RAW files look duller?

[sjackal]

I used to shoot in JPEG only, recently started to shoot RAW plus JPEG.

The jpg files allows me to use the images fast and immediately after resizing/cropping if no correction is needed. Thereafter I will just dump the original big jpg file, then keep the raw plus the resized/cropped smaller jpg for web use.

But problem is I noticed the raw files looks very dull. If one day I wanna print the image I will be using the raw file to create into jpg again for th print but if its color is so bad, does it means I had to tweak every raw file back to the vivid colors I want?

I noticed the CS3's Camera Raw is set to AdobeRGB, I changed it to SRGB but it still looks so dull.

What gives? Please kindly advise.

 

[zac08]

I used to shoot in JPEG only, recently started to shoot RAW plus JPEG.

The jpg files allows me to use the images fast and immediately after resizing/cropping if no correction is needed. Thereafter I will just dump the original big jpg file, then keep the raw plus the resized/cropped smaller jpg for web use.

But problem is I noticed the raw files looks very dull. If one day I wanna print the image I will be using the raw file to create into jpg again for th print but if its color is so bad, does it means I had to tweak every raw file back to the vivid colors I want?

I noticed the CS3's Camera Raw is set to AdobeRGB, I changed it to SRGB but it still looks so dull.

What gives? Please kindly advise.

You'd need to edit the pictures and make sure you're on the correct colour space as you have just found out. On the screen, the web is more suited for sRGB. And thus, it's the more popular colourspace used.

Next up, you'd have to play around with contrast, colour balance and also getting a correct exposure. Once these are done right, you'd see that the pic is much better than the JPEG you've been getting.

 

[sjackal]

You'd need to edit the pictures and make sure you're on the correct colour space as you have just found out. On the screen, the web is more suited for sRGB. And thus, it's the more popular colourspace used.

Next up, you'd have to play around with contrast, colour balance and also getting a correct exposure. Once these are done right, you'd see that the pic is much better than the JPEG you've been getting.

The problem is do I have to do it with every single raw pic?

Thats the thing that scares me.

 

[kelccm]

The problem is do I have to do it with every single raw pic?

Thats the thing that scares me.

No pain no gain

Or you can always do a batch processing with some standard tweaks.

 

[zac08]

The problem is do I have to do it with every single raw pic?

Thats the thing that scares me.

YES...

EACH and EVERY one...

I automate mine to a number of steps... so all I have to do is ensure the conversion get's the correct exposure and white balance.

The sharpening, etc is all automated and is done with a press of my F6 button.

 

[lennyl]

What gives? Please kindly advise.

1. How are you viewing the RAW file?

2. If you want processed RAW files to look identical as JPEG out of camera, use Canon's DPP or RIT (Raw Image Task).

Edit : foolishly assumed Canon, sorry, ignore 2nd point. Still, Nikon should have software to process RAW similar to how camera is handling it, right? Try posting two images with description on how you processed the RAW.

 

[Michael]

if you use Nikon Capture NX or the software provided by Canon to convert the RAW files then you will not have these problems, your RAW will look exactly the same as your jpeg, since their softwares are doing the same as the camera does.

However if you use a third party software such as Aperture, CS3 or Lightroom then you will find that the software renders the RAW different from the jpeg. The reason for this is that the programmers do not have access to Nikon/Canon raw conversion methods.
LR2 with the beta version of has some profiles that come much closer to Nikon/Canon conversion....

 

[Octarine]

The problem is do I have to do it with every single raw pic?
Thats the thing that scares me.

Nothing to be scared about. Lightroom and also other professional RAW tools have options where you can apply settings to several pictures (copy your adjustments) once you have developed one picture.

 

[madmacs]

The problem is do I have to do it with every single raw pic?

Thats the thing that scares me.

you can make your adjustments to the raw image, then copy and paste those settings to other images shot under the same lighting conditions. once you have made all the adjustments you can batch process the images. nothing to be scared of. let the computer do the work for you.

 

[sjackal]

1. How are you viewing the RAW file?

2. If you want processed RAW files to look identical as JPEG out of camera, use Canon's DPP or RIT (Raw Image Task).

Edit : foolishly assumed Canon, sorry, ignore 2nd point. Still, Nikon should have software to process RAW similar to how camera is handling it, right? Try posting two images with description on how you processed the RAW.

Thanx Lenny, using CS3. Yeah I try Nikon ViewNX and its looks the same as the JPG. Thanx!

if you use Nikon Capture NX or the software provided by Canon to convert the RAW files then you will not have these problems, your RAW will look exactly the same as your jpeg, since their softwares are doing the same as the camera does.

However if you use a third party software such as Aperture, CS3 or Lightroom then you will find that the software renders the RAW different from the jpeg. The reason for this is that the programmers do not have access to Nikon/Canon raw conversion methods.
LR2 with the beta version of has some profiles that come much closer to Nikon/Canon conversion....

Thanx! That explains everything! When I view them on Nikon ViewNX and its the same.

But somehow, it seems that ViewNX do not allow as much tweaking as in CS3. I can only change exposure and white balance.

It does not have the amazing fill light option CS3 has. :think:

 

[Snapperholic]

Sorry to ot....
I seem to have the same problem as ts.... the raw photos after post processing look fabulous with lightroom and photoshop... but when posted into flickr, the picture turned dull and unlike the initial picture processed... is there something wrong?

I used the same laptop to view on flickr and ps.... the colour is so different...

To TS: sorry to ot... if u are uncomfortable with my post then u can let me know, i will stop.

TIAZ~

 

[lennyl]

I seem to have the same problem as ts.... the raw photos after post processing look fabulous with lightroom and photoshop... but when posted into flickr, the picture turned dull and unlike the initial picture processed... is there something wrong?

It sounds like you might have saved (and uploaded your image to flickr) in Adobe RGB color space? Doesn't sound like the TS's problem though since he is aware of this issue.

 

[Michael]

Sorry to ot....
I seem to have the same problem as ts.... the raw photos after post processing look fabulous with lightroom and photoshop... but when posted into flickr, the picture turned dull and unlike the initial picture processed... is there something wrong?
I used the same laptop to view on flickr and ps.... the colour is so different...
To TS: sorry to ot... if u are uncomfortable with my post then u can let me know, i will stop.
TIAZ~

seems like you have a colour management issue... check if you saved to sRGB

 

[sjackal]

Sorry to ot....
I seem to have the same problem as ts.... the raw photos after post processing look fabulous with lightroom and photoshop... but when posted into flickr, the picture turned dull and unlike the initial picture processed... is there something wrong?

I used the same laptop to view on flickr and ps.... the colour is so different...

To TS: sorry to ot... if u are uncomfortable with my post then u can let me know, i will stop.

TIAZ~

No problem, its related issued but not the same as my problem.

My PPed files are consistent both on photo editors and on flickr, its my RAW files that look dull when opened with CS3 or Bridge.

Don't use Abode RGB. Use SRGB, its the standard.

 

[Evilmerlin]

No problem, its related issued but not the same as my problem.

My PPed files are consistent both on photo editors and on flickr, its my RAW files that look dull when opened with CS3 or Bridge.

Don't use Abode RGB. Use SRGB, its the standard.

Are you sure that sRGB is the standard? Admittedly, there have been a lot discussion about which to use.

 

[sjackal]

Are you sure that sRGB is the standard? Admittedly, there have been a lot discussion about which to use.

Yeah loads of discussion. I am sure this article by Ken Rockwell comes up pretty often too.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

 

[Evilmerlin]

Well, thats quite an article...

 

[jnet6]

Are you sure that sRGB is the standard? Admittedly, there have been a lot discussion about which to use.

then you use CMYK for color and laser printer.

 

[lennyl]

Are you sure that sRGB is the standard? Admittedly, there have been a lot discussion about which to use.

It is the standard for web display. Which colorspace is better for storage / printing is a whole different topic and you're right, much has been discussed on that topic.

 

[rendition]

RAW will show you the rawest image output from your camera while JPEG will have passed in-camera processing such as saturation, sharpness etc. And yes, you will have to adjust every single image but depending on your workflow, you can always apply same raw settings (sync) for your photos. I guess everyone will see diff pros and cons shooting to RAW. Personally, I've been shooting to RAW for practically every photog session.