Mixed Internal peripheral illumination/chromatic aberration correction

[Antares86]

Dear all

I have a problem with batch-processing images from my recent trip. For some photos I had the camera-internal peripheral illumination + chromatic aberration correction turned on, while for others I have them turned off.

Is there a way to find out which have the said corrections and which have not, so that I can subsequently apply the corrections in Lightroom correctly to all my photos (and avoid applying it twice)?

thanks and best wishes

[ebiggs1]

"Try this experiment:"

I really don't understand what you are trying to say or get across?

A Raw file is simply a record of the data captured by the sensor.  Each camera company has their own way of accomplishing this.  However, in each case the Raw file records the unprocessed sensor data.  Camera sensors simply count photons. They only see in grayscale or luminosity.  They do not see color.  All Raw files get color from the color filter array in camera but the Raw files are grayscale.  You may have heard of the Bayer pattern layer.

This and other info is stored along with the raw data. Metadata, or data about data if you will.  LR reads these tags and uses them to make your picture on screen.

All raw converters, LR included, perform several readings of the tag.  It may include things like colorimetric interpretation, perhaps NR and sharpening, even WB, etc.  LR and any of the other Raw conversion software's use very different algorithms to do this.   This is why the same image may look different when you use processing by different Raw converters. There is no one single “correct” conversion way for any certain Raw file.  LR uses a relatively subjective idea of what the best way is, and then it adjusts its converter to produce that result.  Now you may like it you may or not.  That is your decision.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Actually the answers are just partly correct.  In the case of raw files, thumbnails that are automatically generated by your camera tells Lightroom how to generate a thumbnail and preview based upon that thumbnail, or jpg image.  Lightrooms default settings will be applied later as the preview continues.  So in a way the in camera settings do effect what LR is importing.

The good thing about Raw files is the greater latitude of adjustments that can be made.  Not the fact they are influenced, or not, by the cameras settings.  The mere fact that you can view a Raw file suggests it was modified.

---

You seem to be saying that Lightroom will show you a JPEG thumbnail that incorporates settings - associated with the RAW file - that LR itself will ignore. I'm not surprised that the OP is confused by what he sees.

[ebiggs1]

What happens when you import your Raw file in Lightroom is, it displays the colorful, sharp, vibrant, contrasty jpg preview first. Camera settings in tact!  At the bottom of the screen the word “Loading” is displayed.  That “Loading” message is letting you know that the actual Raw image is being loading in the background. When “Loading” is finished a flat-looking, unsharpened, not vibrant, Raw picture is displayed.  That is why "... the answers are just partly correct."  You can not view or display a Raw file!  Period.  Some conversion has to be made.  Whether it is reading the jpg, the tag or LR's own scheme.

The thing that may be confusing is LR isn’t really doing anything with your Raw files during import unless you tell it to. LR is a database that remembers information about your files. 

This is what you need to remember LR brings in your Raw files (it is wrong to call them images as they are not at this point), it has to do a conversion to display them on the screen. The initial image you see is the jpg preview your camera created by default as part of the Raw file. It has to, to show you an image on your screen, LR must create a preview and do a Raw conversion.  You may like it.  You may not but that is what happens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

What happens when you import your Raw file in Lightroom is, it displays the colorful, sharp, vibrant, contrasty jpg preview first. Camera settings in tact!  At the bottom of the screen the word “Loading” is displayed.  That “Loading” message is letting you know that the actual Raw image is being loading in the background. When “Loading” is finished a flat-looking, unsharpened, not vibrant, willRaw picture is displayed.  That is why "... the answers are just partly correct."  You can not view or display a Raw file!  Period.  Some conversion has to be made.  Whether it is reading the jpg, the tag or LR's own scheme.

The thing that may be confusing is LR isn’t really doing anything with your Raw files during import unless you tell it to. LR is a database that remembers information about your files. 

This is what you need to remember LR brings in your Raw files (it is wrong to call them images as they are not at this point), it has to do a conversion to display them on the screen. The initial image you see is the jpg preview your camera created by default as part of the Raw file. It has to, to show you an image on your screen, LR must create a preview and do a Raw conversion.  You may like it.  You may not but that is what happens.

---

If LR can't display a JPEG preview that is at least related to the edit that the user is actually doing, it shouldn't display anything. Displaying a preview that would be useful only in an entirely different editor will (or at least should) result in nothing but confusion.

[ebiggs1]

"If LR can't display a JPEG preview that is at least related to..."

Robert I think you are missing the entire point.  Not LR nor any other program can display a Raw file.  This is the entire point.

LR and all the others use the metadata tag to start out.  This is the only way you can view a Raw image.  How each does the final conversion is anybodies guess.  I like Adobe's way best, you may not.  And, you would be in the minority.

Also, keep in mind, a Raw file is not an image.  It is a mistake to call it a Raw image as it is not.  It is a data file.  The metadata keeps track of whatever else the camera setting might have been.

Whenever you do an edit ACR makes a xmp tag file that is named exactly the same as the Raw file. It contains all the edit setting you do.  If that file is missing or deleted the Raw file display will revert back to its original.  LR does the same thing except in a slightly different way.

Have you noticed you can not export or save your Raw files?  You must choose another format like a tiff.  Perhaps DPP lets you bake the changes into a Raw file because it is Canon's own and they know what their Raw file is. That would be stupid but I doubt it stops anybody.  Adobe and all the others do not as Canon does not document that info.  You are the DPP expert, I am not.  But I do know Adobe LR and ACR.

My ability to explain it any more clearly has reached and end.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"If LR can't display a JPEG preview that is at least related to..."

Robert I think you are missing the entire point.

Forgive me for disagreeing with you, Ernie, but I don't believe I'm missing any part of the point.

Not LR nor any other program can display a Raw file.  This is the entire point.

People keep saying that, but it's nonsense. Any application that is programmed to do so can display a RAW file. If Lightroom can read a RAW file well enough to apply edits and convert it to JPEG, it can read it well enough to display it.

LR and all the others use the metadata tag to start out.

It's not entirely clear to me what you mean by that. But I assume you mean that LR begins by displaying the camera's attempt at a JPEG conversion, which is embedded in the RAW file and which may include settings that LR will eventually ignore. I make that assumption because it's effectively what you said in one of your earlier posts in this thread. And whether "all the others" do it that way is unproven.

This is the only way you can view a Raw image.  How each does the final conversion is anybodies guess.  I like Adobe's way best, you may not.  And, you would be in the minority.

If "Adobe's way" is to display, even temporarily, the RAW file in a form that it cannot replicate, even by default, then I guess I do not. And I doubt that I'm in the minority.

Also, keep in mind, a Raw file is not an image.  It is a mistake to call it a Raw image as it is not.  It is a data file.

Quite right. And from that perspective, neither a TIFF nor a JPEG nor any other digital representation is an image. All are simply data files, and any assertion to the contrary is bogus. But it's a widely accepted convention that when someone refers to "an image file", what is meant is "a data file that represents an image".

  The metadata keeps track of whatever else the camera setting might have been.

Whenever you do an edit ACR makes a xmp tag file that is named exactly the same as the Raw file. It contains all the edit setting you do.  If that file is missing or deleted the Raw file display will revert back to its original.  LR does the same thing except in a slightly different way.

Have you noticed you can not export or save your Raw files?  You must choose another format like a tiff.  Perhaps DPP lets you bake the changes into a Raw file because it is Canon's own and they know what their Raw file is. That would be stupid but I doubt it stops anybody.  Adobe and all the others do not as Canon does not document that info.  You are the DPP expert, I am not.  But I do know Adobe LR and ACR.

Not that it's relevant to this discussion, but DPP does indeed retain its reversible edits in the RAW file itself. I consider that to be a major advantage over the way LR does it, but YMMV.

My ability to explain it any more clearly has reached and end.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

---

[ebiggs1]

I am at an end to explain more clearly how it works but I may be able to clear up what you think you know. Let's talk about this, "...a Raw file is not an image.  It is a mistake to call it a Raw image as it is not.  It is a data file."  By this people that understand these things say a Raw file is not an image because it has to under go some sort of conversion before it can be displayed.  A tiff or jpg does not.  Data vs image file. Make sense?

"... I assume you mean that LR begins by displaying the camera's attempt at a JPEG conversion, which is embedded in the RAW file and which may include settings that LR will eventually ignore."  You have that correct.  But you don't seem to understand even DPP and all the others do a similar thing.  I think you are mistakenly assuming that Canon's own (DPP) converter knows better.  However, it still reads the metadata tag, or jpg data, to create a display. It simply has to. They all do. 

The difference is Adobe applies it own scheme after it makes this conversion.  Adobe can write the edits in the Canon Raw file but it would be in a place that only LR or PS would understand.  Since Canon does not document how its Raw files are constructed, LR/PS chooses to write a small tag or you can choose DNG (digital negative format) whcih does bake the edits in the Raw file. If it (Adobe) did bake it into the Raw file (which it could) other programs would not know how to read it either. That is why they don't.

"And I doubt that I'm in the minority."  Oh, yes, my frIend you are!  Not just a minority but a minuscule minority.  Most people don't install DPP on their computer.  They don't even d/l it.  I do have one friend, another pro, that uses DPP but he is the only one I have ever run across in my many decades.  And even he uses LR and PS most of the time. LR/PS is the industry standard and will be for a long, long time to come.

This isn't a prove LR/PS better post. It is a use what you prefer post. Use what gets the job done. It is just explaining a different approach to accomplish the same end. If DPP does it for you then by all means go for it.  Most photographers prefer LR/PS.  Conversion factor right or wrong. If DPP did all that LR does, perhaps I would like it and use it.  However it does not and I prefer Adobe's conversion scheme to Canon's own. It is more netural.  If you are going to wind up in LR and/or PS why not start there?  PS has Bridge and ACR which is Photoshop's version of LR.   They do the exact same things.