Lightroom 3 default setting for the M9

[Norwin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good morning,

 

I have had LR for perhaps a year...or, more.

 

I guess I am self taught, as I am only now reading a LR 3 'book' and have read that the author recommends adding special 'custom' default settings for the user owner's specific camera.

 

Indeed, I admit I had not previously been aware of this opportunity and I wonder whether my fellow M9 Leica users/owners on this forum have made use of any recommended default settings which would improve my (own) use of my M9 and my companion use of LR 3?

 

Obviously, you're a creative group and more technically able than I am - Thus, please respond with whatever you have tried and have re-set your own LR 3 with...

 

Your 'how and why' response is certainly encouraged too.

 

With my sincerest apprecation and respect,

 

Norwin

[adan]

1. It's a choice, but I set the WB to a specific "custom" daylight value (as measured off a test shot with a gray patch in midday sunlight) rather than "auto" or "as shot" or the canned "daylight" setting.

 

2. Default for sharpening is "on" at 25% - as someone who uses Photoshop for final image corrections, I find the LR sharpening to be crummy, so I'd rather it left the image alone and let me use the more sophisticated tools in PS. I turn sharpening to Off and Color Noise Reduction down to 5 as my custom defaults.

 

3. I pretty much change ALL the basic image developing defaults: Recovery and Fill light to 5, blacks to zero, brightness to +60, saturation to +10. (and, BTW, I avoid using the "Auto" button - Adobe's default seems to assume that all images should have 5% of the highlights clipped and an average brightness about 50% higher than the low-key subjects I actually shoot.

 

(put another way, LR seems to assume, like any automated "meter," that the world is one big gray card - which of course, it isn't.)

 

4. The biggie - I do a full camera calibration with a MacBeth ColorChecker using the Calibration pane. The default calibration from Adobe is "Adobe Standard" and then zeroes for the hue/saturation adjustments. My calibrations usually end up with zeroes for NONE of the adjustments.

 

The good news is that LR seems to have picked up my calibration settings from Adobe Camera Raw, which saved having to actually do them over - but they are still different from the defaults.

 

Those are, of course, still defaults (once saved as such) - I feel free to change the settings manually (e.g., white balance) on a per-picture basis, just as I'd use different printing times or papers on a per-image basis in "Darkroom."

[coup de foudre]

1. It's a choice, but I set the WB to a specific "custom" daylight value (as measured off a test shot with a gray patch in midday sunlight) rather than "auto" or "as shot" or the canned "daylight" setting.

is this the setting you shoot with?

[adan]

No. Since I shoot only dngs (RAW), the shooting (or in-camera) WB is irrelevant, so I leave it on "Auto" - and then ignore it.

[Norwin]

Hi -

 

Andy, I am truly impressed.

 

Your default settings gave me much to think about...thank you.

 

Isn't it interesting, Andy, that of the several dozen other M9 users who had also viewed this thread, not one, except for yourself, had any thing further to add or recommend...

 

I remain hopeful that someone other than yourself is as creative as you are...

 

All the best,

 

Norwin

[bill_murray]

I shoot Dng with b&w Jpegs in my camera, and in LR general preferences check the option to import / treat jpegs next to raw dng files as separate photo's. Having imported both Dng and Jpeg, in LR's develop module, I apply auto WB to the b&w jpeg, which renders most jpegs in what is to my eye, using my imac, a pleasing to the eye initial image. Beyond this simple advice, I would choose a small set of photos to apply a wide range of settings changes to - each change can be undone with a reset with no permanent alteration to the original shot - and it takes time and perserverance - until you discover which settings gently applied render the images as pleasing to your eyes, on your monitor.

[MSUSpartan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi -

 

 

Isn't it interesting, Andy, that of the several dozen other M9 users who had also viewed this thread, not one, except for yourself, had any thing further to add or recommend...

 

 

Or they just don't want to share their personal styles. Post processing is a lot of what the final product looks like, and I'm sure that most people out there don't want to share that proprietary information with anyone.

 

There are a lot of free presets out there, I suggest downloading some and see how they impact your final image.

[Keith (M)]

Having just installed LR 3.2 and never having previously used LR at all, I am obviously not able to offer info on presets - but I shall certainly be following this thread!

[adan]

I'm sure that most people out there don't want to share that proprietary information with anyone.

 

The cynical side of me thinks that (sadly) perhaps you're right.

 

The REALLY cynical side of me figures that those silly enough to think software settings are what give them a creative or competitive edge - are no competitive threat whatsoever.

 

It's the software settings behind the eyes that will determine who will be in the photo history books of 2050, not the software settings on the computer.

 

Ansel Adams wrote whole books explaining what he did in the darkroom - serene in the knowledge that no matter how many people copied his techniques, only an insignificant few would be able to match his "vision" (and he welcomed those).

[stunsworth]

I don't have a standard processing preset. Every image is different and treated as such. The only common processing is that all the black and white shots are processed in Alien Skin Exposure, usually using a variant of the tri-x or acros preset.

[jaapv]

I agree, Andy. Still, I'll copy/paste a post of mine in another thread:

 

I strongly recommend the following book:

 

'Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom' by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe. Contrary to the title, it addresses noise reduction equally.

[coup de foudre]

i'm following this with interest, mostly because i just got to spend a very dark and rainy night with the M9 for the first time and i think i got the bug

 

mostly the joy of seeing my lenses full frame, but also the beautiful dither on the noise (i under-exposed quite a bit, even with the Nocti as it was truly that dark) yet the details remained. it thrilled me to no end!

 

i was perfectly happy using Jamie Robert's profiles for the M8 in Capture One but realise that i'll probably play with LR3 if (when) i get the M9.

 

if somebody asked me to share my processing, those profiles would be my number one tip in C1... after that, every image is tweaked differently because i merely use the program to process RAW.

 

CS3 is where i do my creative work and likely will stay that way. i have been asked numerous times how i process my images to b/w (almost all of them) and people think i'm cranky or pompous or secretive when i don't share -- but i can't -- every image is different!

 

sometimes i use Nik, sometimes Alien Skin, sometimes Actions, sometimes i do it manually, etc. for the conversions. i have welcomed people to watch me and get asked why i chose to do this or that and i can't answer... it's instinct and knowing what i want the image the image to look like. i saw it in my mind a certain way when i took it and that is what i try to replicate.

 

i think Andy got it right -- it is all about vision.

[Per P.]

I agree, Andy. Still, I'll copy/paste a post of mine in another thread:

 

I strongly recommend the following book:

 

'Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom' by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe. Contrary to the title, it addresses noise reduction equally.

 

Thanks for the link Jaap - one more for the wishlist. But let me ask how much sharpening people are applying to standard ISO 160/320 pictures?

 

ADAN implies zero or very little. But I get the impression sharpening is then added in Photoshop. I vaguely remember an old LFI article praising the natural looks of zero sharpening and noise reduction. But that was in the M8 and Lightroom 2 days....

 

I have experimented back and forth in LR3 and am undecided on conclusions. So it would be great to hear some viewpoints

[cfritze]

On why (at first) there were few responses to the original poster - I suspect many of us feel a little at sea with all the possible modifications available in LR3. And even before one starts making changes, what's the goal for any mods, approaching verisimilitude with the real subject or matching a particular vision of the photographer? This leads to very different types of presets.

 

On sharpening, I do moderate sharpening in LR3 (25/0.8/40 for fine detail, 15/1.4/35 for faces), but even if you prefer e untreated look, another component of sharpening as described in the book noted above is related to the size of your final output size. Without some additional sharpening as you output to smaller than full resolution, your final image will look less sharp than what you see in your 100% preview in LR3. For low ISO images I too leave luminance and color NR off.

[adan]

For the record, I should say that I actually use Adobe Camera Raw by preference - but the custom defaults I mentioned are the same for both ACR and the developing portion of LR3.

[menos I M6]

I am a full "Lightroom person" - I used Lightroom, after finding out, that ACDSee is not going to cut it for keeping track of my files, when Lr was still at version 1.x.

When going deeper into photography, I started also, to use the excellent, simple controls of Lr, to do the PP.

 

I then tried and scrapped all of the plugins and extra programs, although in a while, they gave better results for a certain specific task over Lr (note Noise Ninja or NIK Dfine here) - until the mighty Lr version 3 came onto the market.

 

I now use only Lr for 99% of PP and printing or web and only 1% of really difficult PP of my digital files.

I still use VueScan, to convert my Nikon RAW files from reproducing my film negatives into inverted tiff files and treat them afterwards as digital camera files in Lightroom.

 

In Lightroom, I usually do this:

 

1) Import without any import settings, except attaching EXIF data (creator, mail address, copyright info, etc, maybe already some keywording in a batch).

 

2) Correcting WB, blown highlights, exposure

 

3) convert to B&W

 

4) adjusting curve and black point to my liking

 

5) adding vignetting on some shots

 

6) sharpen with little noise reduction on high ISO shots

 

I loved the output of silverefx pro, but really hated the hassle and HDD blow up, it produces, so I now try, to do everything inside Lightroom.

It can be done, but as with every powerful tool, you have to experiment and fine YOUR style and an eye, to get, where you want to.

You can get lost in settings in the beginning, so always stick to simple is better!

 

I still try to entirely prevent ISO 2500 with my M8.2, as it still gives me unacceptable results, when underexposing still.

It also has so little DR, that you quickly blow highlights, where it is mostly better, to just switch to the film camera or shoot at lower ISO.

 

I shoot my M8.2 parallel to my M7 with pushed TriX.

 

I recently experiment with Fuji Neopan 400, which I shoot as my TriX @ ISO 3200 and found the outcome maybe having an edge to TriX - there always will be film for me, as long, as Leica doesn't produce the Nikon D3 of rangefinder cameras.

 

Lightroom 3 has immensely improved high ISO with the M8.2, it is still not satisfying, if you shoot a D3 still.

 

I have to say, it really is true, that sharing ones recipe - even in great detail - about PP, it doesn't enable others, to come up, with, what you do.

 

I have greatly benefitted from people, sharing their knowledge over the net during the last 3 years of photography - getting a tip once in a while is really helping ;-)