Lightroom: Red/overexposed RAW photos from Canon S100

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 8 years ago
I am creating a new thread on this with the same title and info as the one I created before because the previous one was marked as "Solved" when it has not actually been solved at all. And when I mentioned that it hadn't been solved, I was ignored... so here's a new topic.

I originally had this issue with 3.6RC, and was told that the problem was fixed in the final build... but that is not the case and I am still having this issue.

I have the new Canon S100 which apparently uses some new/modified CR2 file format. I import the photos into a Lightroom catalog and they all look fine within the importer window, but when I click on the photo in Library or Develop, once the photo finishes loading, the red saturation goes through the roof.

Any photo that already had a little bit of warmth to it exploded with red. Literally looks like any photo was taken in a furnace with bright red lights illuminating everything. By turning the temperature all the way down and messing with the colors it makes the photos decent to look at, but obviously produces other problems with photo quality.

It could be an issue with reds, however it may also be a problem with it overexposing the photos.
With photos that don't contain a lot of red already it makes parts of the photo a lot brighter than they normally would be. I've also noticed significant amounts of noise in Lightroom compared to what can be seen in-camera.

Here are a few examples I posted previously:

Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 8 years ago

  • 1
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
Remember that the photo is not being changed. What you are seeing are the previews being generated. Lightroom does not use or trust the embedded previews made by the camera.

Your first step is to confirm that you have not applied a develop preset upon import. If you are sure this is not the case, then the next step is to see what the Camera Calibration settings are. Try switching it away from "Embedded" and see what changes. You probably only have the choice of embedded if this is a JPEG, but it is worth poking around in that panel.

Because, the problem may not necessarily be with the file format or average camera response, but rather the response under some conditions by this specific sensor in this camera.

You can also experiment with "zeroing" out the image. If this helps, then you could use this as a starting point for a preset you /can/ apply to images from this camera on import. That is, you can set the saturation and contrast to some reasonable starting point and use that as an import develop preset.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yeah, sorry, I should have posted a link or more information from the previous topic to show what I have and haven't tried. I just wrote this real quickly last night.

I'm positive there are no presets being applied to the photo upon import, I've checked it multiple times.
I've tried importing the photos into Lightroom straight from my camera, and I've tried importing them onto my desktop using a different software, then just throwing them in Lightroom, both yield the same results.

I am fairly certain it is a problem with how Lightroom deals with those specific files and not just photos from the camera. Within that same batch, I had photos that were both JPEGs and CR2 files (some were nearly identical photos taken with the same lighting of the same scene, like that second one above of my girlfriend). The CR2 files transformed as seen above, while the JPEGs did not change at all after loading.
I also recently took a bunch of other photos (in JPEG format) in the same warm lighting settings and none of those photos did what is seen above.

I will, however, try switching calibrations settings as you have suggested and see what happens. I *think* I've tried it before, but I've tried so much at this point I don't know what I have or haven't tried... so I may as well do it again haha.

Thanks for your help.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
One more thing to add onto this.
I just tried converting all the CR2 files to JPEGs using Canon's (horrible) RAW editing/converting software that come with the camera, then importing them into Lightroom as JPEGs... it did not alter the photos in any way.
I didn't think it would, but just wanted to make sure.

That is a temporary solution to the problem, but Canon's software does not treat the photos well upon export, and it is very limited in its editing options.
And in Lightroom, editing JPEGs obviously produces signs of tampering with the photos more than RAW files do.
I would still like to be able to edit the RAW files that my camera took for better results.
Photo of Removed

Removed

  • 9 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Maybe try converting them to DNG upon input and see if that changes anything. Adobe likes their own RAW format.
Photo of Richard Owens

Richard Owens

  • 28 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
What is the white balance set to?
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15633 Posts
  • 2369 Reply Likes
If you set Lightroom to use the camera's profile "Camera Neutral" do the colors match the JPG:

Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
My guess is that the camera is on "Standard" as it comes out of the box.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It doesn't look as gnarly and red as it does with "Adobe Standard", but it still doesn't match the color of the JPEG or how it looks on the camera itself.
It makes everything a lot more pale and desaturated.

"Camera Standard" looks even worse than "Adobe Standard", and none of the profiles really come close to matching the actual colors on the JPEG or the camera.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 846 Reply Likes
Have you checked your display profile to make sure it is accurate? If it were off, that could make the color too saturated (or the reverse).
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Post a link to a raw so others can check it.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Here's a link to the two RAW files that Jeffrey has as well.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18227340/IMG_...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18227340/IMG_...

Really appreciate the help, everyone.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
What were Jeffrey's assessments?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
My assessments:

Both Images:
-----------------

- Every camera profile sucked except Adobe Standard, and that one runs somewhat magenta-y and a little cyan-y.
- Both were oversaturated.

On both images, I adjusted the camera calibration:
Red Hue: +6
Blue Hue: +3
and used a significantly greened tint,
and desaturated.

IMG_0156.CR2:
---------------------

Mixed Lighting. - Daylight coming in from the window, Fluorescent coming in from another angle, and some incandescent thrown in there too. I solved by using a modified Fluorescent white balance, and a gold gradient.

IMG_0417.CR2:
---------------------

Again there was some tinted light coming that did not shine equally on stuff, and white balance was too warm. I solved by cooling and another gold gradient to warm up the corner that became too cool. I also up'd the vibrance, and downed the saturation even more than the other (a bit too much probably). Tossed in a bit of split-toner for fine tuning.

Here are the settings I changed, as presented by change manager:



And here are the settings via xmp if you want to take them for a test ride:
http://www.robcole.com/_temp/S100.xmp...

Final recommendations:

- Brew your own version of Adobe Standard using DNG Profile Editor that suits your camera and tastes better.
- White Balance can account for a lot of the initial color variations.
- Be aware of mixed Lighting situations.

(I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with your camera or Lightroom's handling - just a matter of getting used to what's happening and knowing what to do about it).

Also: Adobe Standard runs bright, especially at the top end.
Consider a modified tone curve in at least one variation of profile that you create.
e.g. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

And, your camera and Canon DPP use intelligent contrast reduction - Lightroom doesn't - that explains some of the differences too. Consider dropping exposure a bit and add fill (and/or use a dab of h.recovery if you're after a flatter look).

PS - Your camera and DPP apply luminance noise reduction by default, Lightroom does not - that could be why you notice more noise in the initial Lightroom rendition. (I use my CollectionPreseter and some people use JF's BulkDevelopSettings for a better lum. NR starting point, since Lightroom's defaults can not be tied to ISO ranges.

Lastly: I don't know whether what I saw is what you saw - hard to be sure with the continuing difficulties of color management... - e.g. the images you posted here on this forum look a lot different to me when I click to view them on their own "page".
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Wow. That's awesome, thanks for the help.
Problem is, while thats a fantastic temporary fix to my problem... it still doesn't permanently fix how the RAW files appear on my computer.
Also, RAW files from my XSi and JPEGs from the Canon S100 still have no color change... it's only RAW files from the camera.

Also, I have some new information and I have to try something else.
I recently grabbed a trial copy of Aperture to see if it has the same problem, and unfortunately it does.
However, when updating Aperture, Apple decided that a new update was available for RAW compatibilities with new cameras including the Canon S100.
The photos I used in Aperture had been imported weeks prior to installing this new OSX update, and THAT may have been the problem.

I'm going to reimport all the photos from my camera and see if this problem is fixed or not. If it is, then I'm going to feel like quite the fool for putting all the blame on Adobe for this issue.
What's weird is that Aperture did the same thing where the photo seems to look ok upon initial import and then it loaded to show the drastic saturation changes.
Also, if it was a computer issue, you'd think that it would have issues with Canon's software too.... but that seems to be the one program that has no problem showing the photos the way they're supposed to look.

Again, thank you everyone for the help. I'll reimport all the photos from my camera tonight and get back to you.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
To reiterate: I'm not sure what I saw is what you saw/see.

What I saw: Photos were off, due primarily to white balance, and secondarily to characteristics of Adobe Standard profile.

PS - Camera emulation profiles for my D300 are awesome, but the camera emulation profiles for my G12 are not so good. I never dug into it much - I just use a modified Adobe Standard for most of my G12 pics.

Also, the reason the photos look different upon initial import vs. a second later is:

Lightroom first shows the jpeg embedded in the raw file by your camera. Then, after it gets "warmed up" it shows its raw rendering with default profile assigned. This you need to thoroughly understand, if you don't already. The Lightroom rendering will *never* match your camera rendering exactly. (Some people have have created camera-matching profiles that match more closely than Adobe's (using DNG Profile Editor or even home-brewed software), but even those are not exact, and can't be without the dynamic contrast adjustment that is done by Canon software/firmware).

That said, *unless* your problem is different than what I saw, the permanent solution is:

- Make sure you attend to white balance as a first order of business.
- Create a variation of Adobe Standard using DNG Profile Editor that de-magentifies it, and tunes it for your camera and your liking. You can also make custom versions of the camera emulation profiles.

I'm not an expert at color management and display profiles..., so I can't comment whether a portion of your problem is in that domain.

Have you heard from Jeffrey?

If I understand correctly, coming up with the correct white balance is not as straight forward as one might think. This is outside my area of expertise, but it could be that Canon software does a better job of setting the white balance for your camera than Lightroom.

Also, regarding the tonal aspects of your problem as I saw them (highlights more blown), the only permanent solution I know of is to start with auto-toned settings, since it applies some recovery and fill and adjusts exposure/contrast/brightness/blacks to try to "normalize" the histogram. I would not do this myself, since I have issues with Lightroom's auto-toning and prefer doing it manually, but if you haven't tried it, it often can be a real eye-opener...

Rob
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The original post shows exactly what I see. The first image shows the JPEG preview/what it looks like in-camera, and the second image shows what it looks like after it's finished loading.
I don't think manually fixing the white balance myself can be considered a permanent solution, if 10,000 people end up buying this camera and shooting in RAW, you can't expect all 10,000 of them to be able to diagnose such a problem and manually correct the white balance settings within Lightroom.

I haven't heard anything from Jeffrey beyond what's been posted here and his original e-mail asking if I could send him a couple RAW files Adobe engineers could mess with.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
|> "The original post shows exactly what I see"

I don't doubt it, but I may be seeing something significantly different (as might Adobe and other forumers...).

Never assume what you see is what others see when viewing a web page (or anything else) - too much room for improper color management - way more room than many people think.

Due to this uncertainty, and also I do not fully appreciated what your expectations are - I probably won't be much more help.

If you expect Lightroom to match your camera exactly, it isn't going to happen (see previous posts). But obviously you need to be pleased with the results...

I am happy with Lightroom performance with my G12, but only after I created my own profile. Dunno whether this solution would work for you, or whether you are having some problem that I can't see.

Maybe Adobe will shed more light.

I have no control over Adobe, but if the white balance is off by the same amount, on average, that can be fixed using a profile or even a preset/default settings. I doubt its that simple for the average user or Adobe would have (probably) fixed in the latest release, but I never know...

Good luck,
Rob
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 992 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
"I don't think manually fixing the white balance myself can be considered a permanent solution, if 10,000 people end up buying this camera and shooting in RAW, you can't expect all 10,000 of them to be able to diagnose such a problem and manually correct the white balance settings within Lightroom. "

These are horribly-lit shots, the second with strong mixed lighting. The first can't even be balanced in LR because of its 2000K minimum on WB. That said, it's pretty trivial to get pleasing shots out of these raw files whether using Camera Standard or Adobe Standard. It's even easier with Camera Faithful. And I'm not talking about major develop settings, just WB and exposure. 417 - 2000K, -16, +.33, 156 - 2800K, -8, .33

I don't think it's all that reasonable for a camera to pick a good WB setting in this type of lighting condition.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Rob - I am aware of color issues depending on the browser that uploaded photos are viewed in. However, while the color of the photos may be different, the change from one photo to the next won't be any less drastic.
Every time I've seen or used a camera's RAW photos in Lightroom it's matched the colors pretty much perfectly to how they appear on my camera.
It isn't my job, as a consumer, to make the photos look how they were taken in a photo editing software. If I'm having to create my own color profiles just to get the photos to look like they do on my camera (and this is before any actual editing and color-correcting), then Adobe's software isn't doing its job.

Also, I'm worried that creating one new color profile for all photos from this camera simply won't do the trick considering how every photo seems to change in its own way. I don't know if there are "set" WB settings the camera uses in certain scenarios, and it's only with those specific WB presets that Lightroom has the issue or what.

Lee - Yes, they are horribly-lit shots, but one of the beauties of this camera is its ability to perform in low-light scenarios. Whether or not the shots are horribly lit has nothing to do with the fact that they still look *nothing* like they do on the camera. They look a whole heck-of-a-lot better in-camera than they do in Lightroom.

I really don't think the 2000K WB is accurate at all. I think that's what the problem is. Adobe is misinterpreting what the WB actually is... causing insane fluctuations in temperature.
I've done almost the exact editing you are suggesting, but it still really doesn't look that good at all.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 992 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
"Lee - Yes, they are horribly-lit shots, but one of the beauties of this camera is its ability to perform in low-light scenarios. Whether or not the shots are horribly lit has nothing to do with the fact that they still look *nothing* like they do on the camera. They look a whole heck-of-a-lot better in-camera than they do in Lightroom. "

I wasn't talking about low lighting, I was talking about mixed and colored lighting.

LR has this 2000K limit. The camera might be able to go lower. This isn't directly solvable without rolling your own profiles with the DNG profile editor. It's also possible the camera is not doing that well on auto white balance. And "in-camera" doesn't mean a lot for raw files. If you're talking about the out-of-camera JPEG, that's limited to SRGB which might be making a big difference in this situation.

I'm not sure that LR is really messed up here. I"m not sure it isn't either but I suspect that these are just really badly-lit pictures. Well, actually, 156 is correctable in LR, it's the other one that isn't. I have concert photos taken with dSLRs that are in this category because of colored stage lighting.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Patrick,

Lightroom's rendition should be close to in-camera jpegs, but not exact, *after* you've chosen a camera matching profile *and* adjusted white balance (assuming no custom in-camera settings nor custom in-Lightroom settings are in force...)

Are you saying this is not the case for you? I did not check this.

If you are really convinced there is a problem in this area, you may want to post your concern in the ACR forum - its where experienced users and Adobe's Eric Chan hang out most.

A word of advice: if you go in with this as a problem/question *you* are having, rather than insisting Adobe/ACR/Lightroom is screwed up, you may get a better reception (regardless of which is the case).

Reiteration of my assessment:
- Given the sample shots as I saw them, camera jpeg looked really bad to me, as did the initial Lightroom rendition. The majority of the problem was due to initial lighting (colored and mixed...) and the need to adjust white balance.

Final thoughts:
------------------
The purpose of custom camera profiles, for me, is to be able to create more pleasing photographs, not to match in-camera jpegs. Consider this for the future even if more than you want to do now.

Rob
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Initially I was going about this that it was a problem that I was personally having with my previous post, but when an Adobe employee said that this bug was recognized by the staff was to be "fixed" in the public release of LR 3.6, that's when I began saying it was a problem with Lightroom.
If it's been recognized as a bug but not fixed, I don't think I can be the only person with this problem.
Although, I'm obviously one of the few who are actually vocal about it.

I can't actually figure out how to create an entirely new camera profile in Lightroom. Any tips with that?
Thanks again for the help and advice regarding this issue.

Should I post it in the ACR or the Lightroom forum?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Got your point Patrick.

for every person having a problem who vocalizes it on the forum, there are often thousands who suffer in silence...

Anyway, I'd definitely go with the ACR forum - its where most of the image processing issues common to Lightroom and ACR are aired.

Regarding custom camera profiles, first stop is the DNG Profile Editor web page which has the instructions. There are two ways I know of for creating new camera profiles:
1. Start with an existing camera profile (based on Adobe or Camera manufacturer's vision) and modify using points from real photograph(s), and/or chart photos, and/or your imagination... (these may be twisted profiles).
2. Use X-rite software to base a new profile entirely on one or two photographs of a color chart. (these will always be linear profiles).

Info about twisted vs. linear profiles available from Sandy McGuffog: http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Hue%20...

Rob
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ah, dang. Didn't think you'd get back to me that quickly... I already created a thread in the Lightroom forum. I'll see if a mod can move it for me.

Man, both of those ways for creating camera profiles are still a little confusing.
I don't know what the DNG Profile Editor or anything about modifying points from real photographs or chart photos. Or even what chart photos are.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Did you read the instructions (tutorials and documentation) on DPE page? http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/...

If you buy a 24-color chart and take a picture of it, DPE is all set up to use it...

See x-rite website for their way: (http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_over...) - you just shoot the chart and feed it to their software and out pops a profile...

I personally like to start with the twisted profiles made by Adobe (since they solved the highlight recovery hue-shift problem). e.g. Adobe Standard, or the camera matching profiles.

Without even having a chart, you can just load an existing profile, and a photo (converted at least temporarily to DNG), and start adjusting the colors.

Advanced Color Editor may be of some assistance.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Alright I'll check all that stuff out. Thanks for the help, Rob.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So far nothing has really helped besides just manually fixing everything.
Some others in the Lightroom forums seem to agree that it might just be a problem with how Lightroom handles the Canon S100's RAW files.

It's been a while since anyone from Adobe has said anything regarding this... just wondering if there's any official news on whether there are Engineers at Adobe working on this at all?
I can't be the only person with this issue...
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15633 Posts
  • 2369 Reply Likes
Hi Patrick, I received your email and meant to reply. Engineering is still looking at whether this is a problem with the way the camera is profiled or another issue. So, yes, we're still looking into it.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Alright, great, thanks! Glad to hear it's being looked into.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just wondering if there's been any update from the Adobe team on whether or not anything has been figured out yet.

-Patrick
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Patrick - did you try Lr4b?
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have not. I'll give it a shot, though. However, if it's a problem with the Canon S100 color profiles (which I think it is), I don't think the problem will have fixed itself.
Photo of Patrick Martin

Patrick Martin

  • 26 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well, I downloaded and installed Lightroom 4, imported the photos into a new catalog, and held my breath... same results.
Although, I do like the look of Lightroom 4. However, until this issue is fixed, Adobe's not getting anymore of my money.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 388 Reply Likes
Fair enough. (fingers crossed for ya)
-R