# Lightroom 3.3 shows over-contrasted and over-saturated images



## rstinghe (Jan 16, 2011)

I have been using Lightroom for more than a year and all imports looked fine until about a month ago when LR started importing all my images (all RAW) over-contrasted and over-saturated. I have checked the import settings and the develop settings and they're all "default". I have opened the same images in Bibble and they look normal. So it's not the camera shoot. Anyone had the same problem?
I am using a Canon 5D, 24-105 USM lens and LR 3.3 on Windows 7 32 bytes.

Thanks for your support,

Radu


----------



## gregDT (Jan 16, 2011)

The only thing I can think of is that the 'default' Lightroom uses to display an image is actually user configurable. By 'default' I don't mean any import defaults but the default that is applied to images in the Develop module. This default can actually be changed to any combination of develop adjustments you like. 

When in the develop module the two buttons at the bottom of the develop panel are shown as 'Previous' and 'Reset'. If you press alt on your keyboard you will see the 'Reset' button change to 'Set Default...' if you click 'Set Default...' whatever specific adjustments you have applied to your image now become the default for all new images. You might have inadvertently reset your default to something with high contrast and saturation, hence you now see it in every image you view.

To get back to the true original Adobe default just press Shift instead of alt and the button will change to Reset (Adobe). Click it and you're good to go.

Hope this helps


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 17, 2011)

Radu,

Could it be you have "Apply auto tone adjustments" active in your preferences?

Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 17, 2011)

*Over-saturated*

Hi,

Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately, resetting to Adobe defaults didn't change anything and the "apply auto tone adjustments" is off, I checked.
The bizzare thing is that this happens only with the last photos - if I open some of the previously shot pictures they all look fine.
I attache three examples (1 and 2 were shot in December 2010 and January 2011 and 3 was shot in October 2010) to see the difference.

Radu


----------



## James_N (Jan 17, 2011)

Check your color profile; Lightroom is very sensitive to corrupt profiles.




rstinghe said:


> I have been using Lightroom for more than a year and all imports looked fine until about a month ago when LR started importing all my images (all RAW) over-contrasted and over-saturated. I have checked the import settings and the develop settings and they're all "default". I have opened the same images in Bibble and they look normal. So it's not the camera shoot. Anyone had the same problem?
> I am using a Canon 5D, 24-105 USM lens and LR 3.3 on Windows 7 32 bytes.
> 
> Thanks for your support,
> ...


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 17, 2011)

Sorry - how can I check this?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 17, 2011)

Radu,

If your previously shot pictures look fine, I would doubt a monitor profile problem. But to rule it out, you could assign a sRGB profile to your monitor in Color Management and look at the photos. If this does not change the difference in look (it might change the overall look slightly), go back to the profile that was assigned before.

To be honest, it's hard for me to judge over-saturation in your images based on the screenshots you posted. Would it be possible for you to upload a Raw example together with the XMP of a "good" and a "bad" photo to somewhere in the internet and post a link to it here (you could use something like www.yousendit.com). To produce a XMP, use Ctrl-S to save Metadata to file. 

Beat

P.S: Are you living in Switzerland?


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 18, 2011)

Hi, Beat 

Thanks for the offer of looking into this. You can find three different examples of "bad photos" (called "over") and an example of "good photo" here:
http://radu.ch/downloads/lightroom/

Hope you'll be able to make sense of it...

Radu

P.S: Yes, I live in Geneva


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 18, 2011)

Hi Radu,

Thanks for the images. I still cannot see much of an oversaturation on those images (on "over2.cr2" it's the WB that's off). Would it be possible you also upload the accompanying 4 XMP files to your server? If you don't have any XMP's yet on those images, do a Ctrl-S to save metadata to file, which will place the XMPs right next to the Raws.


Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 18, 2011)

Hi, Beat 

Thanks for the quick answer. I have uploaded two "bad examples" and their respective XMP files in the same location. If I open them in any other photo viewer or editor they look fine - except in my Lightroom... To understand this I uploaded also two versions of "how do I see" the same photo in Bibble and Lightroom. Hope you'll be able to see the difference....

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 19, 2011)

Radu,

I don't have an answer as to why you see a difference in your images between 1/2 year ago and now. Is it possible you used a different camera profile in LR 6 months ago?

But what I can say is that (on my system), your images don't look oversaturated. I have produced each of your samples with the following variations:


Embedded JPEG preview of the .cr2 file
LR's rendition with profile "Camera Standard"
(which was used for your in-camera JPEG previews)
LR's rendition with profile "Camera Neutral"
LR's rendition with profile "Adobe Standard"
You can find the photos here:
Le Mole-71
Le Mole-69
Good
Over3

Considering that you had ALO set to Standard at the time of capture, to me the LR renderings all look OK. Tell me what you see.

Have you tried assigning an sRGB profile to your monitor to rule out a monitor calibration/profiling issue? Are you using a wide gammut monitor? Is your monitor calibrated/profiled?

Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 19, 2011)

Hi, Beat
I suspect there is one slight chance that "the culprit" might be the ALO on my Canon 5d Mark II. Though I have tried to look at the photos in Canon's DPP with the ALO turned off in editing and the difference was barely noticeable. 
I will try to shoot some photos tomorrow with the ALO turned off and see how do they import. 
On the other hand ALO seems a nice enough Canon feature that I'm not sure I would like to have disabled.
If everything else fails I would probably have to start to learn working in layers in Bibble and forget about LR. It's a new beginning... 

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 19, 2011)

Actually, your Raws will not change if you switch ALO off, but your JPEGs will look different. Generally, if you're shooting Raw, it's not a good idea to have something like ALO switched on, as your on camera display as well as the camera histogram won't show you the truth and let you use the same wrong exposure settings all the time, which reduces image quality.

I still don't see why you wouldn't want to use LR to do your processing, as you can adjust the starting looks by setting your default (Camera Profile + more) to your liking. Also, you can produce your own camera profiles if you want and use those in LR. I own a 5D MkII myself and I've noticed that the Adobe Standard profile gets really close to the in camera JPEG, if this one is shot on standard settings with no ALO.

Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 19, 2011)

Thanks for the explanation, Beat. It saves me doing some frustrating experiments...
As for the LR, it took me some 30 min of tweaking to achieve the result I had from the start in Bibble.
Here's the Bibble "start" look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5370689477/in/photostream/
Here's Canon's DPP: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5371312684/in/photostream/
and here's the LR:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5371294138/in/photostream/
The problem is that, even after I reduce the contrast, etc. to "normal" in LR and then I export as jpeg the result is under-contrasted and under-saturated! So I would need to leave the photo "over" in LR in order to export it better in jpeg...

I have tried all "camera profiles" in the calibration area and the result does not seem to improve at all. Is there a way to select the "Canon 5d MarkII profile" from a list or it's automatically done by LR based on the info on the RAW?

Radu

PS: Do not feel forced to answer to all my questions and complains. I appreciate your support but I'm sure you might have also some other stuff to do  I thank you anyway for your time.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 19, 2011)

Radu,

If your exported JPEG images don't look (almost exactly) the same as what you see in LR Develop, then there's something wrong going on. I would suspect a color management issue with the software you're using to view the JPEGs and/or different color spaces used to export from Bible/LR.



What software do you use to look at the exported JPEG
What color space you export in
Try re-importing the exported JPEG into LR and compare the result to the Raw
Also, back to my questions in a prior post:
Have you tried assigning an sRGB profile to your monitor to rule out a  monitor calibration/profiling issue? Are you using a wide gammut  monitor? Is your monitor calibrated/profiled?


All the camera profiles you can see in Develop are dedicated to the camera which shot the photo you're looking at, so they all are made for your 5DMkII already.

Beat


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jan 19, 2011)

This is my screen capture of the three files. Capture 2 is the Bibble start look, Capture 3 is the Canon DPP, Capture is the LR.



Why are you unhappy with the Lr rendition?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 19, 2011)

Denis de Gannes said:


> ... Why are you unhappy with the Lr rendition?


 That's what I also thought. As far as I can see, there is no real big difference in saturation, more so in exposure/blacks.

I'm not sure whether Radu sees what we see though ....

Beat


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jan 20, 2011)

The rendition of the scene is very subjective, its not like you can go back this evening and check the lightning and contrast. When I make comparison between different programs I use objects that are available to compare with what I am viewing on the computer screen.
e.g

,100% crops of test file left to right Bibble Pro 5.2, LR 3.3, LR 3.3 default, Olympus Viewer 2, SilkyPix 4. The raw developments settings were set to try and simulate the Olympus Viewer file which would match the JPEG from the camera. White balance was corrected to the WhiBal Card. Note the subtle differences to the Gretagmacbeth ColorChecker card. The original files can be viewed at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baxter43/sets/72157625678052039/


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jan 20, 2011)

I have been following this thread but did not participate as I was totally confused as to what the issue was really all about !
From your first post it appears (to me) that what you are saying is that "previously" you have imported your RAW files and they have been fine (without needing any further tweaking ??) but that recently they no longer look fine on import (without further tweaking ??). Is this what your issue is ?

If so then all I can say is that I am not surprised ! I dont think that I have ever not had to tweak an imported RAW file...probably because of the fairly neutral default settings that are applied on import. However, even if you apply a ready made pre-set that works in some instances it is extremely unlikely that it would work satisfactorily in all cases.

Apologies if I have got the wrong end of the thread (excuse the pun).


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 21, 2011)

Hi,

And thank you all for your interest and support in my little challenge. As you took the time to kindly answer and offer advice I feel I should, at least, answer your questions.
1. @ Beat: Indeed it seems the problem was in the software(s) I was using to see the exported jpeg. Once imported back into LR the jpeg looked exactly like in Develop. So this seems solved.
2. @ Beat: My monitor (Dell S2009) does not have a sRGB profile (only RGB or YPbPr). I use RGB. However, if there was a monitor calibration issue I believe ALL my images would have been affected (being them viewed in LR or other software).
3. @ Denis & Beat: I'm not sure if your rendering look exactly as I see them on my monitor but, for me, the LR version is over-contrasted and blacks are way off (Beat, you're right - i might have put a misleading title to the thread - it is really more about contrast and blacks than saturation). 
4. @ Mark: Yes, you understood right, the photos I imported until some time ago looked "fine" (but now, come to think of it, maybe I was still  using LR v. 2 - can't remember when I switched to LR 3!). Obviously I had to tweak all of them depending on the shooting conditions and the final result I had in mind but I was starting from a fairly "normal" looking photo, pretty consistent with the way I shot it. Now I start with something that it's consistently looking artificial, like I had already worked (badly) on it! The examples on Flickr are relevant, in my view...
I don't know, maybe I'm just too demanding (and unreasonably so) to what I expect from the software. I can accept this...

Thanks to all, once again,

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 21, 2011)

Radu,

I'm not sure now where to go from here. To recap again, I think we have several issues here:

1) You seem to use tools to view your JPEGs from outside of LR which are not color managed. Depending on the color space you're using when exporting, this will give you only wrong or even wronger results.

2) You're not happy with the way LR renders your Raws, no matter what profile you chose.

3) There's a difference between Raws imported half a year ago and the ones imported today:
Try the following: Create a virtual copy of an image imported 6 months ago, choose PV2010 and perform reset on the virtual copy.
Do the opposite with a Raw imported now:
Create a virtual copy, choose PV2003 and perform reset on the virtual copy.

Is there a significant difference between the originals and the virtual copies, in regard to the areas you seem to notice the difference between 6 months ago and now?

Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 22, 2011)

Hi, Beat

I don't believe we can do much more here but, to answer your questions:
1. This aspect is solved.
2. No. Today I made some more photos and, when imported, they were over-contrasted and with blacks way over once again. In order to render a photo close to the real conditions of shooting I needed to: change Exposure to +0.33, Fill light to 7 and Contrast to 0. Once these settings applied to all other photos they start looking ok.
3. There is no difference between the copies.

Thanks for all,

Radu


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 23, 2011)

Hi, Beat

I would like to ask you a favour if and when you have some time. Can you please, try to render the image at http://radu.ch/downloads/lightroom and tell me if you see a "normal" (more or less) sky or, like me, you see an artificially intense blue with turquoise fringes near the clouds. Thanks - just to convince myself I'm not crazy... 

All the best,

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 23, 2011)

Radu,

To me, the sky looks normal, I'm attaching an exported JPEG and a screen shot. Have you ever tried looking at the image with another computer?




Beat


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jan 23, 2011)

I also downloaded the file and I am seeing the same thing as Beat.


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 16, 2011)

I have been using Lightroom for more than a year and all imports looked fine until about a month ago when LR started importing all my images (all RAW) over-contrasted and over-saturated. I have checked the import settings and the develop settings and they're all "default". I have opened the same images in Bibble and they look normal. So it's not the camera shoot. Anyone had the same problem?
I am using a Canon 5D, 24-105 USM lens and LR 3.3 on Windows 7 32 bytes.

Thanks for your support,

Radu


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 24, 2011)

Hi, 

Thanks both for checking this out. Indeed, it seems to be a computer problem. 
I tried on my Mac and the photos seem to render as expected. Now I need to find out a solution as it is not a monitor issue - I've tried with a different monitor and the result is the same. So it must be a computer/video card or similar incompatibility with LR (as all the other editing software seem to run well). I'll see what I can find out and, for what's worth, post the conclusions on the forum.

Radu


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 25, 2011)

Hi,

As promised, I return with a work-around for the problem (which I found after some hours of searching and tweaking): I forced the installation of a colourspace, sRGB, as profile for my monitor.

On Win7, open the Windows Control Panel. In the simplified Category View of Control Panel choose 'Color Management'. In the resulting dialog, at the top should be a chooser for which monitor we're working with. Below is a list of available profiles. If you see sRGB IEC61966-2.1, then pick it, and Close. If you don't see it, at the bottom left, choose Add, and scroll through the list of available profiles, find sRGB etc., click it and click OK. Then choose it on the profile list. 

It worked for me as I can see the photos "normal" again.

Thanks to Beat and the others who have helped and encouraged me to continue searching for solutions and not give up.

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 25, 2011)

Remember my post Nr. 7 of your thread?


> If your previously shot pictures look fine, I would doubt a monitor  profile problem. But to rule it out, you could assign a sRGB profile to  your monitor in Color Management and look at the photos. If this does  not change the difference in look (it might change the overall look  slightly), go back to the profile that was assigned before.



Beat


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm glad you've identified the problem, but don't celebrate yet!  You've proven that your monitor profile was corrupt, but sRGB is a working space, not a monitor profile.  What you have now is that everything is equally wrong, but still wrong.  You need a proper monitor profile -- preferably by calibrating with a hardware colorimeter.


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 25, 2011)

@ Beat: I remember the post but I didn't know (then) how to add the sRGB working space to my monitor (as it has no sRGB profile to be selected from its menu).
@ Mark: spoilsport!  I'll try to get the monitor properly calibrated and maybe invest some money in the hardware...


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jan 25, 2011)

OK, glad you sorted it out. I am with Mark regarding the calibration. HW devices are not that expensive anymore, and better a reasonably priced one than none.

Beat


----------



## rstinghe (Jan 31, 2011)

Hi, all

I have invested (not too much, the prices went down recently) in a Spyder 3 Pro and it all worked fine. The photos look natural again - I do have some issues with replicating this on my little Selphy Canon printer but this is another question 
Thanks to all for the quick and relevant support,

Radu


----------



## b_gossweiler (Feb 8, 2011)

Good move 

Beat


----------

