# How To Make LR Show The Same Image As Your Camera View



## smoke665 (Aug 4, 2016)

I'm still learning so if others all ready know this then I apologize, this is for the dummies like me that don't. Hopefully this will help some newbe's save some time. This has bugged me forever, that when I import into LR the image "is not" what I saw in my camera. I've heard all the explanations, as to why a Raw Image displays differently in different software, but being the anal person that I am I kept looking for a solution anyhow. I couldn't believe that I was spending all that time trying to get it right in camera, only have to redo it again in a 3rd party software. Well finally after pouring through everything I could find to read on LR I found this interesting little tidbit. 

All camera manufacturers' Raw files include (in addition to the metadata) a JPEG with manufacture specific information on the settings, corrections, etc., used to process that Raw file into a JPEG. When you import into LR the default is to take whatever information LR wants from that JPEG to develop according to Adobe Standard. All the remaining information gets pitched. Which is why the bright detail shots I was seeing in camera were coming out flat and less detailed in LR. Yes all the data was still in the Raw image that could be manipulated to get a "mostly" the same image, but I resented having to spend the time. 

Finally I found the solution. Open LR, go to the Develop Module. On the left side about the middle is a tab labeled Preset. 
click on the plus sign. It will pull up a new window for a preset. Check or uncheck the items you need, including lens correction for the picture mode your camera is set to use (IE: Bright, Natural, Landscape, Potrait, etc). Then name the preset so you'll know which one you've saved. (IE: Pentax Landscape) and click on create.

 

Now go to LR >Import on the right hand side near the top is a tap Apply During Import click on it then on Develop Settings. It will give you a list of settings with USER PRESETS at the bottom, scroll down to hover over that and another window will open with your custom setting. Click on it then Import. Your preview in LR should now be really close to your what you saw in your camera.
 
When you open the photo in Develop toward the bottom on the right you'll see Camera Calibration

 
You'll see your camera profile (mine is Camera Bright). You can still toggle back and forth between Adobe and your profile by clicking on the up/down arrows beside the name. When you do you'll see how much difference there really is. I haven't added it to a batch script yet, but I'm sure you can.


----------



## KmH (Aug 5, 2016)

Now all you have to resolve is that the rear LCD on a DSLR camera has very little resolution, and can only show a lossy-compressed, 8-bit depth, JPEG Basic.
Note that the camera manufacturers talk about 'dots', not pixels, when they describe how many 'dots' a rear LCD has.
In other words the rear LCD on a DSLR camera can't be used to accurately gauge exposure or color.

That next best way to gauge exposure and color is by studying the image histogram that can be displayed on the DSLR rear LCD.
*Tones & Contrast*

Understanding Histograms, Part 1: Tones & Contrast
Understanding Histograms, Part 2: Luminosity & Color


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 5, 2016)

KmH said:


> That next best way to gauge exposure and color is by studying the image histogram.



I use everything at my disposal. However, the histogram on the camera and most 3rd party software is only a representation based on software interpretation as a JPEG. If you want a histogram of the "raw" image you need to use something like Raw Digger.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 5, 2016)

Here is a video that goes even further. 

I hope it helps


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> I'm still learning so if others all ready know this then I apologize, this is for the dummies like me that don't. Hopefully this will help some newbe's save some time. This has bugged me forever, that when I import into LR the image "is not" what I saw in my camera. I've heard all the explanations, as to why a Raw Image displays differently in different software, but being the anal person that I am I kept looking for a solution anyhow. I couldn't believe that I was spending all that time trying to get it right in camera, only have to redo it again in a 3rd party software. Well finally after pouring through everything I could find to read on LR I found this interesting little tidbit.
> 
> All camera manufacturers' Raw files include (in addition to the metadata) a JPEG with manufacture specific information on the settings, corrections, etc., used to process that Raw file into a JPEG. When you import into LR the default is to take whatever information LR wants from that JPEG to develop according to Adobe Standard. All the remaining information gets pitched. Which is why the bright detail shots I was seeing in camera were coming out flat and less detailed in LR. Yes all the data was still in the Raw image that could be manipulated to get a "mostly" the same image, but I resented having to spend the time.
> 
> ...




Ok your biggest Problem is trying to get an accurate evaluation of your images on a camera LCD , which is not going to give you an accurate view of what the image will really look like once you load it on your computer which has a much better resolution.
they are a couple things you can do while your out on the site shooting to get a good accurate view,  the first and most important is knowing how to read your camera's Histogram,  this is the best thing that is going to show you what your exposure is and the tone's and everything else, and you can see very quickly,, the other way to do it is to take your pictures tethering your shots though a decent TABLET Or Laptop that way once the picture is taken it's loaded on your screen on your tablet or laptop then you can check out your picture, and you can even tether from your tablet or laptop directly to lightroom.

I generally use the histogram because i don't want to always using tethering while i'm out shooting depending on my situation.
Here is a video of an expert photographer who has experience on using the histogram and he explains it very well.
you can view that here


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 28, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ok your biggest Problem is trying to get an accurate evaluation of your images on a camera LCD , which is not going to give you an accurate view of what the image will really look like once you load it on your computer which has a much better resolution.



No. The OP's thread title wasn't a question. He doesn't have a problem. He wrote this thread to offer a solution for anyone else who may have an interest.



donny1963 said:


> they are a couple things you can do while your out on the site shooting to get a good accurate view,  the first and most important is knowing how to read your camera's Histogram,



You just said above that the camera LCD will not give you an accurate view of what the image really looks like. Now your suggesting that to get a good accurate view it's most important to know how to read the camera's histogram. I'm pretty sure that taking the time to read the camera's histogram won't have any effect on the view you get from the LCD.



donny1963 said:


> .....this is the best thing that is going to show you what your exposure is and the tone's and everything else, and you can see very quickly,, the other way to do it is to take your pictures tethering your shots though a decent TABLET Or Laptop that way once the picture is taken it's loaded on your screen on your tablet or laptop then you can check out your picture, and you can even tether from your tablet or laptop directly to lightroom.
> 
> I generally use the histogram because i don't want to always using tethering while i'm out shooting depending on my situation.
> Here is a video of an expert photographer who has experience on using the histogram and he explains it very well.
> you can view that here



Bad video with bad recommendations.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok your biggest Problem is trying to get an accurate evaluation of your images on a camera LCD , which is not going to give you an accurate view of what the image will really look like once you load it on your computer which has a much better resolution.
> ...


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 28, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Bad video with bad recommendations.
> ...



At 6 minutes 35 seconds into the video he makes this recommendation:

_ "Now as a general rule of thumb I suggest if you're not sure where to expose and you are shooting raw so you've got a bit of latitude to be able to adjust your exposure afterwords, shoot towards the left. There's a huge amount of detail in that last quarter of the histogram that you can expand out. I generally find that you retain more detail if you underexpose then bring it up than if you overexpose and then try to bring that down after you've lost some of the detail and definitely lost some of the color information once you overexpose the shot."
_
That_'_s seriously wrong in more ways than one which should be obvious if you understand how your camera works. If you don't, let me know and I'll be happy to help. So I repeat, bad video with bad recommendations.

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


it is not wrong that does work, i've done it, it's not wrong....
he was just saying that it's easier to recover detail from under exposed then over exposed,  and that is true..


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 28, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



That is not just what he said. He said:

_"Now as a general rule of thumb I suggest if you're not sure where to expose and you are shooting raw so you've got a bit of latitude to be able to adjust your exposure afterwords, shoot towards the left. There's a huge amount of detail in that last quarter of the histogram that you can expand out. I generally find that you retain more detail if you underexpose then bring it up than if you overexpose and then try to bring that down after you've lost some of the detail and definitely lost some of the color information once you overexpose the shot."_



donny1963 said:


> and that is true..



And that is not true. It is not true that you can, "_adjust your exposure afterwords." _It is not true that, "_There's a huge amount of detail in that last quarter of the histogram."_ He is wrong to suggest:_ "that you retain more detail if you underexpose then bring it up than if you overexpose and then try to bring that down..."_ 

He's talking about shooting raw and latitude available in the raw file and recommends that to take advantage of such latitude it's best to decrease exposure. There's an entire separate discipline out there where people do the opposite to take full advantage of the capacity and latitude of a raw file. It's called ETTR (expose to the (histogram's) right). Photographers do that because that's where the huge amount of potential data is. It is certainly not in the left and last quarter of the histogram. In fact in a modern digital camera, assuming a histogram of the data included in a raw file, the last quarter of the histogram represents less than 2% of the total sensor data. He doesn't know what he's talking about and he's talking rubbish.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 28, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> biggest Problem is trying to get an accurate evaluation of your images on a camera LCD



Probably wasn't clear in my post but I didn't say I was referring to the LCD, I said "the image "is not" what I saw in my camera".  



donny1963 said:


> I generally use the histogram



As do I. However, in my case the issue was not with exposure. but competing software issues When you import into LR the default is to take whatever information LR wants from the file metadata, and develop according to Adobe Standard. All the remaining information gets pitched. As a result my K3 II images were coming out over saturated, flat and lacking detail. I can't speak for other camera manufacturers but in the case of the Pentax K3 II's  this has been a known problem for some time. Supposedly the last upgrade corrected the issues (according to Adobe documentation anyhow), but I've found that problems still remain, especially with Pixel Shift. For the time being the only way to develop a Pixel Shift file seems to be to use the Pentax Utility software, and save as a TIFF, then to import that into either LR or PS for further editing. Non Pixel Shift images will import now with a minimum of adjustments so long as I use the procedure above.


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > biggest Problem is trying to get an accurate evaluation of your images on a camera LCD
> ...


Can The Pentax utility software export as a RAW? if so that may correct the problem as well. instead of importing as a TIF.
I've never notice that problem with any other camera's  NIKON / Canon & Hasselblad, How ever i don't really use lightroom for hasselblad images, Hasselblad's raw files are 3FR files 16 bit,  i use the focus software by hasselblad, i think it works better.


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > software


???


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 28, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Can The Pentax utility software export as a RAW? if



Unfortunately no. The last update to LR and PS now handles non pixel shift images by using the preset for camera calibration. A pixel shift raw file is actually 4 separate images in one. Adobe throws away 3 and attempts to run demosaicing on the remaing image.


----------



## donny1963 (Aug 28, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Can The Pentax utility software export as a RAW? if
> ...



That's a problem,  glad i never ran into that problem with any of the camera's i have, i would be quite upset about it.
why does pentax create raw files like that any how?


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 29, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> why does pentax create raw files like that any how?



Because pixel shift images display an incredible amount of detail, by making my 24 megapixel equivalent to 96 megapixel resolution. Like everything new I'm still learning how best to use it.


----------

