5D MKll pictures look less colourful in raw.

oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
edited April 23, 2011 in Cameras
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
«1

Comments

  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Which RAW Processor? Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, Canon??????? Kinda hard to say what the reason is other than the fact that you MAY have your saturation set higher on the camera and the JPG that is being encoded into the raw (which is there for previewing the image on the camera) could be higher in saturation than the RAW which is no frills as shot...
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    JimKarczewski wrote: »
    Which RAW Processor? Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, Canon??????? Kinda hard to say what the reason is other than the fact that you MAY have your saturation set higher on the camera and the JPG that is being encoded into the raw (which is there for previewing the image on the camera) could be higher in saturation than the RAW which is no frills as shot...

    I use cs5 and enter bridge to open my raw files.
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    your camera has to process the RAW files into JPG for preview on the LCD screen. Depending on settings, you might have 'vivid' selected or other such that will make them 'look' better. It's up to you for how you process them in CS5 if you want the colors that vibrant or not. I know in LightRoom, you can import the photos so that they automatically use settings like that - all depends on your preferences. I'm sure someone here knows if you can do that in Bridge or CS5 as well.
    //Leah
  • BlackwoodBlackwood Registered Users Posts: 313 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Your laptop isn't calibrated. I presume the camera's LCD isn't either, but I don't know for certain.

    Either way, they won't interpret colors the same.
    Marc Blackwood | HYPERcontrast
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    looking at the camera settings i took the picture in AV mode. ISO 100 Landscape on in camera settings. RAWfile.Abobe RGB colour.
    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
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Got it sorted. Looks like i was right. I wont make this mistake again. Sorry

    Regards
    Patrick:D
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    your camera has to process the RAW files into JPG for preview on the LCD screen. Depending on settings, you might have 'vivid' selected or other such that will make them 'look' better. It's up to you for how you process them in CS5 if you want the colors that vibrant or not. I know in LightRoom, you can import the photos so that they automatically use settings like that - all depends on your preferences. I'm sure someone here knows if you can do that in Bridge or CS5 as well.


    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.
    www.overfocused.com
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Overfocused wrote: »
    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
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Patrick, style settings you chose in camera, such as "landscape", contrast and saturation, etc, and colour space, are produced by post capture camera software, not by the hardware, the gear, you are using, and they don't "stick" to RAW data. You have the choice of shooting RAW or jpeg, or both. If what you see on the preview screen is what you want, then the jpeg has it, not the RAW. If you use the RAW file, you work with the conversion and editing software to produce your image, it's colour space, contrast, saturation etc, independently of the camera's styles processing software. One important side effect of shooting RAW, and using RAW to produce the image, is that you become very skillful at interpreting the camera's histogram to get the best exposure. The camera preview screen "lies" in a number of ways, and I believe it's best to outgrow suckling on that teet (except to check framing) and to understand the info the histogram is giving as your main exposure resource. That RAW is often tons more work, and risky, is totally uncontroversial!mwink.gif

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Don't blame it on ANYTHING other than the MAIN culprit: Adobe Camera RAW's in-ability to read in-camera processing.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Don't blame it on ANYTHING other than the MAIN culprit: Adobe Camera RAW's in-ability to read in-camera processing.

    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=

    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
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    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
    If you don't apply any changes and simply open the CR2 files in DPP, and simply use whatever export / save / output feature the program has, then yes it is as if you shot RAW+JPG. VERY convenient for in-camera "SOOC" junkies like myself...

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    If you don't apply any changes and simply open the CR2 files in DPP, and simply use whatever export / save / output feature the program has, then yes it is as if you shot RAW+JPG. VERY convenient for in-camera "SOOC" junkies like myself...

    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=


    Thank you.thumb.gif

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2011
    Hi guys
    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
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2011
    Look for sunset fishing in ireland in the landscape section of this forum. Nothing done with image whatsoever if you look at the second photo. Would i have the same control over the out of camera shot in jpeg rather than raw?

    Regards
    Patrick:D
  • TylerWTylerW Registered Users Posts: 428 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2011
    Really not sure why there is so much fuss over making sure your photo looks the same after post processing as it does in the in-camera preview. Maybe its because the LCD on the back of my camera isn't so hot, so I use it just for reference - see what the composition looks like, and make sure that key details that I need in focus indeed are.

    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?
    http://www.tylerwinegarner.com

    Canon 40d | Canon 17-40 f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2011
    TylerW wrote: »
    Really not sure why there is so much fuss over making sure your photo looks the same after post processing as it does in the in-camera preview. Maybe its because the LCD on the back of my camera isn't so hot, so I use it just for reference - see what the composition looks like, and make sure that key details that I need in focus indeed are.

    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?
    Tyler, there is certainly a time and place for "heavy" processing, or at least the forethought and expectation that an image is going to need processing. Without burning and dodging, there would be no Ansel Adams! So, indeed post-production is an art form in itself.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2011
    Almost every RAW I ever shot needs some attention in Post, if only the auto enhance function. Nothing to do with 5D MkII. This extra work is biggest reason for NOT shooting RAW. When you want to be in a hurry you need to figure out how to get post processing right in camera - ie jpeg pre-sets.
  • tomnovytomnovy Registered Users Posts: 1,103 SmugMug Employee
    edited April 19, 2011
    If you use Canon DPP you will see the photo as taken.
    SmugMug Support Hero | Customizer | My SmugMug site - http://www.photom.me | Customization Portal - https://customsmug.com/
  • JustinThymeJustinThyme Registered Users Posts: 112 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2011
    All of my final output is done starting with RAW files as all of the image data is reatined with no loss from in camera compression that is not nearly as efficient as a PC. I shoot with both but use the sjpeg images for preview purposes only and have the in camera set to faithful. Once you get set and have a defined workflow using droplets or batch process it takes no time at all. I have collected many profiles over the years to cover just about every scenario so its mostly at this point using droplets and I walk away while the software does it thing. RAW is the way to go if you want the best rendition. You loose so much detail with in camera jpeg then if you dont hit it right the first time and have everything set perfectly the results after post process of a jpeg doesnt come anywhere close to what you can get with RAW files.

    Also ditch the Adobe color profile and stick with sRGB.
    Canon CPS Gold Member
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 19, 2011
    oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »
    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


    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
    www.overfocused.com
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 20, 2011
    So do mine :) Some PP will bring them to live as the others have already stated.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited April 20, 2011
    So does this flatten the idea of socc?

    Regards
    Patrick:D
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited April 20, 2011
    oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »
    So does this flatten the idea of socc?

    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?
    //Leah
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 20, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    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.
    www.overfocused.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    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?
    If it happens *before* the click, it's SOOC in my opinion.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2011
    Up till now I've eschewed the limp-wristed dropping of the definitive shot straight out of the camera, in favour of the muscular wrestle of RAWS through conversion and beyond... BUT... that might soon change!eek7.gifD

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2011
    disregard this post, I made it only to bring my post count up to 3,333 - seems like a very lucky number to me, with a kind of daVinci aura!mwink.gifrofl

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited April 22, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    Up till now I've eschewed the limp-wristed dropping of the definitive shot straight out of the camera, in favour of the muscular wrestle of RAWS through conversion and beyond... BUT... that might soon change!eek7.gifD

    Neil

    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. :D
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.