EF 16-35 f/4-L IS USM vignetting in LR

[coachboz68]

This might be more of a LightRoom question (LR) but will post here in case other stumble upon the issue.  

Let's start with the CR2 file displayed in the Windows 10 Photo Viewer and focus on the lack of vignetting.  

Now, here is that image imported into LR with no adjustments made at all and note the significant vignetting: 

Finally, the image below is after applying the LR "Enable Profile Correction" eliminates the vignetting (as well as some of the fisheye), but also crops out just a touch of the image in so doing, which is not a huge deal to me.  

Looking for any insight from LR users as to why the LR view of the original CR2 file shows so much vignetting that does not appear to be in the Windows Viewer rendering (unless it is applying some kind of correction?).   

Thanks, 

Billy 

[jrhoffman75]

Is W10 Photo Viewer perhaps reading the embedded JPEG rather that converting the .CR2 file?

Do you have lens corrections enabled in camera? The corrections would be in the embedded JPEg but not recognized in LR in the .CR2 file.

[ebiggs1]

Coach Billy,

No Raw file is viewable.  You can not do it.  It consists of only luminosity, nothing else. Any viewer capable of displaying a Raw file has to convert it.  Add this to the mix, all converters are different. Canon does not document how its Raw files work. This means all converters do it the way they think it should be done.  LR, Adobe in general, tries for a more neutral conversion. All converters read the metadata tag file to do these conversions.  Adobe does also, but Adobe applies its own standard after it reads it.  You here some complain that the photo looked better before it got imported in to LR.

If you have any lens correction in the camera and you also do it in LR you may be getting it twice.  I would encourage you to let LR do it and stop using in camera correction. I use a preset to apply lens correction and my personal metadata info to each photo upon import.  Use a fairly general settings scheme in your camera and let LR do the rest.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Coach Billy,

No Raw file is viewable.  You can not do it.  It consists of only luminosity, nothing else. Any viewer capable of displaying a Raw file has to convert it.  Add this to the mix, all converters are different. Canon does not document how its Raw files work. This means all converters do it the way they think it should be done.  LR, Adobe in general, tries for a more neutral conversion. All converters read the metadata tag file to do these conversions.  Adobe does also, but Adobe applies its own standard after it reads it.  You here some complain that the photo looked better before it got imported in to LR.

If you have any lens correction in the camera and you also do it in LR you may be getting it twice.  I would encourage you to let LR do it and stop using in camera correction. I use a preset to apply lens correction and my personal metadata info to each photo upon import.  Use a fairly general settings scheme in your camera and let LR do the rest.

---

Ernie, you and I argue over whether in-camera white balance correction ever affects the results presented by the RAW file. But I would have thought that we'd be in agreement that in-camera lens correction doesn't. How, then, could Billy be getting lens correction twice?

[coachboz68]

John, because I only shoot RAW, I've turned off all lens correction options in the camera, including the light optimizer and the high ISO NR.  As I understand it, those don't apply to RAW files anyway.  I do dual-write JPGs to the 2nd CF card just for an emergency backup, but because I shoot sports, I don't want anything slowing things down, which is why I turn off all those in-camera processing options.  

Ernie, See above, but I have the same question as Bob... I thought any in-camera lens correction would be meaningless for a RAW file.  

Ernie, I think your initial explanation makes sense.  Each viewer is going to have its own algorithm for reading a CR2 file, so the viewing output could/is different from viewer to viewer depending on the software. 

[ebiggs1]

"Ernie, you and I argue over whether in-camera white balance correction ever affects the results presented by the RAW file. But I would have thought that we'd be in agreement that in-camera lens correction doesn't. How, then, could Billy be getting lens correction twice?"

Robert and Coach Billy,

First I am only talking Adobe.  I have no idea and don't know how most of the other converters work.  Let's establish this first, also.  The great advantage with Raw is the extended latitude of adjustments over a jpg.  The argument over how much the in-camera settings effect it is secondary and minor.  Our know fact is, jpg deletes info from the image. Raw does not.  This is key, you must firmly plant that thought in your thinking machine!  This deleted info is lost forever and to make matters even worse it happens again if you make edits and save.  This never happens to a Raw file.

"...over whether in-camera white balance correction ever affects the results ..."  Robert I can give you this if you give me the fact that it can be either recovered or corrected in LR/PS.  Anytime you add something to an image your effect brightness/contrast.  You can't help it. You added info.  No biggie just correct it.

"...I would have thought that we'd be in agreement that in-camera lens correction doesn't."  The viewer conversion reads all the in-camera settings from the metadata tag file.  Whatever viewer you or Coach is using will apply it to the display. It has to as it is the only way it can display a Raw file. These settings (in-camera jpg settings) are not baked into the Raw file so it makes recovery possible.  I will also concede that it is probably best to get things as right as possible when you are shooting your event.  Although personally, I am rarely concerned with anything except exposure as I know I can edit or fix it in LR/PS.  I think it best to limit or make as neutral your settings as you can.  Great photos are made in post, not in the camera.

While we debate the value of WB being set right or wrong and how much recovery we can get, the bottom line is the real world every day photos that people enjoy or will pay for.

From this.....

...to this.

I just looked at my in-camera setting and I did have WB set to daylight so I am golden....I guess, right?

[ebiggs1]

Coach,

"Each viewer is going to have its own algorithm for reading a CR2 file, so the viewing output could/is different from viewer to viewer depending on the software."

Not could be but is. Plus it is different from camera to camera.  Even models that are in the same family I.E. a 6D and a 6D Mk II are not the same.  In Windows for instance, you need codecs that include all info about all major Raw formats and updates for newer cameras. Think of it like unprocessed film in the olden days. In favor of letting the camera process the image for you by turning it into a jpg you process the image, develop the film if you will, to your liking.