RAW very different from standard JPEG

[matias_orchard]

Hi there,

 

I decided to give RAW format a chance, and set my 30D to add RAW to the 'L'

pictures I have been shooting these last few weeks...

 

Set the camera to Auto-White-Balance, and 'Standard' Picture Style.

 

RAW pictures are so much darker than JPEG files show on the screen. And if I

look at the histograms, those of the RAW files are so much "lefter"...

 

Why is this? Is this normal?

 

Also, I tried playing with DPP, and using different picture styles does not show

the settings for that particular picture style. Any way of looking at this? Any

other recommendation on what to use to process those RAW files?

 

The most important purpose of using RAW was finding a particular Picture Style

to be used when taking portraits (the main use for my 30D), and none of them

truly convinced me... any advice on how to tweak these RAW files looking for a

nice picture style?

 

Finally, where can I read what the best/recommended work-flow for those RAW

files should be? I would like to know exactly what I need/should do, in order to

leave JPEGs out "of the picture" ;-)

 

I would appreciate your feedback!

 

 

Cheers,

 

MO

[frank_skomial]

You will need to worry when your RAW will look like your JPG.

JPG is already processed by your camera settings, while RAW is not.

 

If you need RAW to look like JPG, perhaps you do not want to have RAW at all? When you process RAW files, you should be able to obtain better than JPG pictures.

 

RAW is most of the time destined for post processing in a photo editing software. You need to know what you want to achieve from the RAW files. The industry standard is Photoshop, but others do have similar processing features.

[digitaldog]

> Why is this? Is this normal?<p>

 

<a href="http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/

prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf">Link</a>

[qtluong]

Yes, raw images without processing (at least from the Canon cameras I am used to) are just extremely dull.

[papasan]

as Frank said, RAW is simply and literally raw pixel information captured by your camera without any form of processing. JPEG on the other hand is being processed by your onboard camera computer, using the parameters you have set on your camera (white balance, sharpening, exposure etc). You can still process a JPEG photo in Photoshop later but because some of the parameters have already been set it may not be as easy to alter it the way you want it.

 

RAW on the other hand has not been modified in camera, which means that what you see when you download the image is most likely not what you had seen in your mind when you took the picture. You will need to adjust this image using your computer with a photo editing software (like Photoshop, or even your camera proprietary processing software)

 

The advantage of using RAW is you have complete control over the post processing of your image. You can even adjust the exposure by +/- 2 fstops, you can adjust the color balance, the white balance easily in the comfort of your home/office. At first this may seem a bit confusing, but if you persist you will find the control it gives you, from shooting to the final image, quite rewarding

good luck

[www.philwinterphotography.]

RAW is just that - no sharpening, contrast, saturation, or other adjustments. Don't go by looking at the image on your LCD. With RAW, only the histogram is important. When you take a photo, and the histogram looks good (that is, to the right, with no or minimal clipping), you're done.

 

Then you need to bring the image into a RAW converter. I use BreezeBrowser, but there are many good ones. That's where I set the white balance, contrast, saturation, exposure, and initial sharpening. I then save it as a master tif. From there, I can do anything with it.

 

Having said that, I doubt you'll be able to tell any difference between a print that started out as RAW and one shot as a jpeg.

 

While I don't want to start a RAW-jpeg war, both formats have their advantages. I shoot RAW when color balance or exposure might be problems. If they're not, there's nothing wrong with high res jpegs. And jpegs will save storage. If I was a wedding photog, I'd shoot RAW all the time. But I'm not. So I frequently shoot jpegs. It's nothing to be ashamed of. There! I've come out of the closet!

 

Oh, and if the "picture styles" you're referring to are the ones on the mode dial, please forget about them. Learn to use aperture and shutter speed to produce the image you want. Those are the AV, TV, and M modes.

 

Keep shooting,

 

Phil

[don_e]

"RAW pictures are so much darker than JPEG files show on the screen. And if I look at the histograms, those of the RAW files are so much "lefter"..."

 

That sounds like a linear conversion, which is an odd default for a raw convertor to have.

 

One solution is to save the conversion as a prophoto 16bit tif, open in an image editor, open the levels tool and draw in the right slider of the levels tool to where the histogram data begins.

 

Another solution is to read the documentation for DPP.

 

I would not recommend a linear conversion to someone new to raw processing.

[matias_orchard]

Thank you guys for all your feedback... a couple of comments...

 

1. 'Picture Style' in EOS is meant for a preset of contrast, sharpness, saturation, and some other adjustments you can make... there is one for Portrait, another Standard, another Neutral, another B&W, etc...

 

2. What I don't get to understand is that when I'm seeing at the histogram on the camera, and taking RAW + JPEG files, what histogram - out of the two ones - is actually displayed on the camera screen?

 

3. I was mostly looking for the right 'Picture Style' to shoot... as post processing looks too much time for what I have now, but was confused about the histogram thing... so this is why I'm asking...

 

4. Is the general rule to look for a rather plain histogram, moved a little to the right? Is that it?

 

 

Thanks!

 

MO

[bernardwest]

Matias,

 

1. Canon seems to prefer people not to know the technical details of how their equipment or software actually works. Try hunting on google for a 'white paper' on DPP and what the actual difference is between the different picture styles. If you find out, I'd love to know.

 

2. The histogram displays information about the in-camera jpeg conversion.

 

4. Exposed to the right (ettl) is a good technique for digital, just remember to not blow important highlights, and to readjust your exposure to the left (if required) in post-processing.

 

As for your dark raw problem, I agree with that it sounds like it could be a linear raw data thing. Is it VERY much darker, or just a little bit? In DPP make sure you uncheck the Linear checkbox in the main interface.

[don_e]

If its a linear conversion then likely only wb was corrected and the gamma is set to 1.0 rather than the 2.2 for normal on screen viewing. According to the BBPro docs "Canon's raw conversion routines do not allow the saturation, contrast and sharpness to be adjusted when using linear conversion."

 

What Matias wants is a 'normal conversion' which will give him an on-screen image similar to what would have been produced if he shot jpeg. Then he can play with various "picture styles" and whatever other controls are available, if, in fact, the problem is a linear conversion setting. A linear conversion requires processing beyond conversion for an image to look 'normal'.

[matias_orchard]

Thanks, guys.

 

It is not linear conversion setting... I tried that... it is a bit darker...

 

On the other hand, the histograms I was referring was those found using Picasa. I open the folder containing the RAW and JPEG files, and the histogram shown for both files are very different... I guess I post some examples tonight to show you...

 

I understand there are different (Canon) Picture Styles for a reason... but given that I'm only into - or MAINLY, to be fair - portraits, I would love to tweak only one Picture Style to be used al the time... I cannot image a situation where different ones are needed... given the same picture concept (portrait, in this case).

 

I downloaded the latest version of DPP, and its manual... I'll be reading it soon...

 

Bernie, why did you mention ETTL when talking about exposure to the right? Didn't get that.

 

 

Thanks!

 

MO

[douglas lee]

"3. I was mostly looking for the right 'Picture Style' to shoot... as post processing looks too

much time for what I have now, but was confused about the histogram thing... so this is why

I'm asking..."

 

If you don't want to post process, then RAW may not appropriate for your needs.

 

Regards,

Doug

[matias_orchard]

Exactly, Doug! I only wanted to shoot some RAWs to check what (Canon) Picture Style is the most appropriate for my needs... with this, I meant to tweak contrast, sharpness, color saturation, etc... it is also true that I should get along with those predetermined on the camera... portrait picture style, in my case, but given the available tools, wanted to experiment... and run into the weird histogram thing, and asked ;-)

 

 

Cheers,

 

MO

[www.philwinterphotography.]

I'm a little confused about what you're asking, but I'll forge ahead anyway. In the menu of your 30D, you should see an option called "Parameters." At least that's what they call it on my 10D. With that, you can set up any one of several combinations of sharpening, contrast, and saturation. For example, you can set one for portraits and another for landscapes. But these settings apply only to jpegs.

 

From what you've said, I recommend you shoot jpegs (little or no post processing), and experiment with the parameters until you find several you like.

[matias_orchard]

Thanks, Phil... you understood what I'm looking for, but you did not get what I'm trying to do in order to get it...

 

1. I would like to find a customized picture style - combining different settings for sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc. - to be used when taking portraits (of my three beautiful daughters). Even though Canon has a preset 'portrait' picture style, I would like to tweak it a bit.

1.1 One chance is playing with those settings on the camera, and see the results afterwards... which is more or less what you are suggesting.

2. What I wanted to do - and actually did - was getting RAW files with my camera, and apply such settings on the computer in order to compare the effects real-time. You can do this with DPP. You can move contrast, sharpness, etc, and even apply different preset picture styles (as well as white balance, and exposure...).

2.1 Doing it, I found myself not seeing much difference when applying the different setting, and I'm trying to learn more about them before going further, but what I did notice was the difference between the histogram generated by the RAW file, and the one generated by the JPEG file.

 

I will - MOST LIKELY - end up shooting JPEGs. I just want to find the best picture style possible for what I'm doing right now...

 

 

Cheers,

 

MO

[JeffOwen]

I too am struggling at the moment having used RSE (Raw Shooter Essentials) to convert my RAW files from my Canon 20D with no problems. Now that I have a Canon 40D RSE can't handle the new camera nor can CS2 so I was recommended to convert RAW to DNG and then to jpg or whatever. So far it is an uphill battle with unfamiliar terms and not too user friendly steps. Bottom line so far is that DPP (came with the camera) seems to be the best route converting RAW although it seems only marginally better that the jpgs taken straight from the camera!

 

It is difficult to see in the example below but from the original image at the bottom there are four conversions.

 

1st Converted using Fastone - not very good at all with no real controls available.

 

2nd Convert RAW to DNG to JPG - fair but later I did do better but it was a struggle.

 

3rd The original JPG from the camera - I think I might use this as my main option as it was the easiest!

 

4th RAW to JPG using DPP - Best results but not very user friendly compared with RSE.<div></div>

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Whew! This is a tough one. If you're going to shoot jpegs, don't worry about RAW. Shoot several images using different settings and see which ones you prefer. In all probability, you won't find one that will work in all situations. Part of being a photographer, as opposed to a snap shot shooter - and I'm not implying your are - is making the camera capture the image you want.

 

This reminds me - please bear with me - when my dad was teaching me to fly some 40+ years ago, he said, "Son, make the airplane do what you want it to do!" Well, at the time I didn't have the skill to do that. But with more experience, I could make the plane do what I wanted. Same for photography. I'm sorry, but I love the story, and thank for your indulgence.

 

Perhaps I've missed your point. If so forgive me, but it seems like you're trying to get an explanation for something that, with some experimenting, you could find a superior solution yourself.

 

Best Regards,

 

Phil

[bernardwest]

sorry, that should have been ETTR.

[adam_saka]

Only months ago I switched to RAW and I have never looked back. Sure I had to buy a larger memory card, but it was well worth it. Keep in mind that you will need to spend a little time post processing, but you can do a lot more with RAW files than I first realised. So I thought I'd share a few things I've learnt, but I'm sure others can add...

 

I use Photoshop to do all my processing of RAW files, and 'Bridge' as a way to browse and open them. I then convert all the good photos to JPEG for regular viewing and web page uploading. I archive the RAWs on CD in case I ever want to edit them again.

 

In an ideal world, most of the following would be perfect when you took the shots, but RAW puts you in a great position to correct those ?almost great? photos. Colour and tone corrections can add a lot to an image.

 

Here are some of the advantages I have found.

 

1. White balance: Photos that often had white balance can be easily corrected without loss of quality. Very useful for indoor photography as it?s often too yellow. Also you don?t have to think about white balance when your actually shooting.

 

2. Exposure: If you over expose or under expose an image it is very easy to recover. RAW images store some ?brighter than white? data, so if you overexpose you can scale it back a little. I find this nice if I overexpose a nice sky, skintones or something like that.

 

3. Good raw editors give you good colour control, which might be nice for taking the ?flash red? from people skin tones. Or perhaps you might be wishing that grass was a little greener.

 

4. Colour and tone controls also help if your image isn?t contrasty enough, great for those washed out images.

 

5. By editing and re-saving jpgs you lose quality each time. This is bad news, especially if you want to crop later on. If you start with the RAW you can edit an image that hasn?t been affected by jpeg compression. Say you are just slightly off focus but the image is great, you might be able to recover the image a little bit by using Photoshop?s unsharp mask. Then fix some red eyes, then remove a pimple from someone?s face.

 

As I said, I?m fairly new to this, but the advantages are huge. Especially if you are taking critical photos such as weddings that you can?t get again. If you are shooting a picture that you could easily repeat the next day then good editing techniques are less important.

 

If you are getting dark images, may I suggest you try opening them with photoshop.

[frank kennedy]

I have done exactly what I think you are saying. Open a picture in DPP and change to each of the picture styles to see which one looks best.

 

Here's what I do. Shoot right. That means overexpose a little so the histogram moves just to the far right. Just touching. Open in DPP and use the lighten/darken slider to back it down a little.

 

Select the style you like and then you know.

 

When you go back to shooting jpg, you may have to readjust the exposure a little. Brighter on the camera looks better on the monitor.

 

Ignore jpg until you decide what style you want to use.

[matias_orchard]

Thanks, Jeff... although it is not my plan to start experimenting with different pieces of software... I just want to correctly use what I have now ;-)

 

The problem I've found converting RAWs into JPEGs using DPP is that the file generated by DPP is so much larger than that one generated by the camera. I'm using highest quality, and 350 DPI. Is this why? What are the quality settings on the camera, then?

 

Phil, you're right... I should be playing with the camera, and find something that suits... but I'm finding RAW so tempting.....! ;-)

 

Adam, I completely understand what you're saying... after having played with DPP for only a couple of hours... it is the time consuming part of the picture what I'm not liking...

 

Does all this mean that you never use bracketing? Because... if you can set white balance, exposure, and then picture style...

 

Frank,the only "problem" I see in your recommendation is that I see very difficult to leave RAW after using it for a longer period of time... :-D

 

Thanks, guys. Very useful information.

 

Here are my models. RAW files, exposure to the right upto 2/3 steps, 'flash' while balance, 'nostalgia' picture style (except that one b&w), and some tweaking on the contrast and sharpness...

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/matias.orchard/matri_rosini

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

Many regards,

 

MO

[www.philwinterphotography.]

If you're finding RAW to your liking, keep in mind that setting such things as white balance, style, contrast, etc. has no effect on the RAW image. It does - at least on the 10D - affect the image displayed on the LCD, but I don't rely on that. When you bring the RAW image into your RAW converter, you should be able to apply "as shot" adjustments, or make your own, adjusting the image manually to your own tastes.

 

The reasons I shoot RAW most of the time are (1) I don't have to worry about WB while photographing. (2)RAW image thumbnails display faster in my RAW converter that do jpegs (using BreezeBrowser). (3)Since I'm tweaking jpegs in PhotoShop anyway, converting from RAW is a minor extra step. (4)I save the RAW files like I used to save film negatives. I can always go back and start over with the original image.

[frank kennedy]

Your pictures look perfect. Looks like you achieved your objective.

 

Frank

[matias_orchard]

Thanks guys...

 

I'm now figuring out the optimal (is there such a thing) way of actually using RAW files as negatives... I do know how much I will regret not having a RAW files when realizing that a particular picture was not good enough... I know...

 

 

Cheers!

 

MO