Colours in LR

[Edgar]

Hi guys

I have been using LR to import, post-process, and export/convert most of my RAW files taken from my camera.

But lately, I have been using the Canon provided software to view the RAW images. What I found out was the Canon software actually produces better colours when viewing the files (before post-processing), and most of the time, most of my shots do not need much processing at all.

When I open those files in LR, the colours are dull and I have always spent a lot of time processing the images because I thought my shots were not good enough.

Any reasons why LR would do that? I did a comparison viewing on the same RAW unprocessed image from LR and also from the Canon software, and the colours are so much better in Canon than in LR.

Now, I am feeling a bit dissapointed with LR as I have spent so much time working on my photos in LR when they are actually not that bad when viewed with the Canon software.

Anyone here experienced this before or have any tips?

[arthurking83]

Yeah, I found the same thing with LR and PS(uses the same raw converter) and only yesterday I started playing with Bibble5, and I still get the same thing(with Niokon raw files).

it seems to me, that there is more work involved in getting the images at least to look as good as it does with the native software(software from the camera manufacturer).

they(thirdparties) have styles or replicated in camera enhancements, or whatever terminology they use to describe their trickery, but it takes time to learn.

My belief is that if the software requires time to learn, it's worth sh!t .. err I mean nothing!

After a few more attempts at using Bibble today I think I'm giving up on him too.
They reckon that Bibble's advantage is in speed(everyone's opinion of it, that I've read so far).. but I'm not seeing it.

That was the last straw for me. No more attempts at Bibble/LR/CSx/BSy/etc... Nikjon know how to produce the best images with the least amount of work(clicks/edits/enhancements/circles and squares) and I ain't wasting any more time with the other stuff.

funny how many people express concern about thirdparty offerings on hardware, but persevere with lacklustre thirdparty PP software!

The main reason to use thirdparty software is the fact that they're usually image manipulators as opposed to photo editing software. If you want HDR, cloning, or fullscale colour replacement they're probably 100% better than the original manufacturers software.(Nikon's clone/bandaid tool is pathetic in 99% of usage).
If you want simple tweaks, and without the benefit of using other manufacturers supplied software) I'd dare say you'll get better results with the real McCoy.

I still have approx 10 day remaining with the trial version of Bibble I have, but I feel it's a losing battle.
Not faster(in some cases slower than CaptureNX! as is PS in many cases) Definitely worse looking end result in the image. But more importantly so far that I've seen in B5 compared to both the Nikon software is the difference in exposure(histogram and image representation on screen). the B5 image is always showing over exposure... curious.
AND, I've never had an issue in printing test images having used either of the NX programs too.

Each to their own, and while people grow up with their ideal software and fully understand it's nuances and processes, from a newbies perspective if find the idea of instant gratification from third party software a much harder task to come to terms with, than I ever did with Nikon's software, which includes Nikon Capture CaptureNX and ViewNX. Nikon View was horrid(but replaced by ViewNX), and I still don't like Nikon Transfer either(I transfer images manually).

[Edgar]

I am glad I wasn't the only one.

This past 10 months since I got my firsl DSLR and using LR in the past half a year, I just could not work out why my photos does not turn out as good as when I viewed them from the camera's LCD.

And I thought today that I would try and use the Canon included software which I have already installed onto my computer from day one. And I was surprised to see the images were so much sharper, more dynamic and more alive than when viewed in LR.

I have wasted so much time in LR trying to correct the images when they have been fine all along. In the past hour, I have just been converting my images straight from the Canon's software with very minor processing and they all work out fine!

I think I might only start using LR to do other stuffs like cropping, and adjustments. Truly disspointed with LR here.

[carrg1954]

Try looking up Lightroom presets on the net, usually free,work well and easy to install and single click changes to the RAW image.

regards

[Paper_Mache_Man]

Yeah I think it's a case of the default values being a bit more neutral in LR compared to Canon. The file is what it is, I just think the Canon software processes it slightly different straight off the bat. I'm sure with the right preset you'd get it looking the same in LR.

Feel free to correct me if I'm way off the mark though as I don't really know a lot when it comes to this etc.

[mithrandir]

Could it be that the Canon supplied software is using the jpg settings to convert the RAW files on import? LR doesn't adjust the RAW files unless you apply a preset on import.