. Will you pay for me to redo it all with the client? Geez, incredible and disappointing. Much of LRs productivity gain goes out of the window here in one go...
Photo of Gary Prochorchik

Gary Prochorchik

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Poor decision on Adobe’s part!!
Photo of Michael Willems

Michael Willems

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Poor decision. I now have a huge shoot I have to redo since I was not aware of this design anomaly. Very poor thinking. Will you pay for me to redo it all with the client? Geez, incredible and disappointing.

And finding + installing and using DPP an dthen doing it all in that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Much of LRs productivity gain goes out of the window here in one go.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4517 Posts
  • 1705 Reply Likes
No need to redo anything Michael. Just use the DNG Recover Edges plugin to access the additional data. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li...
Photo of Gary Prochorchik

Gary Prochorchik

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Wrong Victoria - When making DNG files, Lr uses the crop data used in the 5D3 camera settings. So the DNG files don’t have the full 3:2 aspect ratio data of the original CR2 files.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4517 Posts
  • 1705 Reply Likes
Note the difference Gary. I specified using the DNG Recover Edges plug-in to recover the extra data, not normal DNG conversion. For cameras added after ACR 4.2 (that's way back in 2012), the cropped data is accessible without that extra process.