colour shift

studio12c

This one is from the great white north (colour). Anyway I was doing a little testing with my canon 5D and my studio flash unit. I set the camera to take both Raw and jpeg. Usually I just shoot one or the other. So I downloaded the files using photoshop bridge to check my lighting set up. When reviewing the pics I noticed a slight colour shift between the RAW and JPEG. I assume this is because the Raw file has more information then the JPEG. Is this correct. I used my minolta light meter to meter the light and used the recommended settings of ISO 200, 125 at f11.
Anyone

denisegoldberg

Did you mean to post a photo? I don't see one...

--- Denise

studio12c

denisegoldberg wrote: »

Did you mean to post a photo? I don't see one...

--- Denise

I wasn't going to I don't believe you can upload a raw file.

studio12c

[IMG]http://[/img]

This is the jpeg

craig_d

I don't think it's a matter of how much information is in the raw file. Strictly speaking, you can't possibly see a difference between the raw and the JPEG, because you can't see a raw file. What you see when you load a raw file into some program like Lightroom, ACR, or whatever, is an interpretation of the raw data, not the raw data itself. The JPEG from the camera is also an interpretation of the raw data. So the difference between the camera JPEG and the image you see when you load the raw file on your computer is just a difference of interpretation. A color shift probably means different white balance values are being used. There may be differences in gamma, exposure compensation, tone curve, and other settings that also result in noticeable differences between the two images.

studio12c

Interesting, I wish I could upload the Raw file and you would see what I mean. If you don't mind see is you can duplicate my little experiment. I used my Canon 5D mk II on manual mode with a tripod and studio light. One shot with a selection of Jpeg and Raw. It was loaded using adobe Bridge CS5.

rsquared

Generally the raw converters can read the WB info that your camera used, but don't use the other settings (e.g. contrast or saturation) so if you had any other settings boosted in the camera, those would have been applied to the jpg, but Bridge won't apply it to the raw.

studio12c

thanks Rob, you were right I checked my settings and had picture style set to standard I changed it to neutral and redone the experiment. I still notice a slight colour shift. I checked the file information in Bridge and found the Raw was 16 bit and the jpeg was 8 bit. I save my jpegs as 8 bit because my lab requires it. Dont know if this is the answer however it make some sense to me. I am still interested in hearing from others who have tried the little experiment.

ziggy53

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), the RAW file converter used before Photoshop, has its own camera profile as well as default settings and both can affect the initial view of a RAW file. You are free to adjust ACR to match your needs and there is no absolute right or absolute wrong way to process a RAW file. There certainly "are" appropriate methods to processing a RAW file, and those may be even more appropriate to represent a scene than the Camera's JPG rendition.

If you want a closer match to the JPG file you get out of the camera, use the Canon RAW file converter, normally Digital Photo Professional (DPP) which comes as bundled software with your camera.

(In other words Canon's RAW conversion for its software will generally understand the RAW file data more consistently than Adobe's RAW conversion software, with regard to the Camera's JPG image.)

pathfinder

ziggy53 wrote: »

............
If you want a closer match to the JPG file you get out of the camera, use the Canon RAW file converter, normally Digital Photo Professional (DPP) which comes as bundled software with your camera.

(In other words Canon's RAW conversion for its software will generally understand the RAW file data more consistently than Adobe's RAW conversion software, with regard to the Camera's JPG image.)

If your goal is to shoot RAW that looks like a jpg without any editing in ACR or DPP, why shoot RAW in the first place. Like Craig said, any RAW image that you see has been interpreted somehow, somewhere - usually the default settings in ACR or DPP. Why in the world would you shoot RAW and then use the default interpretation? The whole reason for shooting RAW is so that you can do a better job than the little processor in your camera, isn't it?

So yes, your unprocessed RAW file will not match your out of the camera jpg, and that is a good thing, too. YOu can edit your RAW file to look however you want it to. And this includes Color Balance.

studio12c

Thanks, you are right however there are times when I want to share an image with a client without spending time working on the raw file. The jpeg file is easier to transfer and print. I usually manipulated the same image (the raw file) sometime later once the sale has been made. Most if not all my photography is done in manual mode so does that mean that ACR is setting the defaults for the jpeg when the file is unloaded to my computer or does the camera still take control to produce the jpeg. I'll have to revisit my camera manual.