NEF + Lightroom 2 + Active D-Lighting

Sorry Nina, LR doesn't read your camera settings, except WB. Now Adobe has some camera profiles that you can download and it seems that if you use them LR gets a better interpretation of the files from your camera but can't read the settings.

I used to feel like you. I started by using LR and I used to love it. I still think it is great. But I could never set it up in way that I would like the way my RAW files came out from my camera. Then I tried Aperture 2 and finally Capture NX2. Now I do everything on Capture and I am really happy with the results. It might take a while to get used to it because is not as easy to operate as LR but once you get used to it it is not that hard. Maybe it takes a bit more time, that is all. Good luck! Rene'

PS. I keep ADL off in my camera and I only use it from Capture when I need it.

Essentially Adobe Camera RAW simply ignores any Active D Lighting settings you might have in your NEF files. Only Nikon's own RAW converters will take it into account.

I am never that excited about Nikon's software, although I haven't used NX2 much. So I mainly depend on Adobe software to convert my NEF files. If I need to bring out shadow details, I do that myself in post processing. Why let Nikon's software determine that for you? They have no idea what my preferences are.

Shun... "If I need to bring out shadow details, I do that myself in post processing. Why let Nikon's software determine that for you?"

You can adjust the setting anyway you like. Nikon software only gives you a good starting point so I don't think it is really doing everything for you without knowing your preferences. Also, depending on the person, like me, it is much easier to use NX that PS coz I don't have enough knowledge on how PS works since it is a much sophisticated software.

hmm, so basically ADL is only there to appease JPEG users?

grr.

Shun, you might know better than anyone, does ADL affect exposure at all? If it does, would you recommend keeping it on? What do you do?

thanks for the help!

I have tried it a few times on auto D-light and it seemd nice, not overdone. Unfortunately I can not remember if it carried to photoshop with a raw file. I tend to think that the file is changed and not written to the card as a contrasty file with extra data you need NX to read. I do know the D-Lighting on my D40 alters the file and it carries to photoshop.

I believe the exposure is changed to favor the shadows and the highlights are depressed. If this is true, you can not do the same thing in photoshop.

Try it out as it is free. Now I have some more testing to do. Darn.

It happens that I was experimenting with Active D Lighting yesterday, shooting RAW + JPEG fine on the D700 since I knew that it wasn't going to affect my RAW file. I set the ADL level to high, and it does a pretty good job. I was using manual exposure at 1/40 sec, f8 at ISO 200.

Again, since I use Adobe Camera RAW to process my NEF files, ADL is pretty much a useless feature to me and I typically just switch it off. Therefore, my experience with it is quite limited.

"Now, i know that with Capture NX, you can turn ADL on and off directly from the NEF file.

No, you cannot. You can turn off standard D-Lighting, but not the effect of Active D-lighting. The two are different. Standard D-Lighting is what I'd call a a soft application. Active D-lighting, as it is applied on the sensor on a localized pixel by pixel basis at the very start of the signal going from photo-site to the rest of the in-camera process, is a hard process. Even when you shoot NEFs.

"My first question is, when an NEF (with ADL on during capture) is imported into Lightroom, does Lr discard the ADL info, or try to interpret and integrate it?'

As it is integral to the data Lightroom doesn't even know that it was applied in camera, but nor does it ignore it like it does other optional camera processing suggestions like vivid, color space, etc. It is as integral to the photo as exposure settings are. It is just there.

"Second question being, if I'm using Lr as my main processing program, is it work shooting with ADL on? Or should i not bother with it?"

Having shot tens of thousands of D300, D3 and D700 frames using different Active Lighting settings, you should bother with it. But you have to understand which Active D-Lighting setting is going to work best in different situations.

"I've read that ADL adjusts exposure at time of capture, so it might be good to keep it on, but will those effects be seen in Lr?"

Again, the answer is yes.

It obviously does not affect RAW-files in manual exposure, since one if its tricks is to slightly lower exposure to take care of highlights. But then it needs to be given the chance. But then, since it does, some of its effect will obviously be carried over into the RAW-file.

According to documentation, it is an exposure adjustment performed locally, i.e., lightening shadows and saving highlights, while retaining midtone contrast. From what I understand, this ought to affect RAW-files as well, since it affects exposure. It should not be confused, however, with D-lighting (non-Active so to speak) which is a post-capture thing.

There seems to be major confusion on the 'net about what ADL really does, and I'm not sure I know it all. But it does lower exposure - at least in automatic modes - and therefore does affect RAW-files.

The thing is that even though I used manual exposure, Active D Lighting did affect my JPEG files. Apparently there is indeed local exposure adjustments, thus brightending the dark areas. On purpose, I tested it in a very difficult lighting condition shown above.

I should also point out that engaging Active D Lighting affects the available frame count in the buffer. I use 14-bit lossless compressed RAW on the D700, and the buffer can hold 16 frames. If I engage Active D Lighting, it drops to 13 frames. To me, that is a fairly major downside for action photography.

Don't even bother to read my gobbledygook. Ellis' comment hits the nail - read it! :-)

I just went back and re-read Thom Hogan's D700 eBook. You might think since I proof-read Hogan's D300, D3 and D700 eBooks, I should have known better to begin with. I apologize if some of the information I posted above is inaccurate.

According to Hogan, Active D Lighting essentially underexposes the images a little. I just verified that ADL low under-exposes the image by 1/3 stop and ADL high under-exposes it by 2/3 stop, exactly as Hogan points out. Furthermore, RAW converters other than Nikon Capture NX2 are not necessarily able to compensate for the intentional under-exposure and therefore he does not recommend using ADL unless you use NX2. Otherwise, you might risk under-exposing in general and thus increasing noise. Overall Hogan is not that excited about ADL.

While I certainly respect Ellis opinions, given that there are such drastically different opinions among experts, I suggest you make your own tests to determine whether ADL is something you should use.

wow! Thanks so much Shun, Ellis and Mats for your contribution. It seems as though this topic is rarely touched upon, and pretty much a user based preference. Tomorrow, i'm going to do some testing of my own, and let you know what i scrounge up from the Lr foundry :)

Thanks again!

ADL is a pointless marketing gimmick unless you shoot jpeg. If you want to preserve highlight detail than just underexpose your image by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. It will do the same thing. ADL doesn't do anything to a RAW image that you can't do in post. However, if you are a photo journalist only shooting jpeg and are subitting to your client live via satalite, you obviously don't have time to plug your 1000+ RAW images through NX 2 or Lightroom and apply ADL corrections. If your camera can apply these settings for you and append them to a jpeg file than you have just saved hours of work. I repeat, ADL DOES NOT give your RAW files more dinamic range. That is impossoble. If you decrease exposure than you will gain highlight detail at the expense of shadow detail and vise versa. If Nikon had the technology to make two exposures, one for the highlights and one for the shadows and apply them to the image instantaliously, then they would have made a miraculous technological achievement and it would be marketed as such. Can you emagnine how amazing it would be for a camera to be able to capture in HDR (high dynamic range). Sorry, you can only achive HDR in photoshop my merging serveral different exposures of the same image taken with a tripod. If you shoot RAW than you can turn ADL on or off because it wont make any difference. However, if you shoot JPEG than it will make a world of difference what setting you leave it on becase the camera is going to convert the image into the contrast range you have selected. Just like if you had your jpegs set to vivid or black and white. That's how your jpegs will be developed and you can't reverse the changes. The very definition of a RAW file is that it doen't have any processing applied to it. Thereofore it is the most versitile. You can process it however you like. The only downsides are speed and file size.