Auto setting in Lightroom

W

wooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,171
Edit My Images
Yes
Man, just when I feel I’m getting somewhere with editing pictures I find the auto button in Lightroom ( well, I knew it was there but had ignored it ) and it makes all these crazy - looking adjustments I’d never imagine doing and the picture changes into an amazing starting place to edit, often needing the most minor of tweaks to account for personal taste or particular subject needs.

This is a depressing state of affairs. Tell me I’m not alone
 
Last edited:
I find it really depends on the image.

I'll usually press the auto button just to see what it does. Sometimes I'll go from there and others I undo it and do my own things.
Remember that the auto setting is only affecting global adjustments and more often than not it's best to edit an image using mostly local adjustments.
 
Last edited:
I find that Auto generally far overedits images; particularly in white point, blackpoint, and saturation. But I suppose it can be useful to give you an idea/starting point... I never use it; and I also never use presets (other than default import settings).
 
LOL. Fair enough. I never used it until the other day myself. I guess I’m just puzzled because it uses sliders in ways I’d never have considered
 
I bought an ipad a couple of years ago specifically for photo editing and encountered some issues when comparing what I saw on it's screen vs what I saw when viewed on other screens which made me question my editing. In the process I noticed the "Auto" button and now have it set to be applied when first importing into Lightroom, mainly so that I can immediately see the potential an image has. I then usually reset any photo I'm working on and do it my own way but at the end I click Auto again to see which I prefer. If I prefer my edit then I undo the last command so I'm back to my own edit.

I have also found that after I export from Lightroom into the photos app and again click "Auto", again it often improves my image.

But I have to say I really don't like using "Auto" as it feels less like my own image compared to when I have done the processing myself.
 
Like Steven, I find the auto usually overdoes it. I pretty much ignore now.
 
I often use it as the first step, if I don't like the outcome I can easily undo it but for normally lit shots it can give a good starting point.
 
In LR5 the auto setting was horrible, everything on 11 with no sense of taste or direction. In LrC it's pretty usable, and not necessarily a bad place to start for global adjustments.
 
wooster said:
o Man, just when I feel I’m getting somewhere with editing pictures I find the auto button in Lightroom ( well, I knew it was there but had ignored it ) and it makes all these crazy - looking adjustments I’d never imagine doing and the picture changes into an amazing starting place to edit, often needing the most minor of tweaks to account for personal taste or particular subject needs.

This is a depressing state of affairs. Tell me I’m not alone
Click to expand...
I find that Auto with the default Adobe Color profile to be too contrasty and saturated for my tastes. The Adobe Neutral plus auto is better, but I'm still not fond of it.

But I prefer to start with a flat image and add contrast and saturation rather than trying to take it away, and I use a linear profile as my starting point, where the auto button can often quickly get m to a reasonable starting point if I want something quickly.

P.S. LR doesn't offer a Linear profile you need to create one and import it into LR, but most people seem to prefer starting with something closer to the final image than the linar profile gives you.
 
myotis said:
I find that Auto with the default Adobe Color profile to be too contrasty and saturated for my tastes. The Adobe Neutral plus auto is better, but I'm still not fond of it.

But I prefer to start with a flat image and add contrast and saturation rather than trying to take it away, and I use a linear profile as my starting point, where the auto button can often quickly get m to a reasonable starting point if I want something quickly.

P.S. LR doesn't offer a Linear profile you need to create one and import it into LR, but most people seem to prefer starting with something closer to the final image than the linar profile gives you.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the Adobe Colour profile either.

I'll usually apply a camera Neutral on import and have also recently started using a Linear profile as a starting point. A Linear profile take a bit more work so I tend to reserve that process to images I think are worth the time.
 
ecoleman said:
I'm not a fan of the Adobe Colour profile either.

I'll usually apply a camera Neutral on import and have also recently started using a Linear profile as a starting point. A Linear profile take a bit more work so I tend to reserve that process to images I think are worth the time.
Click to expand...
Although, I don't really use LR (I use the native linear profiles in Capture One) in my many attempts to like LR, I created Linear profiles using the Adobe software that I can't remember the name of, and then added a custom curve in PS before saving it as a LUT, that I used to create profiles in LR which are saved as presets. I did this for all my cameras, and the preset is applied on import. (actually I can't remember exactly what I did, since it was a long time ago)

This customised profiles make a tiny tweak to the shadows and highlights as well as lifting the mid tones a little. It's still a flat unsaturated starting point, but the tweaks make it easier to assess the images on import.

Although, I always start with some sort of linear profile, I get the impression that most people reserve it for bringing high contrast images under control. I do it the other way round, and switch to a "standard" profile when the image is particularly flat, and feel this will save me work.
 
myotis said:
Although, I always start with some sort of linear profile, I get the impression that most people reserve it for bringing high contrast images under control. I do it the other way round, and switch to a "standard" profile when the image is particularly flat, and feel this will save me work.
Click to expand...
That's my approach too.
 
It's all about having control, surely. Certain things in-camera can be left to auto (albeit with override options). But at the processing stage, don't you want to be in charge of the product? Which in my book is largely to do with tones, even on a global level, and how you distribute them within the picture. Because the tonal distribution affects the emotional import (meaning) of the final image. Which is something that you create.

Often, I'll revisit an image, process it differently, and produce a quite different product from the same material.

A benefit of modern tech that I appreciate is that the raws ex camera can be very tonally malleable.

Use the tech, don't be used by it.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
It's all about having control, surely. Certain things in-camera can be left to auto (albeit with override options). But at the processing stage, don't you want to be in charge of the product? Which in my book is largely to do with tones, even on a global level, and how you distribute them within the picture. Because the tonal distribution affects the emotional import (meaning) of the final image. Which is something that you create.

Often, I'll revisit an image, process it differently, and produce a quite different product from the same material.

A benefit of modern tech that I appreciate is that the raws ex camera can be very tonally malleable.

Use the tech, don't be used by it.
Click to expand...

In the days of film, many excellent photographers would take their images to a specialist printer. Sometimes they would provide guidance for what they wanted, sometimes they would trust him to make the right choices. Using auto and then tweaking a little after seems very much like that.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In the days of film, many excellent photographers would take their images to a specialist printer. Sometimes they would provide guidance for what they wanted, sometimes they would trust him to make the right choices. Using auto and then tweaking a little after seems very much like that.
Click to expand...
For me I think using auto is pretty well the opposite of using a specialist printer. Auto is the program making some technical tweaks based on some simplistic scientific measurements of the file data.

Using a specialist printer brings a high level of expertise (both technical and creative) into the process.

Printers get to know what their photographers like and want from their prints, and can suggest different ways of making a final print including the choice of paper and toning. One of the reasons for using a specialist printer is because they have the skills to make prints that better match the photographer's vision than the photographer has, But it needs them to work together to fully exploit what they can each contribute to the final print.

With digital we have a similar situation with professional retouchers, where a relationship develops between the photographer and their retoucher.
 
myotis said:
For me I think using auto is pretty well the opposite of using a specialist printer. Auto is the program making some technical tweaks based on some simplistic scientific measurements of the file data.
Click to expand...

I was contrasting those who did it themselves with those who didn't, rather than commenting on the quality of output. There were also a great many that were happy to go to Boots for enprints.
 
I found AUTO was great for giving me ideas in my early days of using LR, and if I'm ever 'stuck' I use it for inspiration - though I've never kept the settings exactly as it suggests

I have a lot of presets too - yes - ones I actually bought !!! And I use them sometimes for the same reason - though again I don't think I've ever just applied one without significant changes

So I'm really with Gary (above me) in just trying it, if it works, it works - no harm done, no photography rules broken

In shooting I use AP most of the time too - though I know many think that's a sin :D
 
ancient_mariner said:
I was contrasting those who did it themselves with those who didn't, rather than commenting on the quality of output. There were also a great many that were happy to go to Boots for enprints.
Click to expand...
Ah, I obviously read something different into the the words "excellent" and "specialist" .
 
Interesting as I never knew there was one! Took me a good few minutes to find it, thanks.
 
Dave Goodier said:
In shooting I use AP most of the time too
Click to expand...
Me too - BUT with a suitable camera I override it freely & often, with the rear control wheel set to exposure comp and whilst looking at the histogram.
 
droj said:
Me too - BUT with a suitable camera I override it freely & often, with the rear control wheel set to exposure comp and whilst looking at the histogram.
Click to expand...

Yeah exp comp is my go-to too

I do ignore the Histogram though, much preferring to rely on 'Blinkies' to set exposure close to blowing that way as, unlike a Histogram, it shows you where any overexposure is so you can decide if it matters or not :)
 
Dave Goodier said:
I do ignore the Histogram though, much preferring to rely on 'Blinkies' to set exposure close to blowing that way as, unlike a Histogram, it shows you where any overexposure is so you can decide if it matters or not :)
Click to expand...
And there we differ - I'd find blinkies too annoying, so just depend on my own visual assessment of the scene & factor that into my histogram interpretation.
 
droj said:
And there we differ - I'd find blinkies too annoying, so just depend on my own visual assessment of the scene & factor that into my histogram interpretation.
Click to expand...

And there we do indeed lol - I NEVER use the Histograms as I find them pointless

Looks like there's more than one way to skin this moggy lol
 
The histogram should be showing what your eyes are already telling you, mostly.
 
droj said:
so just depend on my own visual assessment
Click to expand...
Jeez... I pretty much ignore everything except for composition and focus.
There's the occasional image review to make sure I don't need to change my settings, and maybe when the situation/scene changes significantly; but other than that...
 
I suppose what I was really trying to get at wasn't so much whether it was better to use auto or not ( as I said in my OP - I was experimenting with Auto then tweaking manually ) but how the auto button triggered all these weird and wonderful slider adjustments that I'd never consider and yet still come up with a pretty good starting point. Of course, how much tweaking it will need will depend on the individual photo situation and characteristics. I was just noting that as far as I can recall, my editing without using auto never involves all the different adjustments auto makes to start with and I'd have no idea how to use them.
 
wooster said:
I suppose what I was really trying to get at wasn't so much whether it was better to use auto or not ( as I said in my OP - I was experimenting with Auto then tweaking manually ) but how the auto button triggered all these weird and wonderful slider adjustments that I'd never consider and yet still come up with a pretty good starting point. Of course, how much tweaking it will need will depend on the individual photo situation and characteristics. I was just noting that as far as I can recall, my editing without using auto never involves all the different adjustments auto makes to start with and I'd have no idea how to use them.
Click to expand...
In spite of the disdain shown by many to presets or styles, I've bought a fair number over the years for similar reasons.

Not because I wasn't already using all the sliders etc, (I've also paid for several online tutorials, and watched many Youtube videos, so was aware of how to use them) but because it was useful to see how particular effects were being achieved from which combinations of adjustments.

Unfortunately, some. like the ones from Ted Forbes (which I was particularly keen to see), were completely useless because they use LUTS and the adjustments being made are hidden.

Recently, I was struggling with a photograph from. misty day of helicopter lowering someone onto a ship at sea. Everything was almost the same tone and I was struggling to get it to look the way I wanted. Eventually, I ran some styles (presets) acoss it and found one that gave just the right amount of tonal separation without losing the feel of the day..

Looking at the settings used by the Style gave me an insight into how it had done this, As I continued with the processing I became aware of which settings removed the tonal separation it had added, and eventually got something close to what I was wanting. I would have probably got there eventually, but using the style speeded up the process.

I don't do this very often, but it's a useful tool to have available, and of course LR has its own set of profiles and presets that you can try out (but the profiles don't show any adjustments so limited as a learning tool)
 
ecoleman said:
I'm not a fan of the Adobe Colour profile either.

I'll usually apply a camera Neutral on import and have also recently started using a Linear profile as a starting point. A Linear profile take a bit more work so I tend to reserve that process to images I think are worth the time.
Click to expand...
Me too (y)
I have Linear Profiles for all my cameras - free from Tony Kyper's website
 
Last edited:
Provided I get the outcome I want, how I get there to me, doesn't really matter. One click Auto or "fiddling" with almost everything.
 
myotis said:
In spite of the disdain shown by many to presets or styles, I've bought a fair number over the years for similar reasons.

Not because I wasn't already using all the sliders etc, (I've also paid for several online tutorials, and watched many Youtube videos, so was aware of how to use them) but because it was useful to see how particular effects were being achieved from which combinations of adjustments.

Unfortunately, some. like the ones from Ted Forbes (which I was particularly keen to see), were completely useless because they use LUTS and the adjustments being made are hidden.

Recently, I was struggling with a photograph from. misty day of helicopter lowering someone onto a ship at sea. Everything was almost the same tone and I was struggling to get it to look the way I wanted. Eventually, I ran some styles (presets) acoss it and found one that gave just the right amount of tonal separation without losing the feel of the day..

Looking at the settings used by the Style gave me an insight into how it had done this, As I continued with the processing I became aware of which settings removed the tonal separation it had added, and eventually got something close to what I was wanting. I would have probably got there eventually, but using the style speeded up the process.

I don't do this very often, but it's a useful tool to have available, and of course LR has its own set of profiles and presets that you can try out (but the profiles don't show any adjustments so limited as a learning tool)
Click to expand...
That’s a really useful way to do it. I’m going to do some of that
 
Whilst AUTO can be a bit OTT, the new (ish) adaptive colour profile, and ability to use an amount slider on the profile, does provide a useful tool for getting some instant pointers in the right direction. It's not bad having these tools in your workshop, the eyes of millions of photographers rolled into 1 ai button to give you a starter for 10, but it is just a button, that can be turned on and back off again.
 
Last edited:
IIRC there was a guy called George Jardine who did a series of tutorials a free years back. I find then to be fantastically useful. I must try and find them
 
wooster said:
Man, just when I feel I’m getting somewhere with editing pictures I find the auto button in Lightroom ( well, I knew it was there but had ignored it ) and it makes all these crazy - looking adjustments I’d never imagine doing and the picture changes into an amazing starting place to edit, often needing the most minor of tweaks to account for personal taste or particular subject needs.

This is a depressing state of affairs. Tell me I’m not alone
Click to expand...
Tough crowd here! Why is it 'depressing'? It's just another tool for us to use.

My import preset is 'Auto' with a bit of dehaze and clarity. I find it hugely enhances the RAW photo with little effort from me - and then I tweak it if I fancy a slightly different effect (usually regarding exposure - which I often want back to the way I took the photo deliberately). I find it does 75% of the job for me before I've even looked at the image to weed out the dross and so on.

No-one has really said to me 'your photos are too this or that' - so I guess for the vast majority of people who see them, they like what they see?
 
Well as I say, it is something I've only just started to use, and I was quite impressed with how far it got me. The "depressing" thing was a tongue in cheek comment about how little I understood what the sliders did because it moved so many of them that I never touch.
 
I think a lot of the time, I don't want my photos to look 'auto' or 'normal'

Quite often I shoot to intentionally over expose for a brighter and more pastel look for example. Other times it might be the opposite and I shoot for a darker moodier final image.

I also use a non standard 'profile' 95% of the time. The other 4% is another non standard profile. And the remaining 1% is 'camera light' which I like for my night sky images.

Auto can be good to learn from I guess. Much like Auto when someone buys their first decent camera. But it's good to press forward and learn new, unique things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top