# The Ultimate Starting Point Preset - Does it Exist?



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

As i've found in my short time since owning LR3 and my Nikon D3100, unless you do something 'extra' to your images they can look dull and flat on import. (usually a little under exposed and lacking in colour in my case)

(for info, I shoot RAW then import/move/covert to DNG)

This whole "dullness" can be highly frustrating for a beginner like myself.  Thanks to this forum I have found http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?10418-Why-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture
, which helps and I have also read that switching off "active D Lighting" should help matters on my Nikon as LR doesn't know what this is, leaving shots dull etc.





Upon import, I currently use a custom DNG profile from my X-Rite Passport, but is obviously doesn't do anything else (exposure/blacks/colours etc), but at least I know my colours are spot on.


I also have lens corrections applied, buts that about it, everything else is standard I believe.


Now I know every picture is different, but i'd like to create a preset that I can apply on import that gives me a good starting point, because I currently have to start tweaking exposure/blacks etc on EVERY image straight away just to get them anywhere near acceptable.  And thats without any constrast, vibrancy, clarity, NR and any other tweaks that I'd like to add.  But I'm sure a "starting point" preset could do this for me?

How do you hardened LR'ers go about it?  What is your starting point? And what are your recommended default additions? (contrast, vibrancy, clarity, sharpness, NR or anything else?)

I've done a search, but can't find anything exactly matching.......




Can one of the LR3 default presets be used as a starting point?  Then maybe tweaked/saved as your own?  Any suggestions where to begin? Or a recommended preset?


Or do I zeroise an image and apply what I want, then save?  That way, I know i've got no hangover from my amateurish fiddling with sliders etc.  What is the best way to get the image back to defaults and a "base"?  Is it that reset button?

Any help would be very much appreciated.  After weeks and months of steep learning curve and frustration, i'm hopeful that i'm not too far away from being happier with LR from the get-go.  I think i'm currently spending all my time having to mess about with every photo on import than being able to spend time concentrating on improvements, which is annoying.

Cheers, Mick


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 21, 2011)

I created my own preset for my own camera, things like vibrance and clarity and sharpening. It works well for most photos, but they still require a little tweaking. For a few photos, the preset doesn't do a good job. If you shoot multiple types of photography (e.g. landscapes and weddings), you might want a preset for each.

There is no one preset that will work for everything. And even in my case, where one preset works for most photos, as I said, they still require tweaking.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> I created my own preset for my own camera, things like vibrance and clarity and sharpening. It works well for most photos, but they still require a little tweaking. For a few photos, the preset doesn't do a good job. If you shoot multiple types of photography (e.g. landscapes and weddings), you might want a preset for each.
> 
> There is no one preset that will work for everything. And even in my case, where one preset works for most photos, as I said, they still require tweaking.


Thanks Paige.

At the moment, the pictures are mainly of my little girl, but I appreciate the need to potentially have different presets for different shots.

But at the moment I have no starting point.  How did you go about creating your own preset?  What was your starting point?


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Jun 21, 2011)

What settings are you applying on import now? Is it none? Also what are the settings showing in the Basic Develop Module Panel?


----------



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

Kiwigeoff said:


> What settings are you applying on import now? Is it none? Also what are the settings showing in the Basic Develop Module Panel?


Hi Geoff, 
Apart from the lens correction and dng profile i put in the first post, I don't believe I'm doing anything other than standard settings.  I will need to check tonight when I get home. (at work at the mo, so going off memory here)

Should the settings in Basic Develop be the same for every imported picture if I'm not doing anything fancy?


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Jun 21, 2011)

Check to see if you have "None" selected as the Develop Preset for import and tell us what values are set for the Basic panel in Develop such as Brightness, Contrast..........


----------



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Check to see if you have "None" selected as the Develop Preset for import and tell us what values are set for the Basic panel in Develop such as Brightness, Contrast..........


I believe i'm using a preset I created that contains the lens correction stuff...... i'm wondering if i've got some other rubbish in my preset????


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jun 21, 2011)

I like to start off with a typically dull and lifeless rendition. I have a preset which is based on the default but I have my favourite starting point for sharpening, noise reduction and lens correction but that's about it. I like to start from scratch and usually scroll through my many presets to see if anything tickles my fancy! If it does then that will be my next stepping stone for further and final tweaking.


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 21, 2011)

Zarch said:


> How did you go about creating your own preset?  What was your starting point?



Take a typical picture, drag the sliders around until things look good, and then create a preset over on the left hand panel (in the Develop Module), by clicking on the plus sign next to Presets. Save the preset, and apply it whenever you want, or at import.


----------



## clee01l (Jun 21, 2011)

While there are presets that are available for free and fee online, there is no universal preset (one size does not fit all).  Even is a portrait shoot with controlled studio conditions, variations in face position may cause unwanted shadows. A preset with a Fill Light adjustment can enhance or clip certain areas. If the photo was correctly focused on capture, additional sharpening can over correct something that did not need correcting to begin with.  

Presets are for me starting points. While I may apply one at the beginning, invariably, I will tweak Noise, Sharpening or even HSL.   Before LR3, I used to begin by importing my RAW images with "General Zeroed" preset applied. This allowed me to get as close to the data recorded as RAW by the sensor.  LR3 with its improved 2010 camera calibration, and lense profiles. Now permit me to define a 'basic' preset which I take as the starting point for refinements in develop.  

If you get a 'look' that you like by moving adjustment sliders around, you can save and create your own user preset by clicking on the (+) on the right of the Preset header in Develop.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

Update:
I've imported a photo and chose no preset, same story, things look a little dull.  But when I hit "Auto Tone" things brighten up and look a decent starting point.  Is "Auto Tone" bad?  I don't like the idea of "Auto", can it give consistent results? Or should i be looking to not use it make my own adjustments to get the brighter result i'm after?

At the moment, I have Auto Tone disabled in Preset Preferences.

I've attached 2 files to show the Basic panels in Develop.




1st one shows the basic import
2nd one after Auto Tone.

The best way I can describe how the image look is halfway between Zeroed and Auto Tone.

Thanks for your help and advice so far.


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 21, 2011)

In my opinion, a human adjusting the sliders can always get better images than "Auto Tone". Its up to you, its a tradeoff, Auto Tone is less work, but also less desirable photos. Adjusting the sliders is more work, but better results. 

You should go ahead and create your own preset and see how you like that when applied to multiple photos.


----------



## erro (Jun 21, 2011)

I have created my own "default settings" in the Develop module. After developing a bunch of images (from one and the same camera) I got a feel for what was a "normal" development that I liked. For my Nikon D700 it turned out to be LR standard settings plus:
- WB as shot
- Recovery +5
- Fill light +7
- Clarity +40
- Vibrance +20
- Sharpening amount 70
- Sharpening detail 50
- Sharpening masking 50
- Camera calibration: Camera standard

To set all this as a new default I hold down the Alt-key and the "Reset" button changes to "Set default...". From now on, all NEF-files from my D700 will get this treatment automatically at import, and it gives me a good starting point. In some cases good enough as it is, but most photos require some individual tweaking.

Another advantage (for me) in using the "Set default" instead of applying a develop preset at import is that once my photos are imported they will appear to have no development. Nothing shows in the Develop history. This is good for me since I use smart collection to see which photos have develop settings or not. I think (don't remember) that if you apply a develop preset at import, those photos will have that preset applied automatically "after" import and hence it shows up in the history, and hence all photos will appear as already developed.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm very confused.

Even with "no preset" used on import, everyone of my picture appears to be at least 1 stop underexposed.  Is there some other config setting somewhere that could be doing this?  I'm quite sure that ALL my photos aren't underexposed, but LR is showing them this way.  Hence, i'm needing to up the exposure on every one.

There may well be something i've changed/set that isn't default over the last few months as i've been grappling with LR. 

Any ideas anyone please?


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Jun 22, 2011)

The screen shot you posted shows that yes you do have the default settings. You can apply auto tone upon import in Preferences>Presets.
Keep an eye on the histogram in the Develop Module to see if your files are indeed under exposed.
You do calibrate your screen? that can make a huge difference.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

Kiwigeoff said:


> The screen shot you posted shows that yes you do have the default settings. You can apply auto tone upon import in Preferences>Presets.
> Keep an eye on the histogram in the Develop Module to see if your files are indeed under exposed.
> You do calibrate your screen? that can make a huge difference.


Geoff, 

My screens are calibrated, but i'm not sure how this help with LR importing everything underexposed?

I think I need to check how ViewNX sees the NEF to see if the images are really underexposed.  If they are, then i've got user error when taking the shots.  If they are fine and not underexposed in ViewNX then LR is doing something untoward somewhere.

Maybe some setting i've played with along the way?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 22, 2011)

Active-D Lighting often seems to be a culprit in these exposure issues....you have definitely got it disabled in your camera?


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

TNG said:


> Active-D Lighting often seems to be a culprit in these exposure issues....you have definitely got it disabled in your camera?


Yes Jim,

I disabled that the other day after finding it outlawed on this forum.


----------



## clee01l (Jun 22, 2011)

Are you shooting RAW with no import adjustments?   If yes, then viewing a dark, flat toneless image is expected.

http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?10418-Why-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

clee01l said:


> Are you shooting RAW with no import adjustments?   If yes, then viewing a dark, flat toneless image is expected.
> 
> http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?10418-Why-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture


Yes, as I put in my opening post, I have read that.

But my understanding (?) is that the adobe camera profiles should get somewhere near a decent starting point....... but they aren't for me, everything seems 1 stop underexposed.   But that appears the only thing wrong because as soon as I increase the exposure slider the picture looks pretty good and would be a very acceptable starting point.

Is my understanding incorrect then?  Does everyone who imports into LR has their images underexposed by a stop?  And simply moving the slider sorts everyone out?

Maybe its something i'm doing wrong on the camera...... but everything seems okay exposure wise.... (and the jpgs came out ok when I look at them in LR)

Will have more of a play when I get home tonight.  If I can nail this underexposure problem, be it caused by Me, the Camera, or LR I think i'll be happy.


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 22, 2011)

The Adobe camera profiles, as far as I know, do not adjust exposure. They adjust colors and contrast. The camera profiles, in my opinion, are NOT a decent starting point.

My RAW images (Nikon D7000) are toneless and flat, as Clee mentioned. They are not underexposed, and after applying the profile I created, most of them look much more pleasing, but almost all of them still need tweaking.

We have been discussing creating your own profile in this thread for a few days now, please go ahead and try that and see if it works.


----------



## clee01l (Jun 22, 2011)

> Does everyone who imports into LR has their images underexposed by a stop?


They are not really under exposed.  A JPEG in the camera takes the same RAW data from the sensor and  adjusts it using a computer program built in to the camera that is not unlike ACR. The signal at each site gets boosted in amplitude based upon some algorithm written into the camera computer program. If you boost the value too much, you get blown highlights.  If you move that same RAW sensor date into your computer it gets demosaiced and converted to RGB order.  This is what you first see with an unprocessed RAW image in LR.  No gain has been applied to the signal so your initial image is dark and since no smoothing has been applied it is somewhat noisy.  A program like LR can give you total control over the process or you can assume some basic White Balance, tonal and noise adjustments and have those applied as a preprocessor before an image is rendered for you to see on your monitor.

The important thing for you to understand is that the data recorded is just a number recorded by a location on your camera CMOS that was a reaction to the light that hit that site. Without some filtering and  interpretation of that number, the result is pretty vague. (i.e. flat, toneless and somewhat noisy.)


----------



## TransitOpDave (Jun 22, 2011)

Though I have an innate aversion to the Auto Tone control and have yet to apply it it, Martin Evening suggests that it's "often a useful starting point for applying further Quick Develop edits." (Pg 253, The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book). The Quick Develop panel in the Library module can make the process of tweaking photos much more efficient, by applying the same edit to the all selected images.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> The Adobe camera profiles, as far as I know, do not adjust exposure. They adjust colors and contrast. The camera profiles, in my opinion, are NOT a decent starting point.
> 
> My RAW images (Nikon D7000) are toneless and flat, as Clee mentioned. They are not underexposed, and after applying the profile I created, most of them look much more pleasing, but almost all of them still need tweaking.
> 
> We have been discussing creating your own profile in this thread for a few days now, please go ahead and try that and see if it works.


 
You say apply the profile you created, do you mean preset?  Or have you created your own DNG profile?
I think i'm happy with my camera profile (created using x-rite colour passport)



clee01l said:


> They are not really under exposed.  A JPEG in the camera takes the same RAW data from the sensor and  adjusts it using a computer program built in to the camera that is not unlike ACR. The signal at each site gets boosted in amplitude based upon some algorithm written into the camera computer program. If you boost the value too much, you get blown highlights.  If you move that same RAW sensor date into your computer it gets demosaiced and converted to RGB order.  This is what you first see with an unprocessed RAW image in LR.  No gain has been applied to the signal so your initial image is dark and since no smoothing has been applied it is somewhat noisy.  A program like LR can give you total control over the process or you can assume some basic White Balance, tonal and noise adjustments and have those applied as a preprocessor before an image is rendered for you to see on your monitor.
> 
> The important thing for you to understand is that the data recorded is just a number recorded by a location on your camera CMOS that was a reaction to the light that hit that site. Without some filtering and  interpretation of that number, the result is pretty vague. (i.e. flat, toneless and somewhat noisy.)



Thanks for that.  

This might be a dumb question, but if my shots aren't underexposed, why do they look fine when the only thing I do to them is move the exposure slider to the right? (this is after importing with no preset and all other sliders etc are not touched)  

Should I be using sliders other than exposure to get the same effect (lightening up?)


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 22, 2011)

Yes, I should have said "preset" and not "profile". I mis-spoke.

Without seeing your photos, I can't tell you what sliders to use or what the problem is. If you say changing only the exposure slider gives you a good result, then it may be that your photos are underexposed. Try taking an unedited photo, and leave the exposure slider alone, and adjust only recovery, fill-light, blacks, contrast, vibrance, clarity and see if you get a pleasing photo. This set of sliders, by the way, does not give you same effect as changing exposure, but may help give you a pleasing photo if exposure isn't really the problem.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 21, 2011)

As i've found in my short time since owning LR3 and my Nikon D3100, unless you do something 'extra' to your images they can look dull and flat on import. (usually a little under exposed and lacking in colour in my case)

(for info, I shoot RAW then import/move/covert to DNG)

This whole "dullness" can be highly frustrating for a beginner like myself.  Thanks to this forum I have found http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?10418-Why-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture
, which helps and I have also read that switching off "active D Lighting" should help matters on my Nikon as LR doesn't know what this is, leaving shots dull etc.





Upon import, I currently use a custom DNG profile from my X-Rite Passport, but is obviously doesn't do anything else (exposure/blacks/colours etc), but at least I know my colours are spot on.


I also have lens corrections applied, buts that about it, everything else is standard I believe.


Now I know every picture is different, but i'd like to create a preset that I can apply on import that gives me a good starting point, because I currently have to start tweaking exposure/blacks etc on EVERY image straight away just to get them anywhere near acceptable.  And thats without any constrast, vibrancy, clarity, NR and any other tweaks that I'd like to add.  But I'm sure a "starting point" preset could do this for me?

How do you hardened LR'ers go about it?  What is your starting point? And what are your recommended default additions? (contrast, vibrancy, clarity, sharpness, NR or anything else?)

I've done a search, but can't find anything exactly matching.......




Can one of the LR3 default presets be used as a starting point?  Then maybe tweaked/saved as your own?  Any suggestions where to begin? Or a recommended preset?


Or do I zeroise an image and apply what I want, then save?  That way, I know i've got no hangover from my amateurish fiddling with sliders etc.  What is the best way to get the image back to defaults and a "base"?  Is it that reset button?

Any help would be very much appreciated.  After weeks and months of steep learning curve and frustration, i'm hopeful that i'm not too far away from being happier with LR from the get-go.  I think i'm currently spending all my time having to mess about with every photo on import than being able to spend time concentrating on improvements, which is annoying.

Cheers, Mick


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> Yes, I should have said "preset" and not "profile". I mis-spoke.
> 
> Without seeing your photos, I can't tell you what sliders to use or what the problem is. If you say changing only the exposure slider gives you a good result, then it may be that your photos are underexposed. Try taking an unedited photo, and leave the exposure slider alone, and adjust only recovery, fill-light, blacks, contrast, vibrance, clarity and see if you get a pleasing photo. This set of sliders, by the way, does not give you same effect as changing exposure, but may help give you a pleasing photo if exposure isn't really the problem.



Thanks Paige, glad it was your mistype otherwise i'd have been even further confused.

I'll have a play with the sliders, thanks.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 22, 2011)

Evening all,

I've done some testing and I think i'm happy now. (thank god I hear you all cry)

I took some test shots in the garden in manual mode to ensure that I got the exposure bang on. And I think the problem is what I was saying earlier, all the RAWs seem to come out of my camera underexposed. (as per the "dull" warning in the starter pack)

(note: I also took some test shots in Aperture Priority to let the camera sort the exposure and the results were the same)

For the tests I switched on JPG+RAW, but chose the neutral picture control, so no snazzy JPG in camera processing in addition to Active D Lighting switched off.

I then imported the pitctures into LR with No Preset at all.  The JPGs and the NEF>DNG conversions were nigh on identical.  I also checked out the orignal NEF and the JPG in View NX, and again, virtually the same.  All pictures appearing on screen as being underexposed, even the JPG.  So you can say that the D3100 JPG Neutral picture style is damn close to RAW (not that you'd probably want them like that)

So to test my theory about the RAWs being solely underexposed I upped the exposure of the newly imported pictures in LR by 1 stop and what do you know, they look pretty good to me. (upping the exposure anywhere between 0.75 and 1.00 seemed to do the trick)

Here's one........ straight import to LR (NEF>DNG), no preset and the exposure upped by +1.00 (only other settings are the basic LR defaults +50 brightness, +25 contrast etc)




DSC_4012.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr


I then did a final test by switching Active D Lighting back on whilst still at Neutral picture control and in both LR (with no presets) and in View NX I could still barely see a difference.  So i'm not sure Active D Lighting is having much of an effect with my camera.


So with me happy with my theory bring true and subsequent results i've now reinstated my Colour Passport DNG Profile and put that in a preset along with +1.00 exposure and a few other things I really want (clarity, sharpening etc) and I think i'm good to go.  I deleted the imported pics I took and reimported them with my new preset and I think its bob-on. :nod:

Granted, i'll still need to play with the sliders depending on the picture content and maybe amend the exposure etc, but at least i've got what I wanted. (for now!)  A reasonably good starting point (in eyes anyway)


Thanks for everyone's help in getting to this point and putting up with my questions. :hail:


----------



## dj_paige (Jun 22, 2011)

Active D-Lighting probably won't make much difference on the example photo you posted. It was designed for cases with high dynamic range, in other words photos with both dark blacks and (nearly) blown-out sky.

But I am glad you have reached a point where you are happy with your results so far. If you are like me, you will find additional ways to improve your photo processing in Lightroom over time.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 23, 2011)

Zarch,

At the risk of opening a can of worms that everyone is probably already tired of, I think there is still something wrong in your process.  Although you seem to be able to get the image look that you want by adding +1 exposure to each image in LR, you should NOT have to do that.  It is NOT a normal procedure.  It appears to me from reading your posts that it is possible that your camera is actually underexposing the images.  The only two potential causes I can think of are that you have an exposure compensation of -1 set in your camera, or the camera's exposure system is out of adjustment.  If your camera's exposure compensation is actually set to 0, try some test images w/ it set to +1 and import into LR without the +1 exposure setting in your preset.  If that works correctly, then you will at least be getting the proper exposure in camera and will get better image quality.  If +1 compensation in camera is necessary, then you should think about getting the camera repaired, I think.  I may be totally misunderstanding your comments, but I think it's worth a check and the test to be sure.  Good luck,


----------



## Zarch (Jun 23, 2011)

Bruce J said:


> Zarch,
> 
> At the risk of opening a can of worms that everyone is probably already tired of, I think there is still something wrong in your process.  Although you seem to be able to get the image look that you want by adding +1 exposure to each image in LR, you should NOT have to do that.  It is NOT a normal procedure.  It appears to me from reading your posts that it is possible that your camera is actually underexposing the images.  The only two potential causes I can think of are that you have an exposure compensation of -1 set in your camera, or the camera's exposure system is out of adjustment.  If your camera's exposure compensation is actually set to 0, try some test images w/ it set to +1 and import into LR without the +1 exposure setting in your preset.  If that works correctly, then you will at least be getting the proper exposure in camera and will get better image quality.  If +1 compensation in camera is necessary, then you should think about getting the camera repaired, I think.  I may be totally misunderstanding your comments, but I think it's worth a check and the test to be sure.  Good luck,


Bruce,

Thanks for having the balls to say something! :hail:

You know what, you are right, having to +1.00 every shot is wrong and I think I know the cause.  Its something to do Auto ISO and Minimum shutter speed that I use quite a lot when in A (and I think you can use the auto ISO in Manual too), but I "think" that is what is causing the underexposure.  I make no apologies for using these, i'm a newbie after all. LOL.

But they don't seem to be working properly..... camera fault? not sure.

I've been out again and taken some new images and imported them with no presets..... most are again underexposed........ so I turned everything Auto "OFF", took a shot in manual and its perfect upon import.

I don't think LR has proved itself not the be the problem, which is good for you guys (and girls) to hear.  :mrgreen:

Thanks again Bruce.


----------



## erro (Jun 23, 2011)

What if you take a photo of a uniformly colored en lit surface? A white wall, the blue sky or something. Ideally, with any of the P/A/S modes on the camera, you should get a histogram that basically is a spike in the middle since the camera strives to make everything middle-grey. How does this histogram look in the camera? If you import the photo to LR, how does the histogram look with all default settings? How does it look with your +1 exposure adjustment? You can also try this with a photo where you have used the cameras exposure compensation (or manual mode) to shoot a bright white wall in order to make it really white, thus getting a histogram with a spike just next to the right edge.


----------



## erro (Jun 23, 2011)

FYI: I'm using a Nikon D700, shoot in A-mode 99% of the time, also with auto-ISO. And I have no problems with exposure.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 23, 2011)

erro said:


> What if you take a photo of a uniformly colored en lit surface? A white wall, the blue sky or something. Ideally, with any of the P/A/S modes on the camera, you should get a histogram that basically is a spike in the middle since the camera strives to make everything middle-grey. How does this histogram look in the camera? If you import the photo to LR, how does the histogram look with all default settings? How does it look with your +1 exposure adjustment? You can also try this with a photo where you have used the cameras exposure compensation (or manual mode) to shoot a bright white wall in order to make it really white, thus getting a histogram with a spike just next to the right edge.


 


erro said:


> FYI: I'm using a Nikon D700, shoot in A-mode 99% of the time, also with auto-ISO. And I have no problems with exposure.



Thanks Robert, 

I've taken some shots a dull beige painted wall indoors, in A with everything auto switched off.  A 2/3 to central spike on the histogram on the camera and the same in LR. (no preset chosen)

Putting the camera in manual as using the light meter to get the correct exposure showed exactly the same.

Finally put AUTO iso back on, A mode and again OK...... same spike.

Will continue to do some testing, but I think I need a better subject that is uniform as this wall was indoors in a strange light/shade situation.


But doing a quick google appears i'm not alone with Auto ISO issues on the D3100...... I think I need to go away and investigate.  Not sure what options you got for Auto ISO and minimum shutter speed on the D700, but on the 3100 when you choose AUTO ISO on, you also get minimum shutter speed switched on too..... there is no way to have one without the other.


----------



## erro (Jun 23, 2011)

Auto-ISO needs a minimum shutter speed to determine when to start raising the ISO.

I think the default is 1/60. I normally have mine set to 1/80 to match my standard zoom 24-70, thinking that I need 1/80 or shorter to be able to avoid camera shake blur at 70 mm (D700 is full-frame)

Auto-ISO doesn't kick in untill the camera auto-exposure determines that the shutter speed has to go longer than the "minimum speed". So instead of getting longer shutter times the camera raises the ISO up to the specified max ISO. Once that is reached the shutter speed will start getting longer.


----------



## Zarch (Jun 23, 2011)

erro said:


> Auto-ISO needs a minimum shutter speed to determine when to start raising the ISO.
> 
> I think the default is 1/60. I normally have mine set to 1/80 to match my standard zoom 24-70, thinking that I need 1/80 or shorter to be able to avoid camera shake blur at 70 mm (D700 is full-frame)
> 
> Auto-ISO doesn't kick in untill the camera auto-exposure determines that the shutter speed has to go longer than the "minimum speed". So instead of getting longer shutter times the camera raises the ISO up to the specified max ISO. Once that is reached the shutter speed will start getting longer.



Thanks for that explanation Robert.

I usually have my minimum shutter speed at either 1/125 or 1/250 as i'm usually taking snaps of my little girl, so regardless if i've got my 18-70 or 35mm on the camera I need to stop here, not camera shake.

But some of these examples that look underexposed by a stop are 1/400, 4.5, ISO 100 (shot in A mode), so the AUTO bit hasn't even kicked in...... 

I'm wondering if the metering on my camera is a little so so?  Whether that's the 3100 per sae or my actual camera, I don't know. 

More testing certainly required.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 23, 2011)

Zarch said:


> Bruce,
> 
> Thanks for having the balls to say something! :hail:
> 
> ...



Sounds like you are making progress in understanding how your camera works; but, you didn't mention it, so I still wonder if you have checked the exposure compensation setting on your camera?  If you're not familiar with it, your camera manual should tell how to access it.  Nothing wrong with using A (Aperture priority) mode, or auto-ISO; many people do and don't have underexposure problems.  I'm still concerned that you have inadvertent exposure compensation set, or a faulty camera.  If it were me, I'd take the camera to your nearest 'real' camera store and ask for some help.  Good luck with it,


----------



## Zarch (Jun 23, 2011)

Bruce J said:


> Sounds like you are making progress in understanding how your camera works; but, you didn't mention it, so I still wonder if you have checked the exposure compensation setting on your camera?  If you're not familiar with it, your camera manual should tell how to access it.  Nothing wrong with using A (Aperture priority) mode, or auto-ISO; many people do and don't have underexposure problems.  I'm still concerned that you have inadvertent exposure compensation set, or a faulty camera.  If it were me, I'd take the camera to your nearest 'real' camera store and ask for some help.  Good luck with it,



Hi Bruce, Exposure comp is certainly at zero.

The more reading i'm doing, the more the problem is down to Nikon's interpretation of its Auto ISO.  

This post on dpreview rings every bell possible when talking about A mode.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=37994522

Ie, rather than bump the ISO, it underexposes the image instead!!  Great work Nikon!

For the example mentioned in my previous post: 1/400, 4.5, ISO 100 (shot in A mode), this was underexposed.  If it would have bumped the ISO to 200 it would have just about been exposed correctly. 

Baffling.


----------



## erro (Jun 23, 2011)

The dpreview thread says that there is no problem in A-mode. Nor have I ever seen any problem in A-mode (with my D700). I don't use P so I can't speak for that.

I can't really see any reason why Nikons auto-ISO should choose to underexpose by design.

Let's take things from the start:
- exactly what are your settings for auto-ISO? minimum speed, min and max ISO?
- find yourself a static subject to photograph, no movement, static light
- take a shot i P-mode and note the shutter, aperture and ISO the camera choose
- switch to A-mode, dial in the same aperture as P-mode chose, take a photo and note what shutter an ISO the camera chose (should be the same as in P-mode)
- go to M-mode and turn off auto-ISO. Set shutter speed, aperture and ISO the same as the values in P-mode. Take a photo.
- You now have three photos that should have the same shutter/aperture/ISO, and therefor the same exposure, and therefor should look the same visually
- Is all this correct?


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 23, 2011)

Zarch said:


> Hi Bruce, Exposure comp is certainly at zero.
> 
> The more reading i'm doing, the more the problem is down to Nikon's interpretation of its Auto ISO.
> 
> ...



I read through the forum postings that you linked to, and I don't see where anyone alleges that there is a problem w/ the Nikon auto-ISO.  I'm going to bow out of this conversation because I find three-way conversations difficult.  I'll leave you in Robert's capable hands.  I'll monitor, so if you want my opinion, just yell.

I do want to say though that if you take an image w/ auto-ISO off in A mode, and then the same image, in the same light w/ auto-ISO on in A mode, they should have the same exposure.  They may have different ISO/shutter speed combinations, but the exposure should be equivalent.  If they are not, then the camera is faulty.  If both images are underexposed, I still think the camera is faulty.  Let me know if you want more info from me.  Cheers,


----------



## Zarch (Jun 29, 2011)

Bruce/Robert,

Thought i'd give you a quick update on my findings and draw a line under my problems.

a) there is nothing wrong with my camera
b) there is nothing wrong with LR.

I think the issue is that no matter what metering mode you use, your can't expect the camera to get it 100% right everytime.  The reason why I was seeing underexposure issues was the subject matter I was taking the shots of.  The meter evaluated this in a certain way and gave an underexposed shots. (lots of bright sky etc)...... and stupid me, every test I did last week was of the same thing, so they exposed the same way, ie under.

I have been taking quite a few shots of the weekend and the majority are spot on, with a few needing a little boost of exposure here and there depending on subject matter. (which is to be expected)

I'd like to thank Bruce, Robert and everyone else who helped me reach this point.  I have certainly learned a lot in the last few weeks and finally feel i've got an import workflow and preset doing what I want it to do, ie give me a good starting point. (the original title of the question). :mrgreen:


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 29, 2011)

Zarch,

Glad you got it worked out and glad to offer what little bits of help I'm able to come up with.  You're right, modern cameras, though wonderful mechanisms, don't automatically get exposure right every time.  Keep an eye on it and keep practicing; before long, you'll have a much better feel for which situations your camera will do well at and which it will need a bit more user input.  Look at the histogram on the camera after each shot; you'll be able to tell which shots are under- or over-exposed.  You can then compensate the exposure for the next, similar shot.  Good luck,


----------



## erro (Jun 29, 2011)

Great to hear Zarch!

With time you get a "feel" for how the camera exposes, and you can then pretty easy adjust with exposure compensation even before you take the photo.

Lots of bright/white in the subject? Bump the exp-comp up a bit
Lots of dark/black in the subject? Turn the exp-comp down


----------



## Zarch (Jun 29, 2011)

Bruce J said:


> Zarch,
> 
> Glad you got it worked out and glad to offer what little bits of help I'm able to come up with.  You're right, modern cameras, though wonderful mechanisms, don't automatically get exposure right every time.  Keep an eye on it and keep practicing; before long, you'll have a much better feel for which situations your camera will do well at and which it will need a bit more user input.  Look at the histogram on the camera after each shot; you'll be able to tell which shots are under- or over-exposed.  You can then compensate the exposure for the next, similar shot.  Good luck,


 


erro said:


> Great to hear Zarch!
> 
> With time you get a "feel" for how the camera exposes, and you can then pretty easy adjust with exposure compensation even before you take the photo.
> 
> ...



Thanks again.

Maybe a daft question, but is there any need to use compensation on the camera when I can just amend in LR afterwards?

Granted, if the camera has totally blown out highlights and over exposed then you'd probably want to...... same with a total loss of darks and underexposed.

But with these ones that are not too far away?  ie a stop either way, is there a need to use compensation?


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jun 29, 2011)

Should you use compensation? Yes, I think so. The closer you can get things in the camera, the better your result will be. If you under-expose and boost exposure in LR, you'll add noise. If you over-expose, you may be able to pull enough information back to salvage the image, but your colours will probably be subtly off.

Hal


----------



## erro (Jun 29, 2011)

Like Hal said, the better you get it in the camera the better material you have to work with. With modern cameras and "normal" photos adjusting +/- 1 stop in LR generally works pretty well though. But, better to do it in the camera.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 30, 2011)

Zarch - take a look at the 'Expose Right' video on Rikk Flohr's YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/FleetingGlimpseImage#p/u/2/ADCmUs6b8Do

Pay particular attention to what happens in the shadows if you underexpose in camera and then compensate in LR.  Very informative.


----------



## edgley (Jun 30, 2011)

I have a D300, and suffered the pain that you are going through now.
I used to have my camera set to 1/3 under for exposure, but after reading the expose to the right guide posted somewhere, I now expose 1/3 over and use LR to turn down.

The D300 has a load of profiles for it in LR, and the one I use is one that Sizzlebadger made; not sure if you can modify them so you can use them on your camera.

The other thing I would suggest is taking a JPG with the RAW, but set the JPG to Vivid; more when there are no people, less when there are.
I then find it easier to play around with the RAW to get the colours more like the JPG. Sure, the JPG might have too much colour, but it gives you something richer to look at.


----------

