# Unwanted automatic cropping



## Jim McClain

My first post here, my first time using RAW and my first time using LR (the free trial). I realize I am not much of a judge of quality developing programs and don't have any experience using the tools, but this is a problem I didn't cause. I've read other users of even older versions of LR that have the same problem.

Lightroom 5 has automatically cropped an image and I can't find a way to recover the lost pixels in LR or after I export it as a TIFF to [unnamed image editor that isn't an adobe product ]. Unfortunately, I deleted another RAW file after my initial selection of photos from the JPG output (I do RAW+JPG in-camera) because it wasn't quite the right composition for me. But if I had used that file instead, the LR automatic cropping might not have been a big deal because the image had room for it.

The weird thing is the output is still a 4000x3000 image, even though the largest resolution in the camera is 4000x3000. Does that mean the RAW file was automatically cropped AND stretched?

From my research, incomplete as it is, the problem seems to be in the camera profile. My camera doesn't appear in the drop-down list, but LR claims to support it - Panasonic Lumix FZ200.

My hope is one or some of you can help me with this. I like LR otherwise and it is in my top-two choices. Maybe I can customize the camera profile, or make manual settings (although I doubt that will work because the image is cropped before I even edit preferences or select any tools to edit and no tool can bring the missing portion back).

What was most troubling is a very short reply from an Adobe tech to one of the Adobe forum topics: "This is as designed." No other explanation and the tech didn't participate any further in that thread (sorry, I can't find the thread now to save my life).

I tried searching the LR forums dot net, but I couldn't find anything that discussed this issue. Thanks in advance for any support you can provide. I'd like to bump LR to the top of my list, if I can find a way to deal with this issue.

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## clee01l

Welcome to the forum.  IIRC, the Lumix is one of those that will let you set the aspect ratio in the camera.  This means that even though the full set of sensor pixels is being recorded, the in camera aspect ratio is being honored on JPEGs out of the camera and JPEG thumbnails.  In the Crop and Straighten tool there are defaults and two options that appear to mean the same thing  The Default is "As Shot"  and the other option that you want to use is "Original"  Original will give you all of the pixels recorded for the image (i.e. 4000X3000) and "As Shot" will crop to the setting in the camera.  Is this what is happening to you?  If your enter the Develop module and select the Crop and Straighten tool (shortcut key is {R}),  you will see the crop that is being applied and all of the pixels (if any) that are outside of the crop window. 

When you export as a TIFF, what are you using to view the result TIFF Image? Is it possible that this is doing the stretching based upon the values in the EXIF?  And Lastly what are you using for export sizing parameters?  Can you post a screen shot of the Export dialog?


----------



## Jim McClain

Thanks for your reply, Cletus. I'm not familiar enough with everything you asked, but I hope I can provide answers to your questions. The linked images show the image in Develop and the Crop & Straighten tool activated. I tried using both "As Shot" and "Original" (tried the padlock locked and unlocked too) but there was no difference. The first picture you see [click here] is the JPG rendering of the same file, using a different RAW developer (AfterShot Pro 2) and exported to PaintShop Pro X6 for final processing. You can see the full size image just as I saw it in the camera's LCD.

The next image [click here] is the JPG rendering by PSP X6 after it was exported from Lightroom 5.4. I didn't do any processing and, as in the first image, I never resized the image.

The LR processed image is the same dimensions, but you can see that there is a considerable amount of cropping done on all 4 sides of the image. Not my doing.

The 3rd and 4th images [here] and [here] show what I see in LR Develop and as I exported to PSP X6. I don't understand the phrase "export sizing parameters" but I hope the screen shots are what you wanted to see.

Jim


----------



## clee01l

OK one other thing to check:  In the develop panel there is a section in the right panel named "Lens Corrections".  on the Basic tab is a checkbox labeled "Constrain Crop"  It should be unchecked.  Below that is the Upright Tool.  The off button should be selected.  Can you post a screen shot of this panel section  as it exists for the image that you posted as an example?  it is possible that the upright tool is being applied on import or in a Develop preset that is getting applied  Your particular image has a vertical component that would straighten parts of the original image out of the 4000X3000 box. 

The missing portion of the lamp suggests to me that the upright tool has been applied


----------



## Jim McClain

clee01l said:


> OK one other thing to check:  In the develop panel there is a section in the right panel named "Lens Corrections".  on the Basic tab is a checkbox labeled "Constrain Crop"  It should be unchecked.  Below that is the Upright Tool.  The off button should be selected.  Can you post a screen shot of this panel section  as it exists for the image that you posted as an example?  it is possible that the upright tool is being applied on import or in a Develop preset that is getting applied  Your particular image has a vertical component that would straighten parts of the original image out of the 4000X3000 box.
> 
> The missing portion of the lamp suggests to me that the upright tool has been applied.


The Enable Profile Corrections box has never been checked, which disables the Constrain Crop selector also. But when I try them, it never changes the result except I do see some slight change to the histogram. [This] is a screenshot of LR when it opens in Develop. But when I select Enable Profile Corrections and go to the Profile tab, the selection for Setup is Default and the Lens Profile Make is None. Nothing changes at all when I select Auto. The selections for Make do not include Panasonic, as shown in [this picture].

I pulled the jpegs of this picture from ASP2 and LR into Fireworks CS6 to take some measurements. The measurement from the far-right edge of the original formatted image to the part of the image that touches the far-right side of the LR image is a diagonal line that is about 100px in at the top and about 70px in at the bottom. But when I place a vertical line in the center of the pictures, the image is in almost perfect alignment. [Line test 1] [Line test 2]

So, the image was twisted or distorted in LR. Then it would have had to be cropped to keep the borders vertical and horizontal. So why would it also stretch the image up to 100px in some places to make it conform to the original size? Doesn't that affect the pixels somehow?

Oh, I forgot to mention... even before going into Develop mode, the thumbnail in Library view also shows the automatic cropping. That's when I first noticed it. I actually thought I somehow didn't import the right RAW file folder (but I only had the one). [Library view]

I keep thinking about what an Adobe tech said in an Adobe forum: "this is as designed." That can't possibly be right. Even though the RAW file has not been damaged, you can't develop the image as you took it. You must accept Lightroom's default actions? I hope this is all a mistake. I'd be fine if it were my mistake, but I think it looks like something is wrong (at least in my mind) with LR.

Again, thanks for taking the time to help me with this.

Jim


----------



## clee01l

This has me a bit stumped.  This is a camera with a fixed lens right?  As such, the lens profile is probably factored into the Camera Profile although I can't say for certain. What if anything happens id you press the button labeled {reset} that appears in the Lens Corrections section.  Also At the bottom of this Develop  Panel is another {Reset} button.  It sets all of the adjustments back to the neutral position.   Does pressing this button make a difference?  

Can you post a link to a copy of the RAW image file on some public web site (Your Dropbox Public Folder would be fine) that I might download. Preferably post a file that still carries the original file name as written by the camera.


----------



## Jim McClain

clee01l said:


> This has me a bit stumped.  This is a camera with a fixed lens right?  As such, the lens profile is probably factored into the Camera Profile although I can't say for certain. What if anything happens id you press the button labeled {reset} that appears in the Lens Corrections section.  Also At the bottom of this Develop  Panel is another {Reset} button.  It sets all of the adjustments back to the neutral position.   Does pressing this button make a difference?


Yes, this is a bridge camera with a 25-600mm lens. LR doesn't seem to have the profile for this camera, although all the marketing I've read says it does. It's not in the list of manufacturers and it can't be "reset". I've used the Reset menu option in both Library and Develop mode by right-clicking the RAW and selecting Reset. [see here] I never noticed the reset in the Lens Correction panel before because it's grayed out. [see that here] Clicking the big Reset button in the lower-right corner of the Develop window has no effect.



> Can you post a link to a copy of the RAW image file on some public web site (Your Dropbox Public Folder would be fine) that I might download. Preferably post a file that still carries the original file name as written by the camera.


You know, there was a time I used to marvel at my technical savvy, compared to most people I knew. But for a while now I've been feeling out of touch, especially when I hear terms like "Dropbox Public Folder," which I have no idea what that is. But I do have a website that I have been posting all these images and screenshots to.  [download the RAW file here] One of the first things I do when I move images from my camera to my computer's hard drive is rename them for better organization. So, unfortunately, I do not have this file in it's original name. But I assure you, I have never used Save as... to rename a file, only Rename. Because I knew I would be testing several programs, the file in that link is a copy of the original file and has never been opened by me. I have several copies and always open an original in the RAW photo editor I am testing. Because of the trouble with LR, I have opened 3 of these copies, from different folders on my HDD, all with the same result. When I open a copy of the original in AfterShot Pro 2 and Photo Ninja, the files open full format, as I shot the picture. Only LR has automatically cropped or distorted the image.

I just used ASP2 and PN to open this very same file and it opens just fine - just as I shot the picture. I wonder... do any Adobe or Lightroom people participate or at least monitor this forum? I was hoping they might have some comments, insight or questions.

There have been times that I've had trouble with a computer program in the past that might have been the result of a corrupted installation. Sometimes uninstalling and reinstalling helps. That has not worked in this case. I tried that before I joined and posted this thread.

Thanks again for your support, Cletus.

Jim


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Jim,

I downloaded your raw file, and it hasn't been cropped. The embedded JPEG in the RW2 file that FastStone Viewer shows is cropped identically to the image that Lightroom shows.

Why do you think that the image has been cropped?

Hal

p.s. My best guess is that you have two images taken at slightly different focal lengths.


----------



## clee01l

Hal P Anderson said:


> Jim,
> 
> I downloaded your raw file, and it hasn't been cropped. The embedded JPEG in the RW2 file that FastStone Viewer shows is cropped identically to the image that Lightroom shows.
> 
> Why do you think that the image has been cropped?
> 
> Hal
> 
> p.s. My best guess is that you have two images taken at slightly different focal lengths.


My results are the same as Hal's. I looked at it in Apples Preview app, iPhoto and a standalone version of PerfectEffects8 before I imported it into LR. They all look the same. 
The Camera embeds a JPEG thumbnail in every RAW file.  That this image has a thumbnail that looks just like the image in LR develop, indicates to me that this is the way the image that came out of the camera. Using the editors in Perfect Effects8 and iPhoto, I can get beyond viewing the thumbnail and I still see the composition (I won't call it a crop) seen in the thumbnail. Having been renamed only adds to the conclusion that you have confused two different images.


----------



## Jim McClain

Thanks for responding to this thread, Hal.


Hal P Anderson said:


> I downloaded your raw file, and it hasn't been cropped. The embedded JPEG in the RW2 file that FastStone Viewer shows is cropped identically to the image that Lightroom shows.


I can't see what you see. Can you share any screen shots?

By the way, never heard of FastStone Viewer before. I've been wondering what I could replace my aging Thumbs+ (Cerious Software) with. Nice little program, thanks.



> Why do you think that the image has been cropped?
> 
> p.s. My best guess is that you have two images taken at slightly different focal lengths.


I linked to several images that show what I see. Here's a comparison of what the same file looks like in LR, ASP2 and in PN:

Lightroom 5.4 screenshot
AfterShot Pro 2 screenshot
Photo Ninja 1.2.2a screenshot
What is even stranger now is, viewing the same file in FastStone Viewer shows the cropped image.

These are all the same file. I did some measurements (see the links in post #5 above). I drew a vertical line through the middle of the cropped and uncropped versions. The line is in the exact same location on both images. It's a physical impossibility for me to have taken 2 images like that - I am shooting hand held and I'm also challenged by 19% lung function, with an o2 tank strapped to my back. Holding any particular position for longer than it takes to make one picture is not something I am capable of. These are all the same image. I hope you can see that in the images I link to in this post and above.

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## Jim McClain

clee01l said:


> My results are the same as Hal's. I looked at it in Apples Preview app, iPhoto and a standalone version of PerfectEffects8 before I imported it into LR. They all look the same.
> The Camera embeds a JPEG thumbnail in every RAW file.  That this image has a thumbnail that looks just like the image in LR develop, indicates to me that this is the way the image that came out of the camera. Using the editors in Perfect Effects8 and iPhoto, I can get beyond viewing the thumbnail and I still see the composition (I won't call it a crop) seen in the thumbnail. Having been renamed only adds to the conclusion that you have confused two different images.



See my post above. This is the only image I have of this. It's the same image. See the comparisons of the same image (you can see the file name) in each RAW photo editor screenshot. I've not used any feature in the camera that causes it to take multiple images at the same time.

Jim


----------



## clee01l

Jim McClain said:


> What is even stranger now is, viewing the same file in FastStone Viewer shows the cropped image.


Fast Stone Viewer shows the embedded JPEG It is not showing you the RAW data because there is no image until the data has been demosaic'd and converted to RGB.  The Embedded JPEG was created by the camera. It is possible I suppose that when ACR (LR) converts your Lumix raw Data to RGB it applies some lens correction factor built into the camera data and other raw converters (AftershotPro) do not honor the lens corrections supplied by Panasonic. But this would mean that the RAW conversion CODECs in OSX (used by iPhoto) also correct the RAW data. 

I can't reproduce this on my Mac anywhere.  I do have a virtual Win8 machine that I can fire up.  It may have a working copy of AfterShotPro.   It will take some time to test this but I will report back when I do.


----------



## Jim McClain

Thanks Cletus. ASP2 (and I think the previous version) has a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 lens correction profile. When enabled, neither crops the image, except by maybe a very few pixels that I can tell.

Jim


----------



## Allan Olesen

clee01l said:


> I can't reproduce this on my Mac anywhere.


Are you saying that you can import the OP's raw file into LR on your Mac without getting the cropping?

Or are you saying that you can't get the uncropped version by viewing the raw file with other programs on your Mac?

I have imported it into Lightroom 5.4 on Windows 7, and I get the cropping. I have disabled lens corrections in Lightroom.

If I view the file with FastRawViewer (from the people behind LibRaw), i get the uncropped version.

Cropping is probably not the right word to use. There is definitely correction of lens distortion going on. If I scale the Lightroom and FRV windows so the objects in the photo have the same size, and then switch between windows, I see the same warping of objects in the photo as if I disable/enable lens correction on my own photos in Lightroom.


----------



## Jim McClain

Man, am I glad to see you come along, Allan. Now I know it's not just hallucinogenic flashbacks from the 70s. 

Jim


----------



## Allan Olesen

Jim McClain said:


> What was most troubling is a very short reply from an Adobe tech to one of the Adobe forum topics: "This is as designed." No other explanation and the tech didn't participate any further in that thread (sorry, I can't find the thread now to save my life).



Was it this thread:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photo...c_trouble_with_canon_5d_mark_iii_aspect_ratio

Luckily, Eric Chan later changed his mind and changed Lightroom to give full access to the uncropped area. But unfortunately only for newly released cameras. Us with old cameras are stuck with the wrong behaviour in Lightroom.

Anyway, this is not entirely similar to your problem. The old thread was about forcibly applying the in-camera crop setting in Lightroom. But in your case it more seems like forcibly applied lens correction.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Jim,

Cletus and Allen were right. I opened the raw file in the latest Camera Raw, and it shows this:






Lightroom is applying an automatic lens correction to the photo, and that is stealing your edges. It's the same correction that your camera applies when creating JPEGs. The other raw editors that you used don't do the correction, so you see the entire image. 

My mirrorless cameras also apply a lens correction to their JPEGs, and _they show corrected images in the viewfinder.  _So I see the same image when I take the picture as I see in LR after it applies its auto-correction on import. I'm surprised that your camera doesn't do the same thing.


----------



## Jim Wilde

I'm afraid I'm with Hal....I see no evidence of any cropping going on. I've looked at the jpeg preview of the downloaded Raw file in Bridge, Explorer, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, and the Exiftool GUI, and they all look identical to the converted Raw file in Lightroom's Library and Develop modules.

Lightroom:






Bridge:






Explorer:






Jeffrey's Exif Viewer:






ExiftoolGUI:


----------



## Jim McClain

Allan Olesen said:


> Was it this thread:
> http://feedback.photoshop.com/photo...c_trouble_with_canon_5d_mark_iii_aspect_ratio
> 
> Luckily, Eric Chan later changed his mind and changed Lightroom to give full access to the uncropped area. But unfortunately only for newly released cameras. Us with old cameras are stuck with the wrong behaviour in Lightroom.
> 
> Anyway, this is not entirely similar to your problem. The old thread was about forcibly applying the in-camera crop setting in Lightroom. But in your case it more seems like forcibly applied lens correction.


Yes, that is the thread. Again, very happy I wasn't dreamin' this up in my oxygen deprived head.  But I also recognize this isn't precisely what is happening to me. At the time I saw that thread, I hadn't done any measurements to discover my image was not only cropped, but distorted too.



Hal P Anderson said:


> Jim,
> 
> Cletus and Allen were right. I opened the raw file in the latest Camera Raw, and it shows this:


Where are you seeing that? I can't seem to find that in Lightroom 5.4. In fact, except in the marketing literature, I can find no other mention of Panasonic, Lumix or FZ200 and there is no Panasonic manufacturer available in the Lens Corrections' Profile tab.



> Lightroom is applying an automatic lens correction to the photo, and that is stealing your edges. It's the same correction that your camera applies when creating JPEGs. The other raw editors that you used don't do the correction, so you see the entire image.
> 
> My mirrorless cameras also apply a lens correction to their JPEGs, and _they show corrected images in the viewfinder.  _So I see the same image when I take the picture as I see in LR after it applies its auto-correction on import. I'm surprised that your camera doesn't do the same thing.





Jim Wilde said:


> I'm afraid I'm with Hal....I see no evidence of any cropping going on. I've looked at the jpeg preview of the downloaded Raw file in Bridge, Explorer, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, and the Exiftool GUI, and they all look identical to the converted Raw file in Lightroom's Library and Develop modules.


So, you're bringing up the possibility that this is a problem with my camera, not LR? When I set up the camera for this shoot, I chose 4:3 Aspect Ratio and 12m for Picture Size. The resultant images should be 4000x3000 (h) or 3000x4000 (v). That's what I got. Every viewer I have and every RAW photo editor I have displays/produces images in that 4:3 format. How can LR produce a 3000x4000 image that has part of it missing without stretching the pixels somehow? How can it distort the geometry of the image to cause a straight vertical line in a fully represented image to become distorted in a "cropped image that is 100px in from the edge at the top and 70px in from the edge at the bottom (I only measured the right side of the image)?

Unfortunately, I can't go back in time to see if what I saw in the LCD is the cropped version or the uncropped. I suspect it was the latter because the sconce (lamp) was an integral part of my composition. I had a couple other versions (since deleted) that had the sconce further in, but none that cut off any part of the sconce.

I have only been able to test 3 RAW photo editors, 2 of which show the exact same thing I _THINK_ I saw in the LCD screen. I just downloaded RawTherapee and will give that a try. It keeps crashing at the moment, prob'ly because I have tied my system up with a lot of resource hungry applications that don't always let go of those resources when you close them. But for now, I am perplexed at how LR can do whatever it is it did to my picture and still call it a 3000x4000 image.

I appreciate all of you participating in this discussion.

Jim


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Jim,

That screen shot is from Camera Raw, which does the same thing as LR, but also tells you if it has automagically applied lens corrections:






Clicking where the arrow points brings up the message box on my previous post.

And, yes, LR stretches pixels when it applies the automatic correction. So does your camera when it produces a JPEG. If I were you, I'd definitely do an experiment to compare what I'm seeing in the view-finder with what LR shows me.


----------



## clee01l

Jim McClain said:


> http://feedback.photoshop.com/photo...c_trouble_with_canon_5d_mark_iii_aspect_ratio
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is the thread.
Click to expand...

This is the issue that I thought you were having initially.  Thanks to Hal. we are now on the right track.


> So, you're bringing up the possibility that this is a problem with my camera, not LR?


There is nothing wrong with your camera.  The Adobe automatons were actually correct when they were saying so tersely, "This is as designed."
When you use any lens on any camera, there is distortion due to the curvature of the lens elements, With smaller cameras and smaller lenses this becomes more pronounced especially at wide angles. This curved Field of View has to be projected on to a flat sensor causing distortion.  Although the curve is concave rather than convex, the result is the same as the distortion of the size of Greenland projected on some flat maps of the world.
On a full frame Nikon DSLR, the wide angle 14-24 zoom lens can actually have a Field of View (FoV) of 180°.   Your image in question had a focal length of 6.6mm or the equivalent of ~37mm on a full frame camera.  Camera Manufacturers correct for this distortion when the JPEG is produced using the built in camera post processing software.  The result is a keystone shaped image,  the JPEG format is always rectilinear.  So the frame either fits the keystone shaped image inside a rectangle and fills in the empty space with the digital equivalent of white or it fits the rectangle to be completely inside the keystone image. AFAIK, fitting the rectangle to be completely inside the keystone image is always the chosen method.  The result is an image that does not appear distorted.  But that also means that the parts of the keystone that are outside of the rectangle get tossed when this correction is made.  The keystone shape approaches the rectangle (in your case 4:3 aspect ratio) when the distortion is approaching zero.  So, a slight distortion might not be detected by a human viewer, but mathematically, it is still there.  So the 4000X3000 pixels recorded by the sensor (RAW), will have the distortion where as the corrected 4000X3000 JPEG will not.  Adobe's Camera RAW software honors the camera's correction factor when it produces a RGB image from the RAW.  Other RAW conversion software (AfterShotPro, etc.) does not.  

So in the experiment that Hal suggested, pick a subject with converging perspective (Like your brick building) and set your zoom to the minimum 4.5mm.


----------



## Jim McClain

I sure appreciate you guys sticking with me on this. It's frustrating not understanding the technology. My initial intention was to get back to a hobby I once took seriously (that was in the 80s). But now I'm shooting digital and that takes quality software to also become the developer. Because I already had PaintShop Pro (been using it sporadically since Jasc days), I thought it better to start learning to shoot in RAW and get a good RAW developer. AfterShot Pro had a good reputation for many years (in its beginnings as Bibble Pro), and since it was now a Corel product, I thought it was a safe bet.

ASP2 had just come out, so I got that. But almost immediately I discovered some problems. I figured maybe it was at least partly because I am so new to RAW and the program, but when I tried to research the issues, I found a lot of more experienced users were having problems or complaints about ASP, including the previous version. So that's when I decided to go in search of something better. I belong to ThePhotoForum.com and a lot of members seem to think highly of LR, so I downloaded the trial. Others liked Photo Ninja, so I got the trial of that too. My camera came with SilkyPix, but I didn't like that from the start.

These issues I've been having with Lightroom were beginning to sour me on buying LR. I foolishly stood by my belief that the picture I have been working with was not being represented in LR the way I shot it. Like I'm incapable of making a mistake.  Luckily I was determined to prove that by going out yesterday morning to take a whole new batch of pictures of that building (I chose morning because the sun and the compositional possibilities are better on the other side of the sign). The picture below is a resized jpeg of a full size RAW, as represented by all the RAW editors except LR.






Now I see what the problem has been all along. I had previously shot with a filter screwed onto the lens, but not this time. I noticed that vignetting in a couple pictures before, but attributed it to having a too thick filter. It's the 25mm focal length and lens distortion. It is automatically removed in LR (and in SilkyPix), but not in ASP2 or PN. I don't have other quality RAW developers to test, but I assume LR and SilkyPix are not the only programs that make the adjustment automatic.

I didn't want to do a lot of testing and especially didn't want to have a program I had to make custom configurations to in order for it to work for me. All I wanted was a very good quality program that gave me the best opportunity to make good images even better - and was easy to use (a peer based forum with great support is a huge asset too).

Looks like Adobe is getting more of my money. I'll be spending more time here too, because I still haven't learned how to use the program very well. There's a lot to learn about so many aspects of creating compelling images and I think Lightroom and this forum are 2 steps in the right direction. Thank you all for your help. I'm looking forward to learning more from you as I get more involved in my renewed interest in photography.

Jim


----------



## Mark Sirota

What a great success story. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Allan Olesen

Jim Wilde said:


> I'm afraid I'm with Hal....I see no evidence of any cropping going on. I've looked at the jpeg preview of the downloaded Raw file in Bridge, Explorer, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, and the Exiftool GUI, and they all look identical to the converted Raw file in Lightroom's Library and Develop modules.


There is cropping / lens correction going on.

The reason that you don't see it is probably that you are only comparing cropped/corrected versions of the photo. Most of the tools you have used are probably only extracting the embedded JPEG, and we already know that the embedded JPEG is cropped/corrected.

But you can see the uncropped version in the original post. It should be obvious that software can't add missing areas around the edges of the photo, so when one version of the same photo contains a smaller area of the other version, it is cropped.


----------



## Jim Wilde

Yes Allan, that was all clear from Hal's post (which he made as I was typing my own....if I'd seen his post before releasing mine I would have added some additional comment). The issue for me is surprise that Jim saw the uncorrected image in the viewfinder/LCD, that to my mind shouldn't happen. As Hal pointed out, the expectation when the lens corrections are passed from lens to camera is that they are applied in "real-time" so that the user sees the corrected image either on the LCD in in the EVF, so composing on an uncorrected image is just wrong in my opinion.


----------



## Jim McClain

My first post here, my first time using RAW and my first time using LR (the free trial). I realize I am not much of a judge of quality developing programs and don't have any experience using the tools, but this is a problem I didn't cause. I've read other users of even older versions of LR that have the same problem.

Lightroom 5 has automatically cropped an image and I can't find a way to recover the lost pixels in LR or after I export it as a TIFF to [unnamed image editor that isn't an adobe product ]. Unfortunately, I deleted another RAW file after my initial selection of photos from the JPG output (I do RAW+JPG in-camera) because it wasn't quite the right composition for me. But if I had used that file instead, the LR automatic cropping might not have been a big deal because the image had room for it.

The weird thing is the output is still a 4000x3000 image, even though the largest resolution in the camera is 4000x3000. Does that mean the RAW file was automatically cropped AND stretched?

From my research, incomplete as it is, the problem seems to be in the camera profile. My camera doesn't appear in the drop-down list, but LR claims to support it - Panasonic Lumix FZ200.

My hope is one or some of you can help me with this. I like LR otherwise and it is in my top-two choices. Maybe I can customize the camera profile, or make manual settings (although I doubt that will work because the image is cropped before I even edit preferences or select any tools to edit and no tool can bring the missing portion back).

What was most troubling is a very short reply from an Adobe tech to one of the Adobe forum topics: "This is as designed." No other explanation and the tech didn't participate any further in that thread (sorry, I can't find the thread now to save my life).

I tried searching the LR forums dot net, but I couldn't find anything that discussed this issue. Thanks in advance for any support you can provide. I'd like to bump LR to the top of my list, if I can find a way to deal with this issue.

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## Jim McClain

Jim Wilde said:


> The issue for me is surprise that Jim saw the uncorrected image in the viewfinder/LCD, that to my mind shouldn't happen.


As I said (or at least alluded to) in my last message, there's a high possibility that I was mistaken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Maybe, because the camera in my hands was still quite foreign, I didn't have the picture composed properly and I did cut part of the sconce out. But ASP2 presented it to me with the lamp fully exposed, so I assumed I had a good composition and _Adobe_ screwed me again. 

I don't think there is anything wrong, in this respect, with my Lumix FZ200. I am not familiar enough with LR, or any RAW photo editor for that matter, to know what is right or wrong with it, but as it is designed, it presents the image to me as it should.

Don't make me admit I was wrong again. It ain't natural. 

Jim


----------



## Jim Wilde

Hey....nothing wrong about admitting you were (maybe) wrong, especially on this forum. We've nearly all had to do it!


----------



## Allan Olesen

Jim Wilde said:


> Yes Allan, that was all clear from Hal's post (which he made as I was typing my own....if I'd seen his post before releasing mine I would have added some additional comment). The issue for me is surprise that Jim saw the uncorrected image in the viewfinder/LCD, that to my mind shouldn't happen. As Hal pointed out, the expectation when the lens corrections are passed from lens to camera is that they are applied in "real-time" so that the user sees the corrected image either on the LCD in in the EVF, so composing on an uncorrected image is just wrong in my opinion.


I don't know how fast the processor is on this camera. If lens correction increases the EVF delay significantly - which seems plausible - it is quite understandable that the EVF is showing an uncorrected live stream.


----------



## Jim Wilde

You would think so, I agree...but I think the norm is for the EVF to always show a corrected image, and that's what Hal confirms with his mirrorless camera. In fact, I understand that the distortions on some of the MFT lenses can be quite extreme, so it perhaps wouldn't be surprising that the camera manufacturers would want to ensure that the user didn't get to see an uncorrected image!


----------

