Alan Ingham:

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.

Alan this what you wrote

 "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."

I'm saying if you shoot in jpeg 8 bit and edit you are better off shooting in the srgb space because you are streching those 8 bits over a wider gamut ( colour space) by shooting in Adobe RGB and Canon does not specify that there advise applies to only 16 bit raw.

Sorry if I cannot be any clearer, we will just have to let this one go.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full
My Pbase
My Zenfoliio

Paul - clear as daylight now, and yes, in this case I agree with you. The trouble with communicating in words is that sometimes, perhaps often, is that our choice of words, syntax and grammar etc comes across differently to others. This is all too evident by the number of times the odd couple of people have taken my tongue in cheek posts all too seriously.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The reason that the RAW images look dull is that they have NOT been processed, sharpened, boosted up, and so forth as set in your camera's program for massaging the image. It's not supposed to look like the jpg-

that's the whole point of shooting RAW -- so you have the digital equivalent of a "negative" to manipulate as YOU see fit.

If you are not using the RAW image in this way, there probably is no real reason to shoot it.

I'm not sure about the Nikon, but on most digital cameras, even if you shoot RAW only, the only image you will see on the camera LCD is a jpg image. This is not a happy point for those who do not like the way the jpgs are produced.

There are, of course, ways of altering the nature of the in-camera processing through the camera menu. However, you can do so much more in Photoshop than the little camera routines can ever do, and that is why people shoot RAW.

---

Swede
My Gallery

swede:

The reason that the RAW images look dull is that they have NOT been processed, sharpened, boosted up, and so forth as set in your camera's program for massaging the image. It's not supposed to look like the jpg-

Referring to your second point first Swede - well yes and no is the real answer. As stated in an earlier thread a lot of users want/need Lightroom (the OP's choice of application) to produce rendered raw images that appear similar to the in-camera jpegs for use as a starting point. From that starting point the user can make an assessment of what the camera is producing and then proceed to hopefully improve upon it. Also mentioned in an earlier post are the many hints on the LR forum that Adobe have been listening to users requests/complaints and that perhaps a few tweaks have been added to their previously produced rendering algorithms for use in version 2.0 which hopefully will be with us by the end of August.

As to the raw images appearing dull as a result of having not been processed, sharpened, boosted up and so forth - um, I don't quite follow your thoughts or reasoning here. A raw .CR2 image for example cannot be viewed in Windows Explorer without the use of a plug-in or additional download - I myself use dpMagic, a fine piece of Freeware. The resultant thumbnail image then shown is the jpeg embedded within the raw file.

Improvements made to Lightroom 1.4.1 is that now the importing and rendering of images are two separate events with the rendering of images only starting when all images have been imported. The reasons for this are speed and efficiency but for the user it does have one further subtle advantage in that this process can be observed. So why is this an advantage? Well, the first thumbnail to be seen in the Library is the embedded jpeg which, depending on how many images are being imported, can be viewed for a few seconds or minutes. This gives the user an idea of how the jpeg file would appear albeit of low resolution before the rendering process begins. When it does begin, the raw data is then rendered/processed in such a way as determined by the engineers at Adobe in exactly the same way it would had the OP chosen the Canon application. By using the latter the OP would have the benefit of the Canon algorithms whereas Adobe can only have a good stab at it due to Canon, for commercial reasons, not releasing these precious algorithms to Adobe.

So getting to the point, the raw image doesn't appear flat as a result of having not been processed because it has - in this case by Lightroom, the OP's choice. In the process, Lightroom itself uses a colour space of - the name escapes me for the moment but I believe is something like Melissa as part of the rendering process as raw data inherently does not contain a colour space. So any dullness is down to the quality or otherwise of the rendering process in the chosen application. Having said all that, the reference to dullness I believe was concerned with the use/choice of the sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces which of course only apply when shooting jpegs. Only when the now rendered raw image has been edited by the user and the resultant TIFF/JPG Exported is a colour space added to the file and this is chosen by the user in the Export dialogue. It can also be selected by the user in Preferences when the raw data is to be converted and sent to Photoshop for further editing.

Alan Ingham:

swede:

The reason that the RAW images look dull is that they have NOT been processed, sharpened, boosted up, and so forth as set in your camera's program for massaging the image. It's not supposed to look like the jpg-

As to the raw images appearing dull as a result of having not been processed, sharpened, boosted up and so forth - um, I don't quite follow your thoughts or reasoning here. A raw .CR2 image for example cannot be viewed in Windows Explorer without the use of a plug-in or additional download - I myself use dpMagic, a fine piece of Freeware. The resultant thumbnail image then shown is the jpeg embedded within the raw file.

When you open a Raw file in Photoshop it will appear dull compared to the Jpeg, unless you have set-up presets in Photoshop. He did add that he was referring to Jpeg set-up in camera.

---

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

OldBoy:

Alan Ingham:

swede:

The reason that the RAW images look dull is that they have NOT been processed, sharpened, boosted up, and so forth as set in your camera's program for massaging the image. It's not supposed to look like the jpg-

As to the raw images appearing dull as a result of having not been processed, sharpened, boosted up and so forth - um, I don't quite follow your thoughts or reasoning here. A raw .CR2 image for example cannot be viewed in Windows Explorer without the use of a plug-in or additional download - I myself use dpMagic, a fine piece of Freeware. The resultant thumbnail image then shown is the jpeg embedded within the raw file.

When you open a Raw file in Photoshop it will appear dull compared to the Jpeg, unless you have set-up presets in Photoshop. He did add that he was referring to Jpeg set-up in camera.

The thing though OldBoy is that one cannot open a RAW file in Photoshop - one can't even view a RAW file in Photoshop, only in Camera Raw which as you know is a completely different application. I may of course be missing something here and maybe can't see the woods for the trees but I fail to see what one can set up in Photoshop as you put it that would improve the way an image is presented.

To make my point of view clearer let me add this. (a) how the original image is rendered in Lightroom (the OP did mention Lightroom) the user has very little control over. He/she could set up an Import Preset after calibrating the camera(s) but the benefits of this are really minimal and are more useful to product files where the colour is a part of and critical to the product. Other than this the user has absolutely no control over how the RAW data will be rendered as this is in the hands of Adobe engineers in this instance. It should also be noted that different applications render RAW images differently - and some swear by DPP for instance. I did also include in my post a brief mention that  'harvester' made the comparison when comparing sRGB with RGB so really all this talk about dullness has absolutely nothing to do with RAW files as these latter colour spaces only apply to jpeg images. So really it makes no sense and it certainly isn't worth debating the point regarding how RAW's look dull compared to jpegs because the parameters are not the same and therefore cannot be compared. One, the jpeg already has a colour profile either in the form of sRGB or RGB whereas the RAW file hasn't at this stage got any colour profile whatsoever. So I stand by my ascertion that the difference in the viewed image has got nothing at all to do with the RAW file not having been processed - it has been processed (rendered) in the chosen application. Sharpening also has nothing to do with whether a file is being displayed as dull or bright or anything in between and neither has boosted up, whatever that means.

Alan Ingham:

The thing though OldBoy is that one cannot open a RAW file in Photoshop - one can't even view a RAW file in Photoshop, only in Camera Raw which as you know is a completely different application. 

Alan

I beg to differ.  Here is a RAW opened in CS3 and can be edited as normal

---

Mark

My DCM Gallery

Mark I think you misunderstood my meaning because if you look at you own screenshot you will see that it has RGB/16 bit depth alongside the file name. This is no longer the original RAW data as it first appeared in Camera Raw. By clicking on the Open button in Camera Raw one is now sending the image to Photoshop for further editing but in the process it has now been both rendered and had a colour space attached e.g. the RGB one in your screenshot as set in Preferences.

If the image looks flat at this stage of the proceedings it is due to either using a non calibrated and profiled monitor or even a corrupt monitor profile. It can also be put down to an incorrect choice of colour space and finally down to the rendering process which as mentioned before one does have some control over but very little for all practicle purposes. If an image does appear dull the user can (in Photoshop) use the Assign colour space function to temporarily assign another colour space. If the original colour space is RGB as is your choice judging by the screen shot one can temporarily change this to sRGB to see if there would be an improvement in the image were this colour space to be permanently assigned. Quite often there is a marked improvement especially when a non profiled monitor is being used and more often than not is recommended when sending the finished file to an online printing service most of which can only handle the sRGB colour space anyway.

 

There is a big difference...I noticed it myself today too.  I have a Nikon camera, and while JPGS are lovely, the RAW looks underexposed and dull.  The only thing I can suggest (which I'm contemplating now) is to use the Nikon dedicated software...CaptureNX.  It's a pain in the a** to be honest, because I really do prefer Lightroom, but seems that Lightroom needs to have some additional plug-in for Nikon RAW images.  I happen to have CaptureNX and it does keep the integrity of my RAW and JPG images intact, but editing with CaptureNX is not my fav.

I've always been on AdobeRGB but the RAW and the jpg versions are still handled differently in Lightroom.  But, thanks for the suggestion!

MarkD:

Alan Ingham:

The thing though OldBoy is that one cannot open a RAW file in Photoshop - one can't even view a RAW file in Photoshop, only in Camera Raw which as you know is a completely different application. 

Alan

I beg to differ.  Here is a RAW opened in CS3 and can be edited as normal

Mark it is no longer a raw format file when transfered to the editor from Adobe Raw it is in fact a PSD file (adobes native file format) unless you deem to save it as another format like tiff or jpeg.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full
My Pbase
My Zenfoliio

Alan Ingham:

OldBoy:

Alan Ingham:

swede:

The reason that the RAW images look dull is that they have NOT been processed, sharpened, boosted up, and so forth as set in your camera's program for massaging the image. It's not supposed to look like the jpg-

As to the raw images appearing dull as a result of having not been processed, sharpened, boosted up and so forth - um, I don't quite follow your thoughts or reasoning here. A raw .CR2 image for example cannot be viewed in Windows Explorer without the use of a plug-in or additional download - I myself use dpMagic, a fine piece of Freeware. The resultant thumbnail image then shown is the jpeg embedded within the raw file.

When you open a Raw file in Photoshop it will appear dull compared to the Jpeg, unless you have set-up presets in Photoshop. He did add that he was referring to Jpeg set-up in camera.

The thing though OldBoy is that one cannot open a RAW file in Photoshop - one can't even view a RAW file in Photoshop, only in Camera Raw which as you know is a completely different application. I may of course be missing something here and maybe can't see the woods for the trees but I fail to see what one can set up in Photoshop as you put it that would improve the way an image is presented.

To make my point of view clearer let me add this. (a) how the original image is rendered in Lightroom (the OP did mention Lightroom) the user has very little control over. He/she could set up an Import Preset after calibrating the camera(s) but the benefits of this are really minimal and are more useful to product files where the colour is a part of and critical to the product. Other than this the user has absolutely no control over how the RAW data will be rendered as this is in the hands of Adobe engineers in this instance. It should also be noted that different applications render RAW images differently - and some swear by DPP for instance. I did also include in my post a brief mention that  'harvester' made the comparison when comparing sRGB with RGB so really all this talk about dullness has absolutely nothing to do with RAW files as these latter colour spaces only apply to jpeg images. So really it makes no sense and it certainly isn't worth debating the point regarding how RAW's look dull compared to jpegs because the parameters are not the same and therefore cannot be compared. One, the jpeg already has a colour profile either in the form of sRGB or RGB whereas the RAW file hasn't at this stage got any colour profile whatsoever. So I stand by my ascertion that the difference in the viewed image has got nothing at all to do with the RAW file not having been processed - it has been processed (rendered) in the chosen application. Sharpening also has nothing to do with whether a file is being displayed as dull or bright or anything in between and neither has boosted up, whatever that means.

I quoted Photoshop as it includes Camera Raw as part of the package even notwithstanding, that it can work without the full Photoshop. Within camera raw you have presets which you use to render the raw image, before taking into the full program. The next raw image you open will use these presets to render the image the same as the previous image unless you change them, and those changes will be current when you open the next raw file.

 

annieM:

There is a big difference...I noticed it myself today too.  I have a Nikon camera, and while JPGS are lovely, the RAW looks underexposed and dull.  The only thing I can suggest (which I'm contemplating now) is to use the Nikon dedicated software...CaptureNX.  It's a pain in the a** to be honest, because I really do prefer Lightroom, but seems that Lightroom needs to have some additional plug-in for Nikon RAW images.  I happen to have CaptureNX and it does keep the integrity of my RAW and JPG images intact, but editing with CaptureNX is not my fav.

The Raw File has no in-camera processing like applied to the jpeg file. When you set vivid within your camera menu it is only applied to jpeg images, not the raw file. It therefore follows that if you only shoot raw images, then none of these setting will be applied. Also, in the camera is software which renders the jpeg image according to settings supplied by Nikon technicians, which might not be the same as you wish to use. The Raw file allows you to decide how the finished image should look rather that those technicians. So, think of the Raw image as unprocessed data, which contains all the data captured at the time the picture was taken.

---

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