Hi All,

If I take the exact same photo with my Nikon D50 both in RAW and JPEG they look exactly the same on the camera LCD. HOwever, when I load them into  Adobe Lightroom they look completely different. The RAW lookis far less pleasing, desaturated and dull.

I kind of understand why this is, in that the JPEG has had a certain amount of processing done to it in camera whereas the RAW is just, well, raw sensor data.

My problem is I want my RAW to look as good as the JPEG does. Does anyone have any tips on how I can do this? I did try to get the RAW to look like the JPEG by processing it in Lightroom, the intention being I could then apply this processing to every RAW file I imported but I struggled to get them looking the same. I'm sure it's possible it's just knowing where to start.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Gary

I had this problem but other way around (RAW over saturated, jpg dull).  In the end it was down to my monitor drivers.  Vista had loaded a Generic pnp Monitor driver instead of the correct LG driver.  Take alook in Device hardware and see what the PC thinks is the monitor

Also calibrating will help

---

Mark

My DCM Gallery

Then don't shoot raw.

This is not a joke. This is actually number 1 of the Lightroom FAQ - why don't my raws look as good as the jpegs? If you prefer the jpegs then what's the point of editing a raw file to look exactly the same?

The other answer is that it's a bugger to do. There are various secret recipes on the web but the reality is that nobody knows exactly what processing Nikon do inside the camera. It's likely to be different from shot to shot. It certainly varies from model to model. If you really really want to shoot raws that look like jpegs then try opening them in Capture NX and see if you can export as DNGs (I bet you can't....). Nikon s/w is the only s/w that knows how to make Nikon raws look like Nikon jpegs.

---

Check out my Soup - pretty cool for one of the best
wedding photographers in the UK.

gmaurer:

Hi All,

If I take the exact same photo with my Nikon D50 both in RAW and JPEG they look exactly the same on the camera LCD. HOwever, when I load them into  Adobe Lightroom they look completely different. The RAW lookis far less pleasing, desaturated and dull.

I kind of understand why this is, in that the JPEG has had a certain amount of processing done to it in camera whereas the RAW is just, well, raw sensor data.

My problem is I want my RAW to look as good as the JPEG does. Does anyone have any tips on how I can do this? I did try to get the RAW to look like the JPEG by processing it in Lightroom, the intention being I could then apply this processing to every RAW file I imported but I struggled to get them looking the same. I'm sure it's possible it's just knowing where to start.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Gary

The Jpeg and thumbnail will look the same on your cameras LCD screen, as the thumbnail is an embedded Jpeg in your raw file. Getting the raw file to look like the cameras Jpeg is almost impossible, as you don't know what settings have been used. Normally, a tweak in curves can get you closest, but it will never be the same. This is usually a good thing, as you can decide how you want your picture to look, rather than what a technician at the camera makers decided.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Hi Mark,

In actual fact I'm seeing the exact opposite. RAW is very UNsaturated and the JPEG is very punchy and vibrant looking.

I take on everyone elses point that 'if you like the look of JPEG then shoot in JPEG'. I guess after reading all the arguments on RAW vs JPEG I thought I might as well shoot RAW even for the small number of times when I actually need the benefits (ie if the exposure of a shot is really off).

Looks like shooting in JPEG is the way forward for me!

Thanks for all the very prompt replies.
Gary

My own two-penneth is simply to agree with what Jonathan has already said. It really is the No1 question raised on the Lightroom forum and generally always attracts the same sort of answer and that is - the object is not to reproduce the jpeg from the camera but to improve upon it. As Jonathan also hinted at is that there is a script available for download (found by searching the LR site) which more or less involves you capturing an image with your camera under very specific lighting conditions of a Gregmacbeth colour chart and create a Preset from it. In fact in a round about sort of way this is what Adobe have done in the creation of how your images would be rendered in Lightroom. Rumour has it that these are to be revisited and so there is a good chance that these will be improved upon in the release of LR version 2 around August time.

In fairness though I think you are also perhaps overlooking the other advantages of shooting in Raw which by the sounds of it do not need repeating and which only you can decide upon of course. The other thing that should be stressed when using LR is the importance of using a correctly calibrated and profiled monitor and to have a grasp of the different rendering intents between LR and Photoshop (if you are using that also) although both Adobe products. What happens is that Lightroom uses the "perceptual rendering intent" if present in the monitor profile, while Photoshop uses the relative colorimetric. Very often, in the manufacturer canned monitor profiles, the perceptual rendering intent is broken and Lightroom will look horrible, whilst Photoshop on the other hand will look normal. This is, unfortunately, a very common problem. Note that almost no display calibrators actually generate a perceptual rendering intent and normally Lightroom and Photoshop will therefore look exactly identical as they both use the same relative rendering intent.

 

I have heard you say that a good calibrator is needed,but which one do you and others find to help?

From my own experiences with monitor profiles, which Alan will no doubt remember, I would indeed look first at what colour management profile your monitor is set to. I had exactly the same problem with RAW images. The were dull and lifeless with washed out colours. I went into the monitor setup and saw that my monitor was set to it's own Philips profile. I changed this to sRGB and all is now ok.
I realise that this is not the most accurate way to setup the monitor profile, but it at least gets you onto the right playing field.

I'm facing the same problem and I have finally found some solution. It seems that setting the Colour space in Nikon camera (I have D40) to AdobeRGB makes the JPEGS, what you see on LCD of the camera and RAWs look the same!

Maybe it was just a first impression but it has some logic - AdobeRGB to work with Adobe software. However it isn't probably cleanest solution as AdobeRGB (numbered II. in camera) is probably worse colour space than the III. sRGB but better than I. sRGB. The differences between each colour space could be found elsewhere on the net. Somehwhere I read that AdobeRGB is actually duller in colours than sRGB - in the first impression. However if it's not the shoot-of-the-year, I guess it will be enough for normal work.

AdobeRGB has a wider gamut than sRGB but unless you've pretty much got an expensive monitor you won't be able to take advantage of this wider gamut. The majority of monitors hover around the sRGB range even without calibration as this is what, until recently, most web browsers could display. So generally speaking an amateur or someone relatively new and not having a clue/confused with all these various colour profiles, can't really go wrong by sticking with sRGB - at least in the beginning.

Quite often, certainly in Canon handbooks, it will actually state that colours will be subdued when shooting in AdobeRGB and that it is intended for the professional/keen amateur who is prepared to post edit their images etc. In fact, if you think about it logically it actually displays on the camera LCD 'duller' (as was noted) more than it really is because the cameras LCD is set up for sRGB.

However, just to repeat - whether you choose to set the camera to sRGB or AdobeRGB or what have you only applies when shooting in JPG mode - RAW's don't have a colour space until one is appended in the rendering process. And no, the thinking of AdobeRGB and Adobe software is a bit off the mark - it is all to do with what was the industry standard and commercial printing a while back but that's another story.

Alan I would actually disagree with Canon at that statement because if shooting in jpeg (8bit) then Adobe rgb colour space is actually to streched bit wise (or lack of them) for extreme editing , not a problem for raw shooters but anyone shooting jpeg would be better of sticking to s_RGB in my humble opinion.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full :)

MY GALLERIES

Paul,

Not exactly sure that I follow what you are saying - I thought that was what I was saying, or at least was intending to say. 

From the Canon 30D manual page 63: About Adobe RGB. This is mainly used for commercial printing and other industrial uses. This setting is not recommended if you do not know about image processing. Adobe RGB and Design rule for Camera File System 2.0 (Exif 2.21). Since the image will look very subdued with sRGB personal computer environment and printers not compatible with Dfesign rule for Camera File System 2.0 (Exif 2.21), post-processing of the image with software will be required.

With this camera, you can set the colour space for captured images to sRGB or Adobe RGB. For normal images, sRGB is recommended. In the Basic Zone modes, sRGB will be set automatically.

So, in other words, like I was attempting to say in my previous post - if one is not really in the know with various colour spaces etc then stick with sRGB and you won't go too far wrong.

 

Alan scroll down to the part about bit depth distrubution for a better understanding on why not to use adobe rgb if shooting and editing 8 bit images regardless of what Canon say.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full :)

MY GALLERIES

craftysnapper:

Alan scroll down to the part about bit depth distrubution for a better understanding on why not to use adobe rgb if shooting and editing 8 bit images regardless of what Canon say.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

Paul,

One of us needs to get our glasses fixed .  Canon are saying just exactly that - NOT to use Adobe RGB.

Do you think shooting RAW and JPEG at the same time is a waste of card space?