Why do my JPEGs look so dull?

<p>I have recently posted a few photos on the forum, but they all look so washed out and dull compared to the original RAW file, that there is almost no point in posting them at all.<br>

What am I doing wrong? Is it because I am creating the JPEG file in iPhoto? If I process photos and convert in Lightroom, Elements or Photoshop would that help?<br>

All advice gratefully received.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What program are you using to view the RAW file? iPhoto?<br>

I do not use iPhoto but I can imagine that if you are converting the RAW to JPEG using that program, its may produce the effects you talk about (but that could happen with any program). What setting are you using in iPhoto to create the JPEG?</p>

<p>I've never heard of anybody shooting RAW but neglecting to adjust the image. RAW is by natured unprocessed. RAW is for picky tweakers. People whom enjoy or need to control their image 100%. If you ain't gonna tweak, use JPEG and let the camera process the image for you.</p>

<p>Without user input, iPhoto converts the RAW according to a generic profile. Sorta a plain or neutral look. So it will never look as good as a tweaked image or even an image converted in DPP using the default Picture Style. You're supposed to use iPhoto's image controls: exposure, levels, definition, saturation, sharpening and highlight/shadow adjust to adjust to taste. Once it looks right, export the version as a JPEG.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd rather use DPP for RAW tweaks or spring for Aperture 3. Sure DPP is chunky but has much more powerful editing tools than iPhoto and reads the default camera parameters (Pic Style, contrast, sharpening, etc). iPhoto is best used for JPEG and P&S stuff.</p>

<p>And, yes, Mike is right. Even the best RAW converters can look flat and neutral if you don't bother to diddle the controls to taste...</p>

<p>Hi!<br>

Thanks for that. I only started shooting in RAW, because I knew there was the option to adjust if something went really wrong with the exposure of a shot I "couldn't live without", and I also thought it would help to learn about post-production and my software. Maybe I should just go back to JPEG shooting!<br>

I am quite happy looking at the photos in RAW format, but sometimes want to put them 'out there' and then they look dull for now - I'll have a tinker with the programs and see what happens!</p>

<p>Your camera probably offers the choice of RAW & JPEG so that might work for you. But be aware that inside the RAW image, there is a thumbnail JPEG and a basic fullsize JPEG already.</p>

<p>I've never heard of someone having the problem of JPEG being flat while RAW is fine. It should be the other way around. I think there is operator error somewhere in here.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

also you can check whether your camera is set to shoot sRGB color space instead of Adobe RGB. I had this problem once when converting Adobe RGB RAW files to jpegs. When I set the camera to register sRGB files - the conversion from RAW to jpegs was perfect.</p>

<p>In which color space are you producing the JPGs? sRGB or Adobe RGB? If you're telling your software to use the Adobe RGB space when it renders those JPGs, they will indeed look dull and lifeless on most applicaions that aren't color profile aware (which is most web browsers). Apply sRGB ("save for web") when you create that JPG-format output, and you'll see a big difference.</p>

<p>If you're using iPhoto for your raw conversions, you might try applying +5 contrast, +15 saturation, +10 sharpen, and possibly some noise reduction in high ISO situations. (With CR2 files at ISO 800 or above from a Canon DSLR I use an iPhoto noise reduction setting of 15.) Having and using both iPhoto and Canon DPP I prefer Canon DPP for quick raw to jpeg conversions, for reasons Puppy Face already mentioned.</p>

<p>Sounds like it's time to take control of your postprocessing and achieve consistency in your image quality by developing a basic workflow, a short series of adjustments to apply to every image during the RAW conversion process. </p>

<p>Workflow descriptions are out there on the web, specific to various RAW converters and, better yet, are explained in detail in books by Scott Kelby, Martin Evening, and others.</p>

I have had similar experiences, and it has nothing to do with failing to adjust the raw file. You can adjust it to look exactly

as you like and the jpeg can look wimpy. Assuming that your monitor is calibrated, the washed out look typically has one of

the following three causes.

 

Color space - If your raw is in a large colorspace like Adobe RGB and your jpeg is in sRGB, you might lose some colors in

some cases. Sometimes over saturating before conversion will help, but it's a hit or miss approach.

 

Color space for the web - If you don't convert to sRGB, most browsers will not display your file correctly. Catch 22!

 

Bits and brightness - I have found that particularly bright 14-bit raw files contain too much information to fit into an 8-bit

jpeg file. It's like putting a pair of size 14 shoes into a size 8 shoe box. In this case, you have to decrease the exposure

in your photo editor before converting to jpeg. Give it a try!

<p>Hi! Sorry - I accidentally started a separate question because I am really tired - about how to convert Adobe RGB embedded RAW files to sRGB using software. Any suggestions?!</p>

<p>SORTED IT! You can do it directly from Lightroom! HOOORAH!</p>

Raw doesn't have a color space. It simply records the full range of color your camera is capable of recording. You pick the

color space prior to conversion or by setting a color space default in application preferences. The mismatch can occur if

you process a Jpeg for Abobe RGB and display it in a sRGB app such as a web browser. Happens to DPP and PS users

all the time. However the default color space for iPhoto is sRGB so the OP would have to change it in preferences or prior

to export to create a mismatch.

<p>In the case of Nikon, PF, the <em>camera</em> can be set to record the intended color space, and even though the RAW file isn't directly impacted by that, JPGs that are created from that RAW file will inherit the preference set in the camera, unless you take steps to prevent that. And it's not at all uncommon for people menu-diving in their camera to switch over to Adobe RGB, not thinking of the consequences.</p>

<p>I find that if I use Photoshop's save for the web option that the photos have a little more punch to them. Also try Lightroom's Export with Preset then the For Email option for a quick small sized file. </p>

<p>I just have a laughable P&S and I shouldn't even know this, but since you are a Canon user, you should already have Digital Photo Pro. Use it -- assuming you absolutely have to use raw files in the first place (which is highly questionable at this stage). It does a great job on raw files from a Canon camera, including my lowly P&S. It does so with minimal fuss, and you can experiment on the image as much as you want just by moving some sliders, all the while seeing exactly what it will look like. You can save and resize to whatever you want right in DPP, or convert to a 48-bit TIFF for further editing in any image editor. I wouldn't screw around with anything else, and especially NOT with limited software such as you are using (limited when it comes to raw files, that is).</p>

<p>A raw file is not a format. It's just raw numbers from the sensor after little processing by the camera other than some essential proprietary stuff to get an image out of the hardware. It's always going to look rather dark, unsharp and dull unless you apply the right corrections. DPP does this automatically when you open the file. Even if you saved it right then and there without any further changes, you would get a good image (basically what the JPEG from the camera would have looked like in the first place). You can't go wrong with it. I sometimes use something else, like Ufraw or the raw conversion capabiity built into Picture Window Pro, but I already have a good idea about what I want to get out of it.</p>