Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: wofsy on April 03, 2014, 12:23:25 pm
-
Once in a while. I would like to start processing a raw file from the corresponding jpeg file that is created in the camera. So rather than passing through the raw converter into Photoshop, the idea would be to have a preset or other tool that converts the file automatically to look exactly like the camera jpeg. Is there a way to do this?
-
With the manufacturer's raw converter, that's supposed to be possible (but I don't know how close). With Adobe raw converters, there may be a DNG camera profile that can mimic this closer too. Or you could roll your own. I don't know what or why the JPEG the camera builds from raw, using it's proprietary processing is better or closer to anything you hope to gain but if you want to start that way, you should be able to get "close".
-
Once in a while. I would like to start processing a raw file from the corresponding jpeg file that is created in the camera. So rather than passing through the raw converter into Photoshop, the idea would be to have a preset or other tool that converts the file automatically to look exactly like the camera jpeg. Is there a way to do this?
I believe that Canons DPP will do this if you are a Canon user.
Other than that, Lightroom can be used to make a pretty decent set of "standard" presets. Remember that there is not only one possible JPEG generated from your camera, it depends on the camera style settings.
-h
-
I agree that the manufacturers RAW converter will probably get you closer than Adobe editing software overall since their own software uses the built-in camera settings as well. Canon's DPP or Nikon's ViewNX2 or CaptureNX2 probably will work best overall.
I think Qimage Ulitmate will also print a direct RAW image too from most cameras, but probably reads it without the camera's settings applied. Might be the closest to a RAW print maybe short of the Adobe DNG Converter.
SG
-
A bit OT but a good read is this piece which suggests strongly that rendering the image is a key aspect of photography. JPEG=Polaroid/Chrome? Raw=neg/developing?
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
-
A bit OT but a good read is this piece which suggests strongly that rendering the image is a key aspect of photography. JPEG=Polaroid/Chrome? Raw=neg/developing?
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
Andrew,
Link not working.
-
Andrew,
Link not working.
Darn, they moved it somewhere. Anyway, try this:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
-
If you import BOTH files to Lightroom it will take preference of the profile of the JPEG I believe then you can export "with changes" to PS... If you use Lightroom as your catalog this should work for you I believe.
-
If you import BOTH files to Lightroom it will take preference of the profile of the JPEG I believe then you can export "with changes" to PS... If you use Lightroom as your catalog this should work for you I believe.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but if I set my Canon 7d to shoot raw+jpeg and then set the picture styles to create a monochrome image, and import both the raw and the jpeg into Lightroom 5.3, only the jpeg is monochrome. The raw file is displayed using the default settings that I have instructed Lightroom to apply to my raw files. I can not find a setting to instruct Lightroom to honor the in camera settings. I also tried making other adjustments in camera like decreased saturation, sharpening etc and only the jpeg reflects these changes...not the raw in Lightroom.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but if I set my Canon 7d to shoot raw+jpeg and then set the picture styles to create a monochrome image, and import both the raw and the jpeg into Lightroom 5.3, only the jpeg is monochrome. The raw file is displayed using the default settings that I have instructed Lightroom to apply to my raw files. I can not find a setting to instruct Lightroom to honor the in camera settings. I also tried making other adjustments in camera like decreased saturation, sharpening etc and only the jpeg reflects these changes...not the raw in Lightroom.
Hmm if you hit the "i" key for "info" when the display info shows in the left corner, does it say RAW+JPEG?
I believe it's under settings, file handling, look for something like that, and I believe there's an option to instructed to do so, but I could be wrong and I won't be home for a little while to check, does anyone else know?
-
A point of clarification...
The Adobe "camera" profiles are NOT made to emulate the in-camera jpegs. Instead, they are made to emulate the results of the camera maker's own raw processing software (Canon's DPP for example).
Of course, the camera maker's raw processing software is made to emulate their in-camera jpegs. So, that means Adobe's profiles are an emulation of an emulation. It should not be a surprise that this process yields less than perfect results. Imagine two different language experts translating a book from English to French and then back to English.
Shoot a RAW+jpeg image with a Canon camera set to "Portait" mode. Process one version of the raw with Canon's DPP. Process aonther version with Adobe ACR using the "Camera Portrait" profile. Load the in-camera jpeg and the 2 processed raw images as separate layers in Photoshop and compare. Compare them visually and measure the statistical differences using the StdDev values in the Histogram pallet.
That exercise will demonstrate the inherent error in the process.
The best way to emulate the in-camera jpeg with ACR/Photoshop is to build your own custom profiles (or presets, or adjustment layers). For example, shoot a colorchecker chart in RAW+jpeg. Load the jpeg in ACR, and use the colorpicker to measure and record values for each of the grayscale patches and each of the primary color patches (RGB+CMY).
Then open the raw in ACR. First, select a Adobe camera profile that matches the in-camera jpeg setting you used (Landscape, Portrait, Neutral, etc.). Next, build a tone curve to force all the grayscale patch values to the same values measured on the jpeg. Next, use the color adjustments in ACR to force the primary color patch values to the corresponding jpeg values.
This is a tedious and difficult exercise, but quite educational. It also demonstrates that it's probably not worth the effort.
-
A point of clarification...
The Adobe "camera" profiles are NOT made to emulate the in-camera jpegs. Instead, they are made to emulate the results of the camera maker's own raw processing software (Canon's DPP for example).
Of course, the camera maker's raw processing software is made to emulate their in-camera jpegs. So, that means Adobe's profiles are an emulation of an emulation. It should not be a surprise that this process yields less than perfect results. Imagine two different language experts translating a book from English to French and then back to English.
I don't think that's quite right for Nikon - perhaps it is for Canon.
With Nikon, as far as I can tell, neither the in-camera jpeg nor the Nikon raw conversion is the "original" which the other is trying to emulate. Both are creating Nikon's idea of the rendering of the raw data, using the particular user settings on the camera.
Thus you can't say that you are closer to the original by starting with either Nikon in-camera jpeg or Nikon-rendered raw. And of course neither is the one, true, "right" rendering of the raw data; they are both just the Nikon rendering.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but if I set my Canon 7d to shoot raw+jpeg and then set the picture styles to create a monochrome image, and import both the raw and the jpeg into Lightroom 5.3, only the jpeg is monochrome. The raw file is displayed using the default settings that I have instructed Lightroom to apply to my raw files. I can not find a setting to instruct Lightroom to honor the in camera settings. I also tried making other adjustments in camera like decreased saturation, sharpening etc and only the jpeg reflects these changes...not the raw in Lightroom.
Raw means just what it says ... the file is the data as it comes off of the sensor prior to any in-camera processing. Lightroom simply has no way of knowing what the camera did in the process of converting the data to JPG after the sensor was read as that information is not something recorded in the raw file's metadata. Similarly the JPG from the camera doesn't record how it was changed in its making, only the final result - there is no 'history' to be read so as to be applied by another program.
-
Raw means just what it says ... the file is the data as it comes off of the sensor prior to any in-camera processing. Lightroom simply has no way of knowing what the camera did in the process of converting the data to JPG after the sensor was read as that information is not something recorded in the raw file's metadata. Similarly the JPG from the camera doesn't record how it was changed in its making, only the final result - there is no 'history' to be read so as to be applied by another program.
You are correct. I was responding to StoneNYC who had stated that Lightroom could read and use the info for in camera processing in the raw file's meta data. I was pointing out that what he stated does not work for me in Lightroom 5.3 (nor has it ever worked) with my Canon raw files.
-
You are correct. I was responding to StoneNYC who had stated that Lightroom could read and use the info for in camera processing in the raw file's meta data. I was pointing out that what he stated does not work for me in Lightroom 5.3 (nor has it ever worked) with my Canon raw files.
I believe I said with the JPEG information, not the RAW information, by importing both files, light room will read those two files as the same image but up by the JPEG changes to the image, this again I haven't tested but I thought was how it worked and the reason for excepting dual file formats like that, I am heading home now and I'm just going to test it myself
-
...by importing both files, light room will read those two files as the same image but up by the JPEG changes to the image, ...
I don't know what you mean by that!
My observation is that, with raw+jpeg, unless you select the preference option "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos", the jpeg is effectively ignored.
-
Raw means just what it says ... the file is the data as it comes off of the sensor prior to any in-camera processing. Lightroom simply has no way of knowing what the camera did in the process of converting the data to JPG after the sensor was read as that information is not something recorded in the raw file's metadata. Similarly the JPG from the camera doesn't record how it was changed in its making, only the final result - there is no 'history' to be read so as to be applied by another program.
I believe that this is wrong. The raw file contains sufficient meta-data for Canon themselves to "regenerate" the JPEG looks in their raw developer.
The issue seems to be parsing and interpreting the meta-data. "Sharpness +2" might mean something meaningful in Canons cross-platform raw developer, but might not (easily) translate to something meaningful for the ACR pipeline.
-h
-
Raw means just what it says ... the file is the data as it comes off of the sensor prior to any in-camera processing. Lightroom simply has no way of knowing what the camera did in the process of converting the data to JPG after the sensor was read as that information is not something recorded in the raw file's metadata. Similarly the JPG from the camera doesn't record how it was changed in its making, only the final result - there is no 'history' to be read so as to be applied by another program.
I believe that this is wrong. The raw file contains sufficient meta-data for Canon themselves to "regenerate" the JPEG looks in their raw developer.
The issue seems to be parsing and interpreting the meta-data. "Sharpness +2" might mean something meaningful in Canons cross-platform raw developer, but might not (easily) translate to something meaningful for the ACR pipeline.
-h
Same with NIkon. The raw file contains many of the camera settings. Quite a few are in an open form - lens data, exposure data, normal EXIF stuff - but Nikon-specific settings - picture controls, ADL and so on - are in proprietary Nikon metadata that only Nikon software reads.
Nikon software (ViewNX, Capture NX) reads the Nikon proprietary medata and by default applies the same effects on the raw in the raw processor as the in-camera jpeg processor does. Hence the image rendered by Nikon raw processing software will look (at default settings) the same as the in-camera jpeg.
And neither is the "original" that the other "emulates". Both are doing the same thing to the raw data, and producing the same result.
Other raw processing software (including Adobe's) can't read the proprietary metadata, so start from their own defaults. That doesn't make them worse (or better) - just different.
-
The raw file contains sufficient meta-data for Canon themselves to "regenerate" the JPEG looks in their raw developer.
That is my understanding too. You pick Picture Style A, you get that in the JPEG of course. And some proprietary metadata in raw that the manufacturer's converter can emulate. How well the two match in all cases is another question, I never use this 'feature'.
-
I believe that this is wrong. The raw file contains sufficient meta-data for Canon themselves to "regenerate" the JPEG looks in their raw developer.
The issue seems to be parsing and interpreting the meta-data. "Sharpness +2" might mean something meaningful in Canons cross-platform raw developer, but might not (easily) translate to something meaningful for the ACR pipeline.
-h
So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?
-
So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?
The advantage of using the proprietary raw convertor (Canon's or Nikon's software, for example) is that they will take account of those settings like sharpness, contrast and saturation.
However, with raw (as opposed to jpeg) you can defer the decision on those settings until post processing. Personally I can't be fussed with setting all that stuff before every photo. I've much more time to do it later in post processing. And if you don't alter them for each exposure, then it makes no difference if you make fixed settings on your camera or in your raw processor.
But to answer your question - why wouldn't you use the manufacturer's own raw conversion software? In the case of Nikon, it's because I think Adobe raw conversion is markedly better than Nikon's, and the overall feature set of Adobe Lightroom is (IMHO) greatly superior that of Nikon's software. Clearly that's a subjective judgement, and I can't speak for Canon's software.
Some people use a proprietary raw processor and then use Lightroom. Personally I can't see much point in that.
-
So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?
My goal is not to emulate the out-of-camera JPEGs. If it was, I'd use DPP or even out-of-camera JPEGs.
My goal is to make "good" images. And to maintain a large collection of images, some of which are from Nikon or Sony cameras. And to avoid consulting user manuals. For me and my needs, Lightroom has been a reasonable solution (with a few warts). For what I know, there may be other solutions that I never tried that would have done better, but DPP and DxO did not feel as immediately "right" as Lightroom did.
-h
-
So then, why not just process it through canons processor first and then exported from there to an Adobe product and work on it there now that it's been processed?
A few reasons:
- When you own cameras from more than one manufacturer, you'll inevitably be less-skilled and less-efficient using each camera makers' own software than learning one app properly
- Camera companies are great at developing cameras, less wonderful at writing desktop software
- It's not just about processing but also about handling often large numbers of photos
-
I still think it would be neat if Lightroom & friends could read and interpret the same meta-data as DPP does. If the user wants an emulation of in-camera JPEG, why not offer it (or as close an approximation that the different technologies multiplied by developer effort allows). Adobe seems to allude to this thought in that they offer camera manufacturer emulating color profiles?
Showing active AF points in Lightroom would be really handy. Searching for images in database where focus point selection was this or that might also be handy.
This is the point where someone will chime in saying that camera manufacturers are naughty for using proprietary file formats instead of open standards like DNG. And then the thread will spin for a page or two where proponents and opponents fight over that...
-h
-
I still think it would be neat if Lightroom & friends could read and interpret the same meta-data as DPP does.
Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.
There was a Lightroom plugin which displayed Nikon focus points, though I think its developer disappeared before it was finished. Focus points might be of educational value, but might not that development time be better spent on a focus mask which shows what is actually sharp?
John
-
Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.
I think it displays the jpeg preview only momentarily, while it's building its own preview. No way of seeing it after that.
However, it would be nice to toggle back-and-forth to the jpeg preview, to get a comparison with the camera-rendered jpeg. Is that what Aperture does?
-
Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails? But what I would like is to have LR display and use the embedded JPEG preview (in the same way as Aperture) which I think would be more practical.
From a user-persective, it would be a nice feature to have. From a developer perspective, possibly. But then there might be solutions (DNG raw files might be one).
There was a Lightroom plugin which displayed Nikon focus points, though I think its developer disappeared before it was finished. Focus points might be of educational value, but might not that development time be better spent on a focus mask which shows what is actually sharp?
Self-education is a large part of my photography. I want to get better, and knowing what I did makes it easier to see if results match expectations.
-h
-
However, it would be nice to toggle back-and-forth to the jpeg preview, to get a comparison with the camera-rendered jpeg. Is that what Aperture does?
Yes, that's correct - with a nice big warning to keep you aware that you're in preview mode.
-
What I don't understand is that, when I view a canon RAW image in my Mac preview will display the image as I shot it in camera, but when imported to Lightroom it initially displays in the in-camera settings, and then once finished loading/rendering, it changes and loses all the original stuff... So why can't it keep it, since it obviously is able to read and display the info.
-
What I don't understand is that, when I view a canon RAW image in my Mac preview will display the image as I shot it in camera, but when imported to Lightroom it initially displays in the in-camera settings, and then once finished loading/rendering, it changes and loses all the original stuff... So why can't it keep it, since it obviously is able to read and display the info.
It's not displaying initially the in-camera settings, or not directly. It's displaying the small embedded jpeg preview that's stored inside a raw. That preview has been made with the in-camera settings, so indirectly that's what you're seeing.
When you shoot raw, a small low-res jpeg is stored in it as well, for things like the in-camera preview. When you display a raw image on the back of your camera, you're not seeing the raw, you're seeing this little jpeg.
Lightroom initially displays this preview also while it's building its own preview from the raw. Once it has its own preview, it displays that, as it accurately reflects Lightroom's raw rendering (which the embedded preview won't).
We were discussing this a few posts above. John Beardsworth explained that in Aperture, you can see this embedded jpeg later, if you want. I think that would be a neat feature in LR, too, but John says it comes with a health warning in Aperture, as it's NOT a preview of the LR rendering.
-
Wouldn't they be endlessly chasing their tails?
Yes! And why stop there. The preview should (?) match any other 3rd party raw converter. The problem is the concept that the preview rendering from the camera is somehow correct. It's just one interpretation.
-
Showing active AF points in Lightroom would be really handy. Searching for images in database where focus point selection was this or that might also be handy.
This is the point where someone will chime in saying that camera manufacturers are naughty for using proprietary file formats instead of open standards like DNG.
and which tag is for a focus point ? of points ? = http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdf
-
Yes! And why stop there. The preview should (?) match any other 3rd party raw converter. The problem is the concept that the preview rendering from the camera is somehow correct. It's just one interpretation.
Someone might think that the in-camera JPEG is "the reference". To me, that is a strange idea.
There might be valid use-cases for being able to affect raw development while shooting the image. The user might decide that an image should be rendered as B&W while snapping. She might record to raw because she knows that will capture as much image information as possible. She might still prefer that her raw developer reads that she had explicitly set the "B&W" bit in the raw file, and do its best to default render as "B&W".
The look of one raw pipeline can never be anything but an approximation to the look of another raw pipeline. Sometimes, even crude approximations can be just what the user needs. The usage of "default" settings and "presets" in raw developers seems to support that people want the possibility of "crude approximations".
As a wild guess, someone who shot 1000+ (raw) images at a wedding and is under a strict deadline to present a preview of the best images for selection and posting on facebook the same night, would appreciate any measure that allows for more automation (even if full manual effort will always be needed for optimal results).
-h
-
DPP works well . Thank you.
-
Redcrown
You are describing a process by which one exactly determines the color and tone of a photo using another as a template. This seems to be a skill one would want to master.
I did not understand technically all of the things you mentioned - e.g. how to build a matching tone curve ...Is there a reference you can point me to?