5D MKll pictures look less colourful in raw.
oakfieldphotography.com
Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
Hi
I was out photographing a sunset this evening and when i dumped what pictures i did not want on my 5D MKii i uploaded the best ones into cs5 raw. Wow the colour is not as great as in camera. What can i do?
i am running 1440 by 900 screen resolution and my colour quality is 32 bit on my old Advent laptop.
Regards
Patrick.:D
I was out photographing a sunset this evening and when i dumped what pictures i did not want on my 5D MKii i uploaded the best ones into cs5 raw. Wow the colour is not as great as in camera. What can i do?
i am running 1440 by 900 screen resolution and my colour quality is 32 bit on my old Advent laptop.
Regards
Patrick.:D
0
Comments
I use cs5 and enter bridge to open my raw files.
Either way, they won't interpret colors the same.
Looking further into my landscape settings i see that the only setting i changed was the colour tone which i had boosted to the max.
Mabey thats why my raw dosent match the settings i had in camera because it has all of its landscape settings the same but with the colour tone unboosted.
There is a question for you. How do i boost the colour tone in raw to match the incamera settings?
Regards
Patrick:D
Regards
Patrick:D
I shoot with the MKII, and this is exactly what's happening regardless of profile. Although Adobe RGB does make a big difference, the previews on camera are jpeg and processed by the color settings in the camera; so in reality they don't reflect the RAW.
I didnt know that. As i have said i should not forget to reset my camera after every shoot. Sure i got some great shots but had to boost the colour tone inside raw to meet up with what i had done inside my camera and believe you me this is not easily done. So lesson learned.
Regards
Patrick:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Bottom line- ACR (Bridge & Lightroom alike) as well as Apple Aperture ALL just convert RAW files from the barest, un-processed state. Everybody is always shocked when they first see an un-processed RAW file, and the words "gross" and "drab" and "lifeless" usually get used... :-( But the bottom line is, THIS is the whole reason you shoot RAW in the first place - to retain TONS of image data, and therefore have the ability to "work with" the files a whole lot more.
Your only options, aside from shooting RAW+JPG, are as follows:
1.) Crank up your ACR defaults, turn the blacks, contrast, and saturation way up and maybe set the ACR profile to Landscape. Or at the very least, create a few presets that have various amounts of these amped-up settings, maybe some with a little bit more shadow "fill" and highlight "recovery", in case you have files with lots of dynamic range. But, the bottom line is, if you're using ACR as Neil and others pointed out and as you've already discovered, ...RAW images are gonna take a lot of massaging in ACR to attain those beautiful in-camera colors again. In fact some times, I honestly just can NOT out-do an in-camera capture, the subtleties of tone and color are just too perfect in-camera. Which brings me to my next option:
2.) Sort / cull your RAW images using Canon DPP, which DOES allow you to view the in-camera processing exactly as you saw it on the back of the camera. This is NOT really a good program to perform any real editing in, because the stereotype is certainly true- Canon (and Nikon) proprietary processing programs are clunky and SLOW. But what most people don't realize is that with a decently fast computer, you can SORT and PROOF images VERY quickly, and you won't have to wince every time you see the yucky, drab ACR defaults. Personally, as a Nikon shooter I LOVE using Nikon View NX to simply preview and flag "keepers VS rejects" using the color label system. Lightroom and Bridge (and I assume Aperture) will recognize both color labels and star ratings, so it's really simple to just fire up the Nikon (Or Canon) program before I import into Lightroom, and going through the images. Often times, if I truly love the in-camera processing, I'll export JPG's straight from those RAW files using View NX (or Canon DPP) ...and it's just like I shot RAW+JPG!!! But without the wasted memory card space of actually creating two files. The bottom line is that all RAW files already come with a full-resolution JPG image embedded within them, so why not use it? :-D
Or, if you do post production on both Canon and Nikon files, Photomechanic is the professional standard for sorting and proofing images. I'm not 100% sure but I BELIEVE Photomechanic can also output high-quality JPG files from RAW files too, using the in-camera processing. I may be wrong though, they may only be able to output the poorer quality JPG preview that is already embedded in the RAW file.
Anyways, good luck in your RAW endeavors! It's a long and windy road to digital color perfection...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Matt, do you mean if you convert a RAW to jpeg in DPP it applies the camera's style settings at time of capture?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Also, in the Nikon program at least, you can change the "picture style" and WB, though the interface is a little slow and clunky. But it's possible! It's basically like having your camera on your computer...
Here's a few examples of completely un-edited images, that were either shot in JPG in the first place, or shot in RAW and converted to JPG in Nikon's similar program, View NX.
http://matthewsaville.com/blog/2010/05/17/for-photographers-what-does-sooc-mean/
http://matthewsaville.com/blog/2010/11/01/orange-county-wedding-photos/
http://matthewsaville.com/blog/2010/10/25/my-contact-form-was-busted/
Take care,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Thank you.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I dont believe it. I have been taking RAW pictures for years now and pouring hours upon hours of work into them using cs5 raw. I posted a picture on the landscape section of this forum where i tried to emulate what i seen on my camera through raw. I will now put the same picture through my raw converter and just save to jpeg and post up today to see if there is a difference. Lets see what happens. Thanks lads you may have saved me a alot of time and stress.
Regards
Patrick:D
Regards
Patrick:D
A raw file out of a 5d mkII should be able to look far better than anything that can be rendered on the camera's LCD. Why use it as your goal?
Canon 40d | Canon 17-40 f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
However just because a RAW file from a 5D 2 has tons more "information" than a JPG capture, that doesn't mean I don't get a thrill from capturing an image that can "wow" viewers even when completely un-touched after capture.
Admittedly this happens more often with portraits and candid photos, and / or detail shots, but the same concept applies to nature / landscape photography. I'm the kinda guy who still shoots film as a hobby, and I thoroughly enjoy putting a roll of slide film through my 1980's manual SLR, and seeing the un-altered transparencies in their "analog" form.
I don't expect everyone to understand or appreciate this hobby / passion. I'm just saying, it CAN be rewarding if you are so inclined.
:-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Also ditch the Adobe color profile and stick with sRGB.
And for historical context, this is nothing new. If you look at the original negatives for some of the most dramatic images taken by Ansel Adams, etc. the original film looks very bland and flat. The drama was added in post. For the same reasons Matthew said: They shot and developed film to pack as many tones in and not clip anything. This creates a raw negative that looks flat. If it was to "pop" straight out of the camera, chances are contrast would have been exaggerated, blacks blocked up, and maybe highlights a little clipped, and it would be harder to pull it all back.
If you consistently don't like the raw images coming out of camera, you could work out exactly how much more punchy you want them, and then alter your raw software's default processing (boost color, contrast, etc) until images come in the way you like them from the start. This would be the equivalent of adjusting your in-camera settings, but applying them to your raw developer instead. You would get what you want, and they're still raw so you can still adjust at will.
Levels/vibrance in photoshop/lightroom brings out the color quickly with a RAW image... in camera raw there are also sliders for luminance/saturation for ranges of colors as well that make it easy and quick to really make some beautiful color contrast
― Edward Weston
Regards
Patrick:D
mostly, yes. but even 'sooc' is subjective, since if you shoot JPG but have the camera do a number of in-camera processing ... is that REALLY sooc or not?
It's SOOC processed by some general presets made by you (if you messed with the settings) or the default set by the manufacturer. So yeah, processed SOOC. JPEG requires throwing out around %60+ of the original data so it is definitely processed even if you leave it at the defaults.
Just like film choice. You can pick a color negative film, but you can also take a gamble and shoot Velvia slide film. The exposure lattitude is much less forgiving, but the color and contrast is amazing when captured properly.
Whether or not you tweak your in-camera settings and "pursue SOOC perfection" is a personal, artistic decision. Try different things and see what works for you. Maybe it's just not exciting, maybe it's just frustrating and you get more excitement from making the image pop in lightroom. To each their own!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
JPGs out of the camera are simply RAW files that have been processed according to the algorithms based on the camera's engineers and adjusted to the rules you apply with in-camera processing (Contrast, Sharpness, etc.)
JPGs out of the camera still have applications, but you must understand that they provide little opportunity for certain types of post-processing when it's needed.
As long as you understand your camera, and how it operates with regard to JPG processing, it can be perfectly appropriate to use in-camera JPG processing. It's just an option, not a dictate. RAW files are the same thing, just an option.
Life is better when we have options and when we use those options wisely.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums