Lightroom: 5.4 broken with D3100

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Acknowledged
  • (Edited)
You have not provided backwards compatability eith camera profiles for the D3100 requiring re-editing of all previous images (thousands). This is really stupid and inconsiderate - I am utterly shocked.
You need to fix this urgently.
Photo of Andy Harp

Andy Harp

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • angry

Posted 4 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
The D3100 "Camera Matching" color profiles (Camera Standard, etc.) released in previous versions had the wrong white balance tables. This means that WB presets (such as Daylight, etc.) did not work correctly, and using the click-WB tool would result in the wrong temperature/tint values.

The profiles were fixed in Camera Raw 8.4 / Lightroom 5.4. Unfortunately, this means that the WB has changed for existing D3100 images that (1) were using a Camera Matching color profile, and (2) had a custom white balance set (not As Shot).
Photo of Andy Harp

Andy Harp

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes I know you broke the functionality and required us to re-edit all our old photos - I know exactly what you did - that's why I raised this - the problem is you are requiring (in an obsolete, no longer sold camera, 4 years later) users to re-edit all of their images due to a change you have made with no backwards compatability, which is outrageous!
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have only just upgraded to a trial of lightroom 5.5 today (i was using Lightroom 4.4). I have discovered what i think is the same problem that you have described. The white balance for my DNG's (that didn't use Adobe Standard) are now very wrong.

I'm not too sure how i found your page but here i am. I'm glad i did find it because i wouldn't of had a clue to what was going on!!!!

I'm not too sure what to do now. Do i really now need to go back and re-check the white balance for all the D3100 DNG's i developed in version 4? Am i right in thinking that not all the DNG's from the D3100 are affected, but just ones that didnt use Adobe Standard?

What a mess!
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2612 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
From reading Adobe Raw Engineer Eric Chan's post, above, it would seem that the D3100 WB was being computed incorrectly for non-Adobe-Standard camera profiles in LR 4, but that more recently these profiles have been adjusted to be correct.

This means the WB will look different in more recent LR versions compared to LR 4.4 if the pictures aren't using the Adobe Standard profile.

If you have tweaked the WB to look right on screen in LR 4 then it won't look right in LR 5, anymore.

As far as what to do about it, for any jobs that are finished (exported and printed everything) leave them alone. For jobs you're actively working on, decide if you want to finish them in LR 4.4 or restart them in LR 5.x, and for new jobs do those in LR 5.

Keep in mind that once you convert your LR 4 catalog to LR 5 any changes in LR 4 won't be reflected in LR 5's copy that was made previously.

In my opinion Adobe should have released a new set of D3100 Camera Profiles with a naming variation so people could keep the look of their old profiles and still work with the new profiles for newer photos. I'm sure they thought of this and decided not to.

It would also be helpful if you could search for the profile name in the Library Filter bar but it doesn't seem like you can.
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Steve thanks for your detailed reply. Appreciated.

My thoughts: I love all things Adobe as in my opinion no other software comes close. One of my biggest attractions of Light room is it being future proof too. I have to admit this is the first time I have felt anything negative about them. They know we eventually have to upgrade yet don't even tell us of this problem. I had no idea what was going on and only stumbled upon this page by chance. They should of at least mentioned at some stage to the user somehow about what was going on, instead of just letting them upgrade and wonder what on earth is going on with some of the finished images.

Anyway: all's well that ends well (at least for me anyway) after reading this page.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2612 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
The release notes from Camera Raw 8.4 listed a correction to the white-balance of the D3100. Camera Raw 8.4 would correspond to LR 5.4.

Go here, then scroll up to the Bugs Corrected in Camera Raw 5.4 section and it's the last bug:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4526...

This information was not repeated in the LR bug-fix section for some reason, but I don't know how many D3100 owners would read the release notes, anyway.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2612 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
If you would like to have your LR4 profiles alongside your LR5 profiles in LR5, I have hex-edited a copy of the LR4 D3100 profiles you can put into the third-party custom camera profiles area under your Users folder and they should be visible in LR5. The older profile, themselves, have a minus (-) at the end of their names in the profile list:


I have put the old profiles on my Dropbox, and can't guarantee how long they'll be there:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9...

For where to put these .dcp files so they'll be seen, refer to this page, near the end about where Camera Profiles and Lens Profiles go:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/article...
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Steve.

Thanks for your advice and time taken on the issue for me.

I'd prefer to have a catalogue where in the future i don't have to remember to add stuff like profiles etc to any new installation of Lightroom (i'm not that good at remembering things like that if i'm honest). So rather than add your Lightroom 4 profiles to a Lightroom 5/6/7 etc installtion, i'd just prefer to manually go back in and re-do all the white balance again for the affected images.

Makes me wonder whether i should just use Adobe Standard in the future. What would your thoughts be on that?

To be honest i never read the release notes of any software i install. I'm not too sure how it would of helped me anyway, because i've jumped from version 4.4 to 5.7 and would of missed them.

I cant help getting the feeling that it wouldn't of taken much coding for the people at Lightroom to of had a message pop up on the screen during catalogue conversion informing the end user that there is an issue with the conversion, and maybe a link for them to click on so they can have a read about it rather than be left in the dark. What's worrying me now is if there's any other issues i also know nothing about too. My catalogues are never finished because they are full of family snaps (1000's) and i'm always going back and changing them slightly when i learn new tricks etc, or even just to crop to another size for printing etc.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2612 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
The most time-consuming yet clean solution is indeed to re-edit all the old images that aren't done with Adobe Standard. Maybe Adobe would mess up the Adobe Standard profile next time and the Camera-match profiles would be ok, so don't let this one incident make your workflow different.

Having the old profiles available will help you see what things looked like in LR 4 if that helps you decide how to re-adjust in LR5.

My experience with the two sets of profiles is that if the WB was set to As Shot things aren't that much different, but if you used an eyedropper for custom WB then one set of profiles is greener compared to the other which is more purple. The contrast also seems to change so re-adjusting the images is more than merely clicking on a neutral patch and moving on because the overall toning may also change.

Since you don't read release notes you wouldn't have known about the situation, yet who's to say that if you did routinely read release notes that maybe you would have found them important enough to read them for all updates between LR 4.4 and LR 5.7. The bug was fixed between LR 5.3 and LR 5.4, not between LR4.4 and LR5.0, so it has nothing to do with the catalog conversion, and if Adobe would have made a popup showing every bug fixed between LR versions when you do a catalog conversion, you would have ignored it by your own admission. The release notes are where you see what bugs have been fixed.

To me the only bad thing Adobe did in this case was not giving the user the choice to use the old-bad profile or the new-correct one.

To clear up one thing, if you install those old profiles into the user-centric profile location, they will be seen by whatever versions of LR and PS you have installed on that computer without having to reinstall them for each new version. Custom profiles do need to be copied to a new computer, though, since they aren't installed by the Adobe installer, but that is the only time you'd need to worry about them.

So my suggestion would be to install the custom profiles, and use them as needed as you're adjusting things as you've chosen to do. It gives you the freedom to either click on the old profile and have things look like they were in LR4 or use the new profile that is automatically selected because it has the same name, and make any number of adjustments to get things right.
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Ok Steve, thanks again for your advice, appreciated. Lots to think about.
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm curious as to which profile you would recomend. Adobe Standard or Camera Neutral? If anything good has come out of this bug, its that it has got me thinking about them now.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
It depends on what I'm trying to do with the image. I rarely use Camera Neutral, though, and do typically use Adobe Standard, although there was a phase with my previous Canon where I had Camera Standard as the LR default.

As a photohobbyist without children and an otherwise far flung family, I typically shoot nature and wildlife not people, so my treatment is usually slightly oversaturated and punchy. I would process things differently if I was primarily worried about skin tones being realistic.

I've also created custom profiles using the X-Rite Color Check Passport for various lighting scenarios that are especially useful for non-natural lighting, such as fluorescents and other glowing-gas lighting with an uneven spectrum.

With my older Canon I found my custom profiles were much more colorful than Adobe's even for sunlit objects, but with my newest Canon the custom profiles aren't that much different and I don't know, why. I am using the exact same color target and profiling software so it might be the camera or Adobe.
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I see. So different types of photography need different profiles. Well, i've only ever shot family stuff so wouldnt really know. Perhaps i should look into other types too.

Do you know of any links that describe the differences between the profiles (ie if they were reverse engineered)?

I think in the beginning (& it's stuck) i just chose Nikon camera neutral as i was always getting my exposures wrong, and just felt i wanted to adjust things myself first before having things like profile curves etc applied automatically.

Sometimes i think it would be easier not being such a perfectionist and just shooting in Jpeg, but I suppose once the power of Raw is discovered there's never any turning back, lol
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2612 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
I don't know of any precise documentation, but there are hints:

The "Camera-match" profiles are simulations of the camera's treatment when set to those modes, and on my Canon's I can see what settings have been changed by how much for each "picture style" with Saturation and Contrast being the main ones, but there are also probably things that aren't visible because why would Camera Neutral and Camera Faithful have the same camera settings but have distinct profiles that act slightly different.

What I've heard from reading posts on these forums is that Adobe computes them by taking a RAW+JPG of a particular subject, maybe a color-target with known values or maybe something else, I'm not, sure, in each of the camera's picture styles that it's trying to simulate, and feeds the raw and the JPG into a piece of internally-developed software, and it spits out the camera profile, which can be refined further by human interaction if necessary.

What I'm not sure is if Adobe did this reverse-engineering once with a camera from each manufacturer 10 years ago and then just does those same things to each camera profile now, or if they actually measure each camera, now, still. The reason I have some question about this is because the names of the camera match profiles are relatively consistent across many camera models and I'm not sure the picture styles or scene-modes have those consistent names, nowadays, but maybe they do and I'm overly suspicious.

So I'd think the only documentation about what the difference in the profiles might be would be what camera settings are different for the various picture styles or scene modes or whatever they're called in your camera. The camera settings also affect sharpness and noise-reduction (maybe) but those are not something that Adobe's camera profiles control, so it's just the toning parameters that are being simulated.

You can decompile camera profiles with dcptool and see what the values are, to understand which things are the same and which are different between two profiles, but it might not be of much help in understanding how those difference affect the result without also understanding the computations that use those numbers.

If you can find documentation, like a white-paper, from Nikon or Canon about how the picture styles or scene modes are different from each other , then that's probably the most precise information. If Adobe is merely reverse-engineering something by feeding in two images and getting a profile, then there won't be documentation from Adobe that says "we increased saturation by 15% and contrast by 25%" for Camera Landscape although you might find something like that from the camera manufacture, or if the manufacturer supplies a picture-style editor software then maybe you can actually see the tone and saturation curves in it and understand more.

The main reason I swap between the various camera modes is for something like a sunset that has a very bright area and then slow gets darker. There is usually some channel clipping around the sun and I want to have that transition look less ugly if possible so try various camera profiles until one looks least worst, A similar situation is lights at night. Also very strong colors, perhaps flowers in the sun, that the camera can't quite reproduce can look better in some camera profiles compared to others.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 617 Posts
  • 121 Reply Likes
We do build the Camera Matching (Standard, Portrait, etc.) profiles separately for each new camera model is supported.  As general advice, these different profiles are mostly about different aesthetic color and tone renditions.  Choose among them based on your personal taste, and your photographs' subject matter.  Feel free to use them on a per-image basis.  Remember, all of these edits are reversible (non-destructive), so you should feel free to experiment and try what you think works best on a particular image.
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thanks for the info Eric and Steve. Its all good to know.