RAW Problem on Photoshop! I Can't understand how!

Mysterium

Hello, i don't know if I'm th eonly person having this problem but today I discovered why my pictures have strange colors when I edit them on Photoshop. it's because RAW.
I tried a lot of options but nothing seems to work. I shoot in RAW+s (raw + jpg low res) and when I open the jpg in photoshop, everything is okay, I'm seeing the picture like the way I want, but, when I open the RAW, the colors are strangely diferent, and I don't understand why..! His have becoming an headchake to me.
You can look at the printshot to see what I'm talking about.
All I want is to put the Raw equal to the Jpg! Only that! Why the raw is diferent if both are the same shot? Can you see the difference? The raw is really worst than the jpg! But when I open the Raw on iView media pro, The raw is okey!:scratch please help me.. I can't work this way anymore.

digismile

Hi Mysterium,

This is sort of complicated. To fully answer your question, we need to know a few things:

1. Your brand/model of camera and what settings you are using for colour space, and any paramaters that control contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc.

2. What colour space are you using as your default in Photoshop.

3. For the Iview photo, are you letting it build the catalog image or do you have it set to use the embedded jpeg.

4. What do you use to convert your RAW files. PS? Capture One? Something else?

Typically, a lot of processing happens in the camera that affects the final outcome of the colour in jpeg. Whereas, RAW is basically "unprocessed" yet. You end up doing that in Photoshop.

Ultimately, you end up doing a bit more post production on RAW compared to jpeg anyways, but the colour difference can at least be accounted for.

Hopefully with a bit more info from you, one of the real RAW geeks will jump in and help out:D .

Regards,
Brad

wxwax

digismile wrote:

Typically, a lot of processing happens in the camera that affects the final outcome of the colour in jpeg. Whereas, RAW is basically "unprocessed" yet. You end up doing that in Photoshop.

Ultimately, you end up doing a bit more post production on RAW compared to jpeg anyways, but the colour difference can at least be accounted for.

Looking at these pics, I think this is the issue. The jpeg gets in-camera sharpening, saturation, contrast and other stuff done to it. The RAW file gets none of that, by design. It's literally RAW, waiting for you to mold it.

Mysterium

digismile wrote:

Hi Mysterium,

This is sort of complicated. To fully answer your question, we need to know a few things:

1. Your brand/model of camera and what settings you are using for colour space, and any paramaters that control contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc.

2. What colour space are you using as your default in Photoshop.

3. For the Iview photo, are you letting it build the catalog image or do you have it set to use the embedded jpeg.

4. What do you use to convert your RAW files. PS? Capture One? Something else?

Typically, a lot of processing happens in the camera that affects the final outcome of the colour in jpeg. Whereas, RAW is basically "unprocessed" yet. You end up doing that in Photoshop.

Ultimately, you end up doing a bit more post production on RAW compared to jpeg anyways, but the colour difference can at least be accounted for.

Hopefully with a bit more info from you, one of the real RAW geeks will jump in and help out:D .

Regards,
Brad

Thanks,

1- Canon EOS 20d; AdobeRgb98; Auto WB; Parameter1 (+1contrast,+1sharpness,+1saturation)

2-My working space on Photoshop is AdobeRgb98

3-iView is not using the embedded jpg. I erased the jpg file and openned the raw on Iview and the result is the same.

4-I don't use anything to convert the raw files. All i do is upload the raw from the CF card to windows explorer and after that, I open the Raw on Photoshop. The plugin is the Adobe Camera Raw ver. 2.3

Hope this can help to resolve my shituation

Mysterium

wxwax wrote:

Looking at these pics, I think this is the issue. The jpeg gets in-camera sharpening, saturation, contrast and other stuff done to it. The RAW file gets none of that, by design. It's literally RAW, waiting for you to mold it.

Yeah I tought that too, the problem is that I can't mold the raw to put it like the jpeg. i tried a lotof featurings but it doesn't work.

digismile

Hi Mys,

One more thing. If you like the jpeg, is there a reason you use RAW? I shoot RAW for virtually everything, but I know that I'm going to do a fair bit of post processing. I like that control. But I will be the first to admit, it adds time.

There are a lot of GREAT photographers here on dgrin , particularily those that shoot sports/action that shoot only jpeg. There is certainly a price to using RAW.

And in case it wasn't obvious from the first post, I think the reason why the photo looks OK to you in Iview is because you aren't actually viewing the raw file, but an embedded jpeg which probably should look just like the full size jpeg.

I have a Canon 20D. It has a setting called Parameters where you get to set some of the defaults for contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. This is where you can have an effect on the jpeg vs. RAW file. I like my settings to be as neutral as possible, but that's just me.

I hope all this info makes sense and is of some help.

Regards,
Brad

digismile

Mysterium wrote:

Thanks,

1- Canon EOS 20d; AdobeRgb98; Auto WB; Parameter1 (+1contrast,+1sharpness,+1saturation)

2-My working space on Photoshop is AdobeRgb98

3-iView is not using the embedded jpg. I erased the jpg file and openned the raw on Iview and the result is the same.

4-I don't use anything to convert the raw files. All i do is upload the raw from the CF card to windows explorer and after that, I open the Raw on Photoshop. The plugin is the Adobe Camera Raw ver. 2.3

Hope this can help to resolve my shituation

Try Parameter 2 on your 20D and see if that makes the files closer.

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

Looking at these pics, I think this is the issue. The jpeg gets in-camera sharpening, saturation, contrast and other stuff done to it. The RAW file gets none of that, by design. It's literally RAW, waiting for you to mold it.

That is what is going on, and is why the JPG looks different from the RAW file.

I have an interest in this thread for a somewhat related reason. And that is, how do I get ACR to create an image the way that Canon's EVU will? In other words, I can't seem to replicate the Parameters 1 set with the sliders in ACR. For that reason, the very few times I shoot RAW I tend to use EVU to create TIFF's, then do what I need in PSCS after that, the save the final JPG.

Since I shoot 95% JPG I don't worry much about this, but I'm still rather curious about the answer. I've never been very happy with the results of ACR compared to EVU.

Mysterium

digismile wrote:

Hi Mys,

One more thing. If you like the jpeg, is there a reason you use RAW? I shoot RAW for virtually everything, but I know that I'm going to do a fair bit of post processing. I like that control. But I will be the first to admit, it adds time.

There are a lot of GREAT photographers here on dgrin , particularily those that shoot sports/action that shoot only jpeg. There is certainly a price to using RAW.

And in case it wasn't obvious from the first post, I think the reason why the photo looks OK to you in Iview is because you aren't actually viewing the raw file, but an embedded jpeg which probably should look just like the full size jpeg.

I have a Canon 20D. It has a setting called Parameters where you get to set some of the defaults for contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. This is where you can have an effect on the jpeg vs. RAW file. I like my settings to be as neutral as possible, but that's just me.

I hope all this info makes sense and is of some help.

Regards,
Brad

I shot in Raw because it's a way to have the "negative" and I can save it in very large jpegs to print large posters. I'm trying but I'm not getting what i want. I want to put the Raw exactely like the jpg, there is something that i'm not doing well...

mercphoto

Mysterium wrote:

I shot in Raw because it's a way to have the "negative" and I can save it in very large jpegs to print large posters. I'm trying but I'm not getting what i want. I want to put the Raw exactely like the jpg, there is something that i'm not doing well...

First thing, how much image manipulation are you doing in the first place? What types of things are you doing, and how severe are those manipulations?

Second thing, if you like the way the in-camera JPG works, then why are you using Photoshop as your raw converter instead of using the Canon utility to convert your raw files? Guess which converter will get you closer to the in-camera JPG will... hint hint...

[bold]The easy solution to your entire problem: Use Canon's converter instead of ACR.[/bold]

Third, have you done a side-by-side comparison poster print? I routinely make 20x30 prints from in-camera JPG's from a 20D. And sometimes I even manipulate an in-camera JPG before making the poster. Auto-levels and some sharpening are common changes.

The results can be stunning.

In other words, what I am asking is, are you shooting RAW becuase you KNOW you need to in order to get the quality you want, or are you shooting RAW because its "common knowledge" that RAW is always better?

Mysterium

mercphoto wrote:

First thing, how much image manipulation are you doing in the first place? What types of things are you doing, and how severe are those manipulations?

Second thing, if you like the way the in-camera JPG works, then why are you using Photoshop as your raw converter instead of using the Canon utility to convert your raw files? Guess which converter will get you closer to the in-camera JPG will... hint hint...

[bold]The easy solution to your entire problem: Use Canon's converter instead of ACR.[/bold]

Third, have you done a side-by-side comparison poster print? I routinely make 20x30 prints from in-camera JPG's from a 20D. And sometimes I even manipulate an in-camera JPG before making the poster. Auto-levels and some sharpening are common changes.

The results can be stunning.

In other words, what I am asking is, are you shooting RAW becuase you KNOW you need to in order to get the quality you want, or are you shooting RAW because its "common knowledge" that RAW is always better?

I shoot in Raw because sometimes I need to make some changes (expositions,temperatures,etc.) so Raw it's the best choice. I'm gonna try the Canon utility to convert the raw. Hope it works better.Thanks

mercphoto

Mysterium wrote:

I shoot in Raw because sometimes I need to make some changes (expositions,temperatures,etc.) so Raw it's the best choice. I'm gonna try the Canon utility to convert the raw. Hope it works better.Thanks

One benefit to the Canon converter is it has settings for sharpness, contrast, saturation and tone that mimmick the in-camera settings for the JPG. And I have yet to figure out how to replicate that in ACR. When I've asked others before, nobody else knows either.

If you have to adjust temperature, that is very hard, if not impossible to do with a JPG. In extreme cases it can't be done in raw either. Solutions are to use a grey card, or to be careful of the conditions you shoot under and when to not use AWB. Flourescent lights are particularly troublesome, especially depending on the shutter speed you use.

Minor exposure changes can be safely made to JPG's. At least half-stops are fine. Some can go a full stop. After that, you want raw.

Lastly, if you truly want the benefit of RAW, make sure you convert into a 16-bit format. I know people who convert their RAWS into 8-bit PSD or TIFF files, and I'm not sure why they bother, as you loose any extra dynamic range information you once had. That dynamic range can come in hand when its time for levels and curves adjustments.