# Lightroom CC RAW import quality



## ILJA77 (Nov 12, 2018)

Hello guys.

Have imported some .raw images to Lightroom CC 2015 from my Canon 1100d.

When it goes through loading procedure it shows picture in "first" quality for some ~1-2seconds, and when it loads completely - is shows second quality.

The point is, that second (final) import quality is seemed worse.  And I need to work with that result, not good 

Question is: how to get images in "first" quality, to work with it ?
2Question:  why it happens ? In that high level professional product like Adobe.. 

PS
I tried to made it similar "by hands" with lightroom, but it is not 100% the same.  Some Hue of Red changes, some exposure UP, but not the same. Cant made same structure and dynamics on red t-shirt, for example.

Here is photos.
First quality, for me is more better:




Second, after loading, worse for me:




BR
ILJA


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 12, 2018)

The first image is the preview that was generated in the camera. That is an image that is already edited (automatically). The second image is the Lightroom generated preview. That is a ‘virgin’ image, and so it looks worse.  Apples and oranges.

The whole idea of shooting raw is that eventually you can make it look better than the first image. That is why you shoot in raw and spend time in Lightroom editing the images.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 12, 2018)

As for the change in the reds what colour profile is selected.


----------



## ILJA77 (Nov 12, 2018)

Zenon said:


> As for the change in the reds what colour profile is selected.



Yees, exactly.

I change "Adobe standart" to "Camera Standart" at Camera calibration profile section, and all real colors in its place now. And no extra work needed. Thanks.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Nov 13, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> The whole idea of shooting raw is that eventually you can make it look better than the first image. That is why you shoot in raw and spend time in Lightroom editing the images.



When I started shooting RAW many years ago I would occasionally shoot RAW plus Jpeg. Then find the best Jpeg shots and challenge myself to improve it my editing the RAW. That was a good learning process for me and it quickly became very easy to out do the Jpeg. However, I have to say that there was still something about the Jpeg that I liked that I could not quite replicate with the RAW... a sort of silky finish. I then set myself a new challenge and that was to try and identically replicate the Jpeg, something I never was able to achieve.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 13, 2018)

MarkNicholas said:


> I then set myself a new challenge and that was to try and identically replicate the Jpeg, something I never was able to achieve.


And you won't. The jpeg is generated by the camera, using the camera manufacturers raw-engine. Lightroom uses Adobe's raw-engine and so whatever you do, the result will never be  _identical_. Usually the result is _better_ however, at least for my images.


----------



## ILJA77 (Nov 13, 2018)

MarkNicholas said:


> When I started shooting RAW many years ago I would occasionally shoot RAW plus Jpeg. Then find the best Jpeg shots and challenge myself to improve it my editing the RAW. That was a good learning process for me and it quickly became very easy to out do the Jpeg. However, I have to say that there was still something about the Jpeg that I liked that I could not quite replicate with the RAW... a sort of silky finish. I then set myself a new challenge and that was to try and identically replicate the Jpeg, something I never was able to achieve.



I think photos can be the same or very similar in cases:

a) JPEG from camera
b) RAW from camera -> made JPEG via LightRoom with "Camera Standart" profile chosen in Camera Calibration section.

or if you want to work with your .RAW in your "JPEG" quality just open .raw in light room with "Camera.. " profile settings.


----------



## happycranker (Nov 14, 2018)

A good idea is to create your own camera profiles, using something like the Xrite Colour Passport, then you have no need to use the Adobe supplied ones! I have them for all my cameras and a number of different lighting conditions.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Nov 14, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> And you won't. The jpeg is generated by the camera, using the camera manufacturers raw-engine. Lightroom uses Adobe's raw-engine and so whatever you do, the result will never be  _identical_. Usually the result is _better_ however, at least for my images.


Agree but what specific process or processes do cameras apply that LR doesn't ? After all the number of different settings on a camera are very limited compared to extensive editing features in LR.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 14, 2018)

MarkNicholas said:


> Agree but what specific process or processes do cameras apply that LR doesn't ? After all the number of different settings on a camera are very limited compared to extensive editing features in LR.


You are missing the point. The point is not that Lightroom doesn’t use something that the camera does use, the point is that Lightroom uses a *different* raw-engine and so the results in Lightroom will never be *identical*.

And the point is that the camera performs automatic edits and the in-camera preview reflects that, while Lightroom does not make any automatic edits on import. So comparing the previews *on import* is comparing apples and oranges. If you let Lightroom make automatic edits too on import, then you will see that the Lightroom previews are much closer, or already better than the camera previews.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Nov 14, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> You are missing the point. The point is not that Lightroom doesn’t use something that the camera does use, the point is that Lightroom uses a *different* raw-engine and so the results in Lightroom will never be *identical*.
> 
> And the point is that the camera performs automatic edits and the in-camera preview reflects that, while Lightroom does not make any automatic edits on import. So comparing the previews *on import* is comparing apples and oranges. If you let Lightroom make automatic edits too on import, then you will see that the Lightroom previews are much closer, or already better than the camera previews.



Johan... I didn't miss the point. I asked a question and you (partially) answered it. I still believe that for a given Jpeg there is a RAW + certain LR settings that would make it identical. Needle in a haystack maybe...but still theoretically doable.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 14, 2018)

MarkNicholas said:


> Johan... I didn't miss the point. I asked a question and you (partially) answered it. I still believe that for a given Jpeg there is a RAW + certain LR settings that would make it identical. Needle in a haystack maybe...but still theoretically doable.


Sigh. No, there isn’t such setting. That is what I’m trying to explain. Demosaicing (raw conversion) is not an exact science. Each raw engine is different and so you can get close, but you cannot get identical images.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 14, 2018)

Maybe I should explain this in a bit more detail. When I wrote my books on the RAW format (Dutch only) I did quite a bit of research and spoke to different manufacturers. You may think that demosaicing is a simple matter of using the missing color values by getting these from the neighboring pixels. It’s not, it’s much more complicated than that. For example HP told me that their algorithms used as many as 20 pixels in each direction. Other raw engines may use even more, or may use fewer pixels. And the algorithms themselves are different as well.


----------



## ILJA77 (Nov 14, 2018)

Hm, I think LR use RAW engine from your camera, if you choose "camera color profile.." in calibration section.

I compared it to raw preview on my camera LCD, and on JPEG from camera.. It is very very similar..

PS 
Some info from Google


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Nov 14, 2018)

ILJA77 said:


> Hm, I think LR use RAW engine from your camera, if you choose "camera color profile.." in calibration section.


This is false. Lightroom can do a pretty good job of emulating your camera's "look", but the work is done by an Adobe-written engine.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 15, 2018)

LR does a very good job of emulating but it will never be a perfect match. I spent a lot of time searching the net trying to do find a way to get LR to match Canon colour and gave up. You can get one thing right but then something else is slightly out.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Nov 15, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> Sigh. No, there isn’t such setting. That is what I’m trying to explain. Demosaicing (raw conversion) is not an exact science. Each raw engine is different and so you can get close, but you cannot get identical images.





JohanElzenga said:


> Maybe I should explain this in a bit more detail. When I wrote my books on the RAW format (Dutch only) I did quite a bit of research and spoke to different manufacturers. You may think that demosaicing is a simple matter of using the missing color values by getting these from the neighboring pixels. It’s not, it’s much more complicated than that. For example HP told me that their algorithms used as many as 20 pixels in each direction. Other raw engines may use even more, or may use fewer pixels. And the algorithms themselves are different as well.



Good explanation Johan. Perhaps one day LR will come equipped with an array of different demosaicing algorithm options.


----------



## Dan Marchant (Nov 15, 2018)

ILJA77 said:


> Hm, I think LR use RAW engine from your camera, if you choose "camera color profile.." in calibration section.


I'm afraid you are wrong. The RAW engine in the camera uses a proprietary system developed by the camera maker. They don't reveal details of this to Adobe. Adobe developed their own system for processing images and used that system to create their own "best estimate" versions of the in-camera profiles. However, because these two systems are different Adobe's best estimate will never be exact.... very similar but not exact.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 15, 2018)

I have said on this on a few sites. I’d pay big bucks for a version of LR that used Canon’s RAW engine. I won’t hold my breath.


----------



## ILJA77 (Nov 15, 2018)

Hal P Anderson said:


> This is false. Lightroom can do a pretty good job of emulating your camera's "look", but the work is done by an Adobe-written engine.



May be by Adobe engine, but with multipliers from my camera  And when I use clear Adobe engine for RAW preview - I got worse picture. 




Zenon said:


> I have said on this on a few sites. I’d pay big bucks for a version of LR that used Canon’s RAW engine. I won’t hold my breath.



We do not have one standard just because its business


----------



## Zenon (Nov 15, 2018)

I know. I have the Passport Colorchecker but since I stopped event shooting I don't use it anymore. Colour is not as critical for what I do now. Fine detail more important. LR does a great job emulating Canon so I'm concerned. I don't know if you read a thread I started but I learned that Auto Tone does not play nicely with non Adobe profiles. They built Sensei based on Adobe profiles so that makes sense. I have tried to match Adobe colour by punching it up and Adobe Vivid to bring it down but I just can't match it. I apply Auto Tone to Adobe Colour first and then change the profile to Canon. Works great. Canon has this little punch to it I really like.


----------

