Converting RAW files - how to get the proper color?

[german]

Hey guys,<br /><br />I usually shoot in JPEG but I decided to use RAW capture (with a basic jpeg image to accompany the raw one) in my D200, since I intended to blow the up or submitt the images to an agency.<br /><br />Now, when I tried working the RAW image in CS2 the colors I get are not the colors I got in the jpeg file, nor are they the colors I observed when I took the photo (these were all Fall foliage in the mountains).<br /><br />The reds (and oranges) almost disappear.<br /><br />I tryed bumping the saturation (up to 75 or even 90), as I noticed this makes the oranges come alive, but the reds do not seem to come back into the image.<br /><br />I worked with "tint" (from -6 to +5) and this made a little bit of a difference, but I still do not get the colors I am looking for -- which, again, are in the jpeg image and were in the tree leaves themselves.<br /><br />I also worked on saturating (+50) the images a little bit (on the raw image), and sometimes reducing the exposure (-1/3) a bit too.<br /><br />Please let me know what else I might need to do to get those reds (and all original colors back in the image), and not end up with a somewhat opaque version of the photograph.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />German Silva<br /><br />PS. I'll post two versions of a certain image (if I can), one from the original jpeg and one from converting the raw into jpeg so that you can see what I am talking about.<br /><div></div>

[german]

<p>And here's the jpeg image as I got it from the camera.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[peano]

<p>You might upload the raw file to <a href="http://www.yousendit.com">www.yousendit.com</a> so people here could download it. Hard to tell what it needs without seeing it, but the jpeg looks good. There's no question that the raw could be adjusted to look at least that good.</p>

[SteveH]

<p>German, check your color space. The sRGB color space looks much more punchy on the monitor than AdobeRGB. The jpeg is most likely in sRGB. You could try converting your RAW image to sRGB if it's not there. One advantage of CS3 over CS2 is the vibrance and clarity sliders in the new convertor which also might change the colors more to your liking. </p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>The best solution is to shoot a gray card. You can then go into Photoshop "curves" and sample the gray card with the middle eye-dropper and there you'll be.</p>

<p>But Steve Henry gets to the heart of the matter when he says "...might change the colors more to your liking." With digital images it's all about taste.</p>

<p>I loaded the "RAW" image you posted into CS4, went to "Hue/Saturation", selected "Red" and brought the slider up a few notches. </p>

<p>Is this closer to what you want?</p>

<div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I don't get it. Both images look great. In fact the Raw image is more vibrant than the original jpeg. Of course the Raw shows more intense orange hued leaves over the somewhat diminished scarlet jpeg version.</p>

<p>If this is your only problem with this image, you've got the calibration sliders and HSL in ACR to fix this with just a slight tweak to the hue slider and sometimes desaturating can shift an intense orange toward red.</p>

<p>Wish my colors were as way off as yours. I always have my work cut out for me shooting Raw. You should see what I have to put up with.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>The tonal separation in the RAW capture image is far superior. I'm not sure what your problem is with that image.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[german]

<p>Hey, thank you guys.<br>

Both the jpeg and the Raw show up as sRGB in PS. <br>

There were a ton of images to be taken that afternoon. I usually do not take a grey card for that as it would slow me down a lot. Now, I know trying to get the colors right now is slowing me way down!<br>

In any case, I did not know it would be so much work to capture the image in Raw format.<br>

Anyhow, thanks Greg for your rendition. It's not quite what I wanted. But thanks for the suggestion. I did go to "hue/saturation" and worked on the red, bringing the hue down to -10 and the saturation up to +20. That seemed to do the trick. (I'll upload that image. I forgot to to the unsharp mask to this last one.)<br>

Tim, thanks for the suggestions. I just wanted to bring back those redish leaves. I loved the color/tonal separation in the raw file and how the sky and the snow look so much truer than the jpeg version though. Now, what are the HSL and ACR calibration sliders that you mention? Are those separate programs? (Please pardon my ignorance here.) I wish your colors start getting better for you!<br>

Rob, like you say, I love that tonal separation I got in the raw files. I did not know the images could look so much better -- color and all -- via raw capture. See, I shoot weddings and events and generally use jpeg. Raw would just slow me down, or so I think. And the problem with that image is that I could not find in it the colors I saw there in the mountain. Those reds that looked just spectacular when I was up there. But now, thanks to the suggestion on the hue/saturation it seems I'll be able to get them back!<br>

Let me show you what I got so far, and thanks to all once again. (We'll see if there are any more suggestions I could use.)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jacopo_brembati]

<blockquote>

<p>Both the jpeg and the Raw show up as sRGB</p>

</blockquote>

<p>German,<br>

all your image have an adobe 1998 color profile.<br>

For web publishing use sRGB.<br>

jpeg from camera is better than your last image. Subtile tone transitions are lost.<br>

You are tryng to get a good white balance, changing hue/saturation.<br>

That is not the way.</p>

 

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Sorry,<br>

a mistake: the jpg from camera is sRGB.</p>

[silverdae]

<p>Don't forget about the huse/saturation sliders in ACR. You can go into each color individually and adjust the hue, saturation and the luminance. This has been the deciding factor in a lot of my images. Click through all the tabs in ACR- don't just get stuck on the first tab. </p>

[dwphoto1]

<p>When capturing RAW files, you become the master of image processing. You do not leave it up to the camera manufacturer's software developers to decide what your image should look like. Don't give up on RAW. Ultimately you will wind up with more artistic control of your images.<br>

More important than Hue and Saturation in Raw processing is ensuring that you get full tonal range out of your images and that you control contrast. This is done by paying attention to the histogram, and using a levels adjustment and a curves adjustment BEFORE fiddling with hue and saturation. If you adopt some simple principles in processing your RAW images, you can achieve results that can be far more satisfactory than shooting JPEG. I agree with jacopo that you have edited out some important information in your image. You have achieved an image in which "subtle tone transitions are lost." Hue and saturation should come later in the editing process.<br>

As far as color space is concerned, I second the other comments here. For screen display you want sRGB. However, reserve conversion to sRGB as a last step before preparing your images for screen display. Edit in ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB to preserve as much information in the file as possible, and for printing your photos on a good inkjet printer.<br>

If you would like a link to some introductory tutorials I have on processing nature images, send me an email and I will return a link to you.</p>

[german]

<p>Hey, thank you guys for your answers. This is a bit overwhelming to me right now. (Looking for work, along with all kinds of trouble that not working brings, etc!)<br>

I just wanted to get some decent images for publication and so I captured them in RAW, thinking it would be better (better image quality, perhaps larger file size, the capability of working on said "negative" if you will, etc). Little did I know what I was getting into!<br>

I see the images can potentially look much better than the jpeg captures but man, I had no idea it would be this much work. <br>

In any case, and let's stay positive here (that's for me!). What is "ACR" that is mentioned a few times here? Please let me know.<br>

Jacopo, I do see now that the color profiles are different. It seems I was looking for that info in the wrong place.<br>

Doug, I'll follow your instructions and will see what happens. Levels and curves first, then hue/saturation. <br>

With respect to conversion to sRGB, should that be done only for the image I want to display online -- usually a smaller image?<br>

What about if I submit the other image to an agency, for publication. Should I keep that image as Adobe RGB (which might look odd to them in a computer screen), or should I send the one in sRGB? Or would that depend on the agency? (I guess the latter might apply.)<br>

But Doug, I will send you an email for a link to some tutorials, which I need badly!<br>

Hey, thanks everyone. I'll keep working on this -- along with working on finding work!</p>

<p> </p>

[dwphoto1]

<p>German,<br>

Tried to send a response to your email, but your server rejected my address with the following message:<br>

Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address<br /> Diagnostic code: smtp;553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)<br /> Remote system: dns;gsilvaphoto.com (TCP|167.206.4.197|34993|60.32.200.76|25) (s227.xrea.com ESMTP)<br>

I guess you have to enable receipt of mail from my address in some way.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<blockquote>

<p>Doug, I'll follow your instructions and will see what happens. Levels and curves first, then hue/saturation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>White balance first. If you cannot get a good white balance, change the raw converter.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I tried editing the original jpeg version and couldn't get the all the variations of oranges, fuchsia's and reds shown in German's final Raw rendering.</p>

<p>My take on working in Raw is to get it as right looking as possible in the Raw converter and leave Photoshop to do minor tweaks, sizing and sharpening for different output scenarios.</p>

<p>From my working extensively on my Raw shots in ACR I've found it is much better to work on the linear data in ProPhotoRGB within the converter including hue/saturation adjustments BUT AT 100% VIEW. The Raw converter is where I've found the limits of my camera's gamut capture capabilities as well as my display's capability to show this gamut especially with colors as in the posted image.</p>

<p>If you think you'll pull more variations of color out of the image in Photoshop it's not going to happen. I've tried with my own camera. What the camera captured is all it's going to deliver and getting it right in the converter is a lot easier and more refined. Working in Photoshop operates on gamma encoded data and isn't as refined and smooth as working on the linear data in ACR. It's doable but it can get rough.</p>

<p>After about a year ensconced in ACR shooting landscapes and flowers, I've found I rarely have to use any of Photoshop's tools except for sharpening and sizing. The limits I'm finding is more with the gamut issues mentioned above. That's sometimes hard to determine until I move the sliders editing the image with Photoshop's Hue/Sat tool and find the preview doesn't even change. </p>

<p>Below is an example of the color hell I have with some of my Raw captures that CS3's Hue/Sat couldn't fix, but was smooth as butter using ACR's color tools.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>ACR=Adobe Camera Raw.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Tim,<br>

Hue is not to be used unless you are creating some special effect , and I suppose, in this case, you have to apply it selectively.<br>

Changing hue, you get more red on the trees but river turns cyan.<br>

Starting from original raw in acr 4.6 (I don't know if this is a good start), you can increase saturation to extract the subtle reddish, saving the blue tone of the river.<br>

P.S.<br>

I opened a little the shadows to get an image not so different from your.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I tried working the RAW image in CS2 the colors I get are not the colors I got in the jpeg file...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly why Adobe has provided the DNG profile editor (and some example profiles), in an attempt to mimic the in-camera JPEG processing from the original Raw. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Changing hue, you get more red on the trees but river turns cyan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I was going for so it is the correct way to go about getting what I wanted. Whatever works on these types of images is my motto. The image to me was too green and required more than a color temp fix. My point is I wouldn't have done this using Photoshop's Hue/Sat. ACR's color tools are far more superior IMO for doing this on the Raw linear data.</p>

<p>BTW your version is too dark and the sunlit trees still have a greenish hue. It's suppose to look like golden sunset light on autumn leaves. I wouldn't have taken the shot if it looked any other way. I mean look at the roof of the building in the background, it's greenish at least that's what I see.</p>

<p>I have to admit though that my version went too far on the Blue Hue adjust in the Calibration tab. So I ended up bringing it down to -10 instead of -20 which still gave a golden yellow (not greenish gold) and reduced the intense reddish orange I now see. </p>

<p>I believe these types of mixed color temp scenes seem to throw the camera's sensors off somehow. I usually don't have to make any hue/saturation adjusts with most of my images. However, I have another image that requires the same edits of a completely different scene and the only thing that makes them the same is both have blown highlights trying to Expose To The Right, so this may also be a factor. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Jacopo, I went back and decided to try to get the same results without using the Blue Hue slider in the Calibration Tab and have to say that it was a color temp issue all along.</p>

<p>I was trying to maintain the neutrals like tree bark and the banks of the river from turning a reddish warm color. I ended up shifting the "As Shot" color temp which was at 5400 Temp/+8 Tint and adjusted to 5800 Temp/+12 Tint and got pretty close to what I would get just using the Blue Hue Cal slider at "As Shot" color temp. I also cranked up the saturation overall from +30 to +50 on both. See the results below.</p><div></div>

[peterridding]

<p>Hi<br>

Was waiting to see if anyone answered German's question about sRGB and Adobe RGB as work colour space. I do not print 99% of my images, but view them on my monitor or DVD on the TV. I shoot in RAW. I have DPP set to sRGB work space for raw converting, then send as a TIFF to ACR5.5 to do the extra editing that DPP has not got. I have changed the work space to sRGB also.<br>

Is this correct? If I use Adobe RGB for both work spaces, wouldn't I just be throwing all my work away when I convert back to sRGB, such as in a JPEG? This is important to me as I am doing a low key backyard wedding in a few days and they only want JPEGS on a DVD for their monitor or TV.<br>

What space should I work in?<br>

Many thanks for all answers.<br>

Cheers<br>

Peter.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Tim,<br>

much better, I think.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Peter,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Was waiting to see if anyone answered German's question about sRGB and Adobe RGB as work colour space</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did't find any question from German.<br>

German wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jacopo, I do see now that the color profiles are different. It seems I was looking for that info in the wrong place.</p>

</blockquote>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Tim,<br /> some additional element.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> BTW your version is too dark and the sunlit trees still have a greenish hue. It's suppose to look like golden sunset light on autumn leaves. I wouldn't have taken the shot if it looked any other way. I mean look at the roof of the building in the background, it's greenish at least that's what I see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> 1 - darkness/lightness depends on preference. We are speaking about color.<br /> <br /> 1 - Looking at the sky, I suppose you are not at the sunset. Otherwise you have to get strong pinkish or reddish tones. I suppose you are in the late afternon but not very near the sunset. <br /> <br /> 2 - the roof I see is not greenish, except for some foliage shadows.<br /> <br /> 3 - the sun is a nearly perfect blackbody. The color temperature of a blackbody is never grenish. So if you verify that there is a true green cast, this may be introduced from the converter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> I was trying to maintain the neutrals like tree bark and the banks of the river from turning a reddish warm color. I ended up shifting the "As Shot" color temp which was at 5400 Temp/+8 Tint and adjusted to 5800 Temp/+12 Tint and got pretty close to what I would get just using the Blue Hue Cal slider at "As Shot" color temp. I also cranked up the saturation overall from +30 to +50 on both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> I suppose that "tint" is to account for CCT lights, but sun stays on planckian locus. <br /> <br /> I don't know the tool (acr) but 5800K value is from where?<br /> <br /> <br /> If you go from 5400K to 5800K you are moving toward blue (a colder image). <br /> <br /> <br /></p>