# Do you use lens correction profiles when processing raw files or not with LR4



## RayValdez360 (Mar 15, 2013)

Lightroom 4. I have been using raws all the time now and I finally checked the lens correction button and I noticed my images getting brighter and stretched (undistorted?) I mainly shoot in clubs and some portraits. I honestly didn't noticed the pincushion effect but now that I know about it I am wondering if my images might be better in the long run if I correct them. I use a 24-70. I get slight pincushion on the long end. SOmeone help me thanks....


----------



## brianboru (Mar 15, 2013)

As "privatebydesign" mentioned, it's a style choice. Obviously any transformation like distortion removal has the potential to soften detail to some extent as new pixels are being interpreted to allow for the correction. The great thing with LR is that it's non destructive to your original so that if you decide in the future you need a version where ultimate sharpness is more important than distortion correction, you can undo it or create a new virtual copy without it.

Of note are the sliders at the bottom of the "Lens Corrections" pane where you can adjust the "Amount" to which the profile corrections are applied, so you can even find your own middle ground if you want.


----------



## dstppy (Mar 15, 2013)

I always use it, especially since going FF. Depends how distorted the lens ends up being though. My 200mm on crop seems to never need it . . .


----------



## sdsr (Mar 15, 2013)

I always use it, though I sometimes partially (or completely) undo the vignette "correction" (I never undo the distortion corrections); of course, sometimes the corrections make almost no visible difference.


----------



## distant.star (Mar 15, 2013)

.
I use it most of the time. Once you know exactly what is affected by the "correction" in each lens, you can make a decision picture by picture. Many people I know will make it part of an auto preference, probably smarter so you can undo it for a particular picture.

There are times when I've had to just go manual and use the lens corrections manually instead of the profile -- usually with really wide architectural stuff where lines are badly bowed.

Anyway, it's fun to play with either way.


----------



## Skirball (Mar 15, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> For me it depends on the images. For all my real estate work I use it, it is a no brainer and as you say, once you see corrected files all else can seem way off.



+1

I didn't start using it until processing RE work, and it made me regret not doing it sooner; the difference is night and day. I set up LR4 to auto-correct on import, but found that I didn't necessarily like it on less structured type of photography so I removed it and just batch correct when I import from an RE shoot.


----------



## wayno (Mar 15, 2013)

Virtually always but for some prime portraits, I like to leave it. However if cropping is involved, I'll apply then add the vignette back in via postcrop vignette.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 15, 2013)

Of course depends on the image...but more often than not I prefer not to correct at a global "lens profile" level. I find it to be a bit too much.

As I mostly shoot lower focal lengths - rarely straying over 135mm - I like a bit of the barrel distortion left behind when using these lenses. It gives the pictures a very mild 3D effect, I realize this may not be a preference for others...thats why we are all individuals. 

I also like for the vignetting not to be completely removed...but this is more of a shot-by-shot decision. Sometimes I even add a bit more vignetting for effect. Broadly speaking, the default profile corrections are a tad too aggressive for my personal tastes.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2013)

If I shot brick walls head on, I would. If I shot a lot of portraits where barrel distortion would create an unflattering look, I probably would. If I was using a lens with bad CA that showed up clearly in my photographs, I would.

For the most part, I don't find distortion or CA is ever a problem in my work, so I don't ever correct it. One way or another, lens correction diminishes detail, and maximizing detail is the most important thing for me. I'm happy to deal with invisible distortions and microscopic CA halos at the fringes of a landscape photo. Even though it may not be technically correct according to how the real world looked, you don't actually notice the difference until you toggle the correction on and off. In my bird and wildlife stuff, I've never noticed either to really be a problem except in a very few cases with CA.

As for vignetting, I actually like that as an artistic factor a lot of the time. I've never corrected it even once, but then again, I never really see it as I use APS-C. I guess if I picked up FF and experienced it more, I might correct it at times...depends on whether it has artistic appeal.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm kind of in the jrista camp on this. 

If I'm shooting a wide angle it's usually because I want the wide angle "look." If I were shooting interiors for clients like privatebydesign, it would be a different story.

I do use the vignetting, but usually to make it worse not better. And I do try to correct for chromatic aberration, but usually find the custom corrections work better than the lens profiles.


----------



## stoneysnapper (Mar 15, 2013)

I use it every time I remember too! I don't change lenses to often when I am out and about so its pretty much a click to correct then syncing across all the images, takes seconds and worth it in my opinion.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 15, 2013)

I am testing it now. I guess I will stick with it but I will manually adjust the vignetting if I think it is needed to make a pic better to me. Thanks for the help.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 15, 2013)

I work mostly with people and use a range of lenses from 24mm on up to 200mm and I can say from firsthand experience that no amount of lens profile correction is going to deliver normalcy to faces if the photographer takes a shot too close with, say, a common lens like the 35L. 

The first firewall is to take the shot keeping in mind the distortion, and to a lesser degree, the vignetting aspects of the lens you are using. Staying with the 35mm...unless you are going for a more distorted look for artistic reasons, to accentuate scale, or bring attention to an odd earring, step back a little for a more normal perspective. 

If you don't want too much of the background, then avoid using the 35mm: getting closer is not the most practical answer to this problem. If you absolutely must use the 35mm, then step back to get a wider, less distorted shot and crop later...cropping is not a sin. If you can, use a 50mm or a 85mm... in other words use the right lens and take the shot at the appropriate distance depending on what you are going for.

Lens profile is not a panacea and will never produce an accurate looking face from a distorted original.


----------



## jrista (Mar 15, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't get sidetracked, perspective is nothing to do with lens distortion.
> 
> Perspective is where you take the image from, it has nothing to do with focal length.
> 
> ...



I would dispute the notion that perspective has nothing to do with focal length. I know a number of wedding, event, and portrait photographers, most of whom are professionals. Every single one of them frequently describes the "perspective" a lens like 70-200 offers, particularly at 200mm, that a 50 or 35 does not. That is thanks to background compression, which is a benefit of using lenses longer than 50mm. Technically speaking, all lenses of any focal length offer a certain perspective. A 50mm on FF gives you a "normal" perspective, akin to what the human eye offers. Longer lenses than the "normal" for a given form factor give you a compressed perspective. Shorter lenses than the "normal" give you an expanded perspective.

Perspective is NOT just about the relative positions of subjects thanks to the position of the photographer relative to the subject. It also has to do with how the lens affects the angle of view FOR those positions.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 15, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't get sidetracked, perspective is nothing to do with lens distortion.
> 
> Perspective is where you take the image from, it has nothing to do with focal length.



No...if you get too close with 35L calling that perspective is not accurate... It is _not_ foreshortening in the traditional sense...there is actual bending of lines, minimal as it is....that is distortion to me...but I take your point. 

The "inherent" distortion from optimal distances is not that bad with 35L at ~1.5%...85L II at ~1% and 135L only ~0.5%.


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 15, 2013)

I just bought a 16-35 II and I it really does depend on the image and what the inbuilt correction can do for it. 
On a lot of images I find myself going with the correction but letting the vignette largely remain as is adds to the framing.


----------



## scott_m (Mar 15, 2013)

Not normally - because sometimes they don't work the way they are supposed to (or are not as effective).

I do however use the similar feature in DPP, which works amazingly well and had the added benefit of separating curvilinear distortion from all other corrections. This is a big deal because correcting CA *improves* detail in an image (it is one of the few truly non-destructive corrections) but distortion correction is always going to be stretching and/or squeezing pixels somewhere in the image, resulting in interpolation and less detail, and/or the appearance of strange artifacts. In many images that don't involve architecture, a bit of distortion can go unnoticed so I'd (personally) rather keep the detail. YMMV.

As nothed elsewhere in this thread, you can use the sliders in Lr to back off on the distortion correction but some changes are "baked in" (like where you see things far from the edges of the frame change size) so the ability to treat them separately (like DPP, which still has a few bugs) is limited. 

Scott


----------



## yablonsky (Mar 16, 2013)

I started to use the correction profiles for the first time with my 24-70 II in Adobe Camera Raw. Since vignetting is very strong here. I now use both distortion and vignetting correction at 100%. The result is ok.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 16, 2013)

I only use lens corrections in critical situations where lines should be straight, such as horizons etc. I however use it sparingly because it messes with the original composition ie what I saw through the viewfinder no longer matches the processed result.

I've only just installed LR4 because I need something to process the raws from my Sony Nex. Sony Image Data Converter is unworkably slow, so I had to find something else.

The 16-50 Sony lens heavily distorts and depends on post-processing to correct it. The camera already does that on the fly and so you see the undistorted picture when taking photos (and the correction is applied to the jpg's but not the raws obviously). LR seems to be doing a pretty good job of it, but I miss the automatic NR functionality from DPP.

So, does anybody know if its possible in LR to automatically apply different levels of NR depending on ISO used?


----------



## Simon_X_George (Mar 16, 2013)

Simple answer is I use it all the time, esp. for my Sigma 8-16 where it is particularly effective. I've not really seen any reason not to use it TBH


----------



## 2n10 (Mar 16, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I only use lens corrections in critical situations where lines should be straight, such as horizons etc. I however use it sparingly because it messes with the original composition ie what I saw through the viewfinder no longer matches the processed result.
> 
> I've only just installed LR4 because I need something to process the raws from my Sony Nex. Sony Image Data Converter is unworkably slow, so I had to find something else.
> 
> ...



I think you need to do it manually.


----------



## 2n10 (Mar 16, 2013)

Yes I use them in all of my PP.


----------



## cocopop05 (Mar 16, 2013)

I use it generally, but if I have important features near the edge or corners, I find it distorts those things too much, then I will not use lens correction.


----------



## Apop (Mar 16, 2013)

I used to use them when i had the nikon 200-400

But now i have the canon 500mm f4 IS, and there is no such profile in LR4 

I am not experienced enough to make my own profiles, and have not yet made the effort to see if others are offering them.

Even though the 500 has less 'flaws' than the 200-400, I would still like a lens profile


----------



## RGF (Mar 16, 2013)

Yes 90+% of the time. LR4 is lacking a profile for the canon500 f4 so I use the 600mm F4 profile. Using profiles only has a small impact, but small impacts can add up


----------



## RayValdez360 (Mar 16, 2013)

SO What i get from all this is to use it if you need lines to be straight in an image, don't use it if detail is the most important factor because it softens or makes it less detailed(even though no one provides visual examples), don't use it if it messes with the composition too much ( if that is important.) Vignetting is totally optional.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 16, 2013)

RayValdez360 said:


> SO What i get from all this is to use it if you need lines to be straight in an image, don't use it if detail is the most important factor because it softens or makes it less detailed(even though no one provides visual examples), don't use it if it messes with the composition too much ( if that is important.) Vignetting is totally optional.



That's how I go about it. Remember, there are no set rules in photography


----------



## Dim (Mar 17, 2013)

Always use. I wrote it to defaults in LR4. And Camera Calibration for colours.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > "So, does anybody know if its possible in LR to automatically apply different levels of NR depending on ISO used? "
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, you can set default develop settings to any camera model and iso combination. First go into Lightroom: Preferences: and tick the Make defaults specific to camera ISO setting box, then go into the develop module and develop one image at the specific iso in the way you would want every image shot at that iso with that camera adjusted, then go to the Develop sub menu, not the module button, under Develop click the Set Default Settings, you then get a dialogue box that sounds a bit sinister but it tells you what it is creating, all images shot with that model camera and iso will, by default, get the current develop setting applied. They are of course, completely reversible.



Wow, thank you very much! This is very cool indeed  I also ticked the 'make defaults specific to camera serial number' option so I can distinguish between my camera's. I'm really happy now - still have to decide on the levels of NR I require though. Maybe I can have a peek at the default settings in DPP for each iso to get something to work from.


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2013)

RayValdez360 said:


> Lightroom 4. I have been using raws all the time now and I finally checked the lens correction button and I noticed my images getting brighter and stretched (undistorted?) I mainly shoot in clubs and some portraits. I honestly didn't noticed the pincushion effect but now that I know about it I am wondering if my images might be better in the long run if I correct them. I use a 24-70. I get slight pincushion on the long end. SOmeone help me thanks....



Hell yes....on every single file. Automated so I never have to think about it. 
This is one of the gold plated functions of LR as far as I'm concerned.

-PW


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

I find lens correction can make some portraits less flattering if pincushion is removed from the long axis in portrait orientation but will benefit if its a horrizontal format.
so i usually leave lens correction off uless i want it then just click it if i think it will help sometimes its good sometimes not. I definately dont have it applied to everything


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> i usually leave lens correction off uless i want it then just click it if i think it will help sometimes its good sometimes not. I definately dont have it applied to everything


+1


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You are welcome, I was out shooting but was amazed nobody jumped in with an answer for that, Lightroom is so powerful and considering the amount some people here shoot, literally thousands of images per shoot, I'd expect a robust preset strategy to be basic necessity and a huge time saver.
> 
> I only find the serial number setting useful when shooting with different bodies of the same model and their exposures are out compared to each other, then a basic exposure preset will even everything out.



I'm well under way now, I've enabled luminance NR at a fixed ratio, ie iso 400=8, 800=16, 1600=32 etc. The noise on the Nex 6 is quite nice, looks a lot like film grain so I'm not bothered with adjusting color noise.

However to set NR I need sample images at each iso - an inconvenience to say the least. I haven't been able to find a settings file where I could define this, such a shame because it's easy to miss out on NR settings for intermediate iso's this way. I don't suppose you know if this can be configured by editing a settings file by any chance?


----------



## fyngyrz (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm not buying another "fast" wide angle lens until a manufacturer can offer me near-zero coma and near-zero CA. My Sigma 35mm f/1.4 was a *horror* in this regard at f/1.4; the only useful portion of an astro image was perhaps 10% (at most) near the center. And if a lens can't shoot cleanly at f/1.4, I don't think they ought to advertise it as such. My Sigma 35mm was only useful at f/2.8 and above. At 1.4 it was a joke.

As consumers, we've been far too forgiving of these horribly distorted lens designs. Here's hoping the manufacturers are listening.


----------

