DSLRUsers.com

Hi guys

I started out shooting jpeg but these days I always shoot RAW + Jpg.

I have noticed in my images over the past few months that when I compare the jpg/raw images the reds are very drab in the raw file, compared to the jpeg. I can post an example of this if you think it might help explain it. Come to think of it the greens are sometimes lacking a little oomf too.

Has anyone ever noticed that problem before? Or can anyone point me in the right direction of my the reds are primarily affected?

I have also noticed that the exposure on the raw file is generally more overexposed that with jpg. It all tends to work out OK after the procesing of the file but its a fair bit more effort to start playing around with selective colours to get the vibrance into the red where I know it can be.

Thanks in advance for any help in explaining this to me.

Cheers
Steve

Steve, I would like to learn a bit more about this issue as well.

Reds are very difficult to reproduce in general and I think you may have to do some calibration with the RAW processor. Perhaps download a camera profile from the net. Which processor as you using?

I think others will be able to contribute more.

Do you have the camera set to VIVID ( or something like that ...). I do, but have realised that this setting only seems to take effect on the LCD of the camera, or if I was shooting in JPG. The RAWs do look flatter, so my default process (in Bibble - when I open the picture for the 1st time) adds a couple to vibrance setting.

surenj wrote:Steve, I would like to learn a bit more about this issue as well.

Reds are very difficult to reproduce in general and I think you may have to do some calibration with the RAW processor. Perhaps download a camera profile from the net. Which processor as you using?

I think others will be able to contribute more.

Thanks for responding

Im using Camera Raw in CS 2

Nikon D200

probably a daft question however, are you comparing teh RAW and jpegs in CS2 only? have you say, tried comparing them in another program like NX2 or even in windows explorer (must have the nikon nef software installed)

I gave up using NEF with PS because it didn't seem to handle the conversion very well. Even when using NX2 to handle the initial conversion, it would ignore the values set in NX2, e.g. change the WB in NX2, then open in CS2 and WB would be back where it was before working on it,. Nett result is that I rarely use PS anymore. It's all too hard.

I know others have had similar problems in LightRoom, another Adobe program, (was it ATJ ???) and resolved it by setting up a custom RAW conversion. Don't recall the exact issue though. I don't use LR, so didn't pay much attention.

EDIT:
Here it is:
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=34602
There were a couple of others, but this seems to contain the kernel of the solution.

rflower wrote:Do you have the camera set to VIVID ( or something like that ...). I do, but have realised that this setting only seems to take effect on the LCD of the camera, or if I was shooting in JPG. The RAWs do look flatter, so my default process (in Bibble - when I open the picture for the 1st time) adds a couple to vibrance setting.

Optimise setting is set to normal.

First step first. Which format is giving you the most accurate colour? NEF or JPG? Shoot a paint colour chart or something similar and compare the results. Once we know the answer to that then we can start looking at fine tuning your settings.

biggerry wrote:probably a daft question however, are you comparing teh RAW and jpegs in CS2 only? have you say, tried comparing them in another program like NX2 or even in windows explorer (must have the nikon nef software installed)

I use bridge and CS2

Windows wont show my nef files.

Mr Darcy wrote:I gave up using NEF with PS because it didn't seem to handle the conversion very well. Even when using NX2 to handle the initial conversion, it would ignore the values set in NX2, e.g. change the WB in NX2, then open in CS2 and WB would be back where it was before working on it,. Nett result is that I rarely use PS anymore. It's all too hard.

I know others have had similar problems in LightRoom, another Adobe program, (was it ATJ ???) and resolved it by setting up a custom RAW conversion. Don't recall the exact issue though. I don't use LR, so didn't pay much attention.

EDIT:
Here it is:
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=34602
There were a couple of others, but this seems to contain the kernel of the solution.

Greg - That was very helpful. Im just downloading the calibration material from
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

EDIT - My calibration profile is ACR 3.3 but it doesnt seem to be coming up with any other ones after running that download? Maybe I need to reboot?

Edit 2 - "The new Adobe Standard and Camera Matching camera profiles require Camera Raw 4.5 / Lightroom 2.0 or later. In general, they can be used in any raw converter that supports DNG 1.2. These camera profiles will NOT work correctly with earlier versions of Camera Raw" Im using version 3.7. I have a problem!

Stephen, if you want to see what's possible with your camera you could drop over here for a drink some time (when it's light enough for us to take photos) and bring your camera with you.
I've got the latest Adobe software, my monitors are profiled, and I've got the software and Colorcheckers with which we can quickly make custom DNG profiles.

It's just a matter of organising a time.

Thanks Dave - I will facebook you to make a time.

... Obsolete ...

DVEous, it definitely looks like you have a problem there.

I am quite confident in the ability of ACR to capture "correct" colour, although part of that may be in how I use it.
For example I'm playing right now with a Panasonic G1 that's been modified for visible+IR work, and depending on whether I put an IR-pass or IR-block filter on the lens I get IR or visible images. But in "visible" images the colour under AWB is slightly off (the IR-block filter I'm using has a different overall cast to the internal one that was replaced with clear quartz).
But with 5 minutes' work I'm getting what seem like accurate colours coming through in Lightroom! It's an ongoing exercise (just started playing with this camera seriously today) but it's working well so far.

Hopefully Steve can bring along some examples of objects he's not happy with the colour of.

... Obsolete ...

I wasn't saying that you're wrong at all. Merely expressing my own current satisfaction.

Not that it should make any difference, but my own cameras are not generating NEFs. It will be interesting to see what Steve and I manage to produce next week with his Nikon gear.

Ok, we found a simple solution for Steve.

He's been using the version of ACR (3) that is part of CS2. By updating to a more recent version of ACR (such as that included in Lightroom 2 or 3) he can get his colours sorted.

To start with Steve took a photo of a tree on the way into my house, and we looked at this in Lightroom. This is actually a tiny crop from the image:

That's the JPEG on the left, and the result achieved in ACR3. Not great. The reds are more orange, and the blue is a bit pale.

In recent ACR versions you can select better profiles under the "Camera Calibration" panel. Here's the result with the "Adobe Standard" profile:


And now with a custom profile we made for this camera in these lighting conditions using a ColorChecker:

Much better. In fact either of those last two would be "good enough" for most people.

Next we set up a couple of objects (a pair, a lemon, an orange, a persimmon, and the ColorChecker on a cutting board - Monty the cat was just supervising) on the kitchen bench:
ACR3.3
Adobe Standard
custom

And then took it outside:
ACR3.3
Adobe Standard
custom

A crop:
ACR3.3
Adobe Standard
custom

The "Adobe Standard" profile is pretty good, although I'm prepared to believe the custom profiles are slightly more accurate. There are more profiles to choose from depending on your camera model, including ones for "vivid", "neutral", "portrait", "landscape", etc. Similar to "Picture Styles" in some software.

So in Steve's case all he has to do is use a more-recent Camera Raw than he has been, and choose an appropriate profile. If he wants to go all out he could spend money on a ColorChecker to generate his own custom profiles, but that's probably only important if shooting under very unusual lighting.

... Obsolete ...

DVEous wrote:You have failed to compare it against the obvious: Capture NX2, Nikon's owns PP software.
(Or Capture NX, if you have the older version - same rendering engine though), .

You have to remember that NX/NX2 have available to them information that no other raw processor can have. Nikon to make that information available. It goes without saying that a NEF processed with NX/NX2 will always look identical to the JPG out of the camera as both are doing exactly the same thing.

DVEous wrote:As far as colour accuracy goes, using purpose-built NEF processing software, all you have to worry about is getting the white balance right. There is no variability with interpreting the NEF itself, like 3rd party software struggles with.

What is your definition of accurate?

The tests that I have done with NX2 and a colour chart was that NX2 was not truly accurate either, but it did give the results with which I was most happy.

I no longer use NX or NX2 and do all my processing in Lightroom 2.x. Once I switched to the using the Camera Profiles I found I could get nearly identical results with Lightroom 2.x and NX2, but the workflow in Lightroom was far simpler - and I also have many more options for white balance and other processing.

DVEous wrote:I hate to point this out, but your test is incomplete.
All you have achieved, is point out that ACR results are highly variable, and cannot be trusted.

I'm sure you can get similar variation on the Nikon software. I know in the Canon software you can similarly choose from Picture Styles and get different colour renderings. I believe Nikon even uses the same name (Picture Styles).

The colour profiles that were supplied for the Nikon DSLRs (or at least the D200 in this case) with the earlier versions of ACR are pretty bad, I agree. But the current ones are pretty good (and using the same software: it's just a control file that's changed in this regard).

You have failed to compare it against the obvious: Capture NX2, Nikon's owns PP software.
(Or Capture NX, if you have the older version - same rendering engine though), .

I don't have the Nikon software, but I did show the JPEG file generated from the camera as an indication of what it would generate. Working from a JPEG doesn't have the same flexibility in setting WB though, which is why I only showed that for the image we left as "As Shot" WB.

I would ask which one of those Adobe renders is accurate... but having gone through this exercise myself before, I know none of them are.

The custom profile is "accurate". Unfortunately most people don't want "accurate", they want "pleasant". The extreme example of this is simply choosing WB at sunset: don't render the greys as grey or it won't "feel" like sunset. But in ways the same underlying situation applies throughout photography. That's why Velvia renders colours the way it does, and why Nikon and Canon allow you to change the ways colour is rendered from their RAW files.

As far as colour accuracy goes, using purpose-built NEF processing software, all you have to worry about is getting the white balance right. There is no variability with interpreting the NEF itself, like 3rd party software struggles with.

I think people either "get this" or they don't, so I'll get off my anti-ACR soapbox now.

Fine.

Bottom line for us today was that by using up-to-date DNG profiles for his cameras, Steve seemed happy with the colours that ACR was producing! With the LR3b2 software he can now test this for himself again at home (at least with the supplied profiles).
Steve also ended up getting a lesson in ACR/LR processing on some other photos, which may help.

... Obsolete ...

I have looked at this problem in the past and have since decided to use NX as my primary and then use PS as little as possible, LR has ceased to be used.

Hey Dave - thanks so much for the tutorial today. I found it very helpful. That ACR 3.3 profile I was using was no good so I'm happy that there was such an easy fix to get back to the colour being rendered in the jpg. I look forward to getting to know lightroom a bit better in coming weeks. Might even save me some time

Cheers
steve