parthiban Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Obviously this will make a lot more sense with actual examples which I'll add this evening if I get time, but in very simple terms should these 2 files be wildly different? Don't normally look at the JPEGs but noticed with some photos I took the other day that the JPEGs looked very different to the RAWs after opening them in Photoshop. I've always expected differences but not to the extent these were - the colours were very different in the 2 photos. Is that simply down to the processing the camera does on board being that different to what PS does? Without analysing it too closely it does look like the PS interpretation is truer, but I need to look at it in more detail to really make a decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 RAW = Unprocessed, it's exactly how you took it with the camera. JPEG = Processed, the camera will do this for you but alot chose to use photoshop/lightroom to post process photos using the RAW file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 RAW = Unprocessed, it's exactly how you took it with the camera. JPEG = Processed, the camera will do this for you but alot chose to use photoshop/lightroom to post process photos using the RAW file. Yep I'm ok with that part, but as soon as you open it in PS you aren't looking at the raw RAW file any more - you are looking at a version that has been processed by PS, is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Are you opening it with Photoshop RAW, processing it and then opening it in Photoshop? I've never opened a RAW file straight in Photoshop so it might convert it when you do but I'm not sure until I try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Sort of yes, although at this point I'm just talking about opening up the RAW file within "Camera RAW" in Photoshop, without actually doing any processing myself yet. Hopefully I'll get a chance to add some photos to this thread tonight, which will better illustrate what I'm trying to explain (quite badly I might add!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I get you now If you open it in camera RAW and then straight into Photoshop without doing any processing it converts it to a jpg exactly how it was taken with the camera. The jpeg you open (in Photoshop) that the camera has processed will look different to the RAW one (now converted to a jpeg). The camera will process it based on the settings it has been setup with. With camera RAW you can process it to your own liking not the cameras own one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I get you now If you open it in camera RAW and then straight into Photoshop without doing any processing it converts it to a jpg exactly how it was taken with the camera. The jpeg you open (in Photoshop) that the camera has processed will look different to the RAW one (now converted to a jpeg). The camera will process it based on the settings it has been setup with. With camera RAW you can process it to your own liking not the cameras own one. Sorry not quite, the RAW opened in camera RAW looks very different (before I do any processing) to the JPEG created by the camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 I get you now If you open it in camera RAW and then straight into Photoshop without doing any processing it converts it to a jpg exactly how it was taken with the camera. The jpeg you open (in Photoshop) that the camera has processed will look different to the RAW one (now converted to a jpeg). The camera will process it based on the settings it has been setup with. With camera RAW you can process it to your own liking not the cameras own one. Sorry not quite, the RAW opened in camera RAW looks very different (before I do any processing) to the JPEG created by the camera. Think we're getting confused. The RAW file is the image taken by the camera before any processing is done and it's converted to a jpeg. The jpeg the camera creates has been processed so it will look different to the RAW image. It all depends on how you've taken the shot as well - auto, A or S mode, the exposure and so on. Remember this thread - http://www.wheels-inmotion.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=6363 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 A RAW file is just a collection of data from the photosites in the camera sensor. So it needs a program to process and present these data to the software and firmware that drives your display or your printer. You can view the RAW file using such a program without altering the RAW file in any way and if you browse for a RAW file before and after viewing the file will be exactly as it was. If you process a RAW file in order to adjust the image, the RAW file will still be unaffected, but an additional file will be created which in effect, overlays the RAW file to change its appearance. So, the original RAW file is still as it was and all the adjustments are contained in the second file. Whenever you open the RAW file from now on, it will open with the adjustments in place, but the adjustments can be changed or deleted at will. If you save a copy of the file in a format other than RAW (e.g. JPEG or TIF) the adjustments are made permanent in the file created but the RAW file still remains intact, so you can make as many variants as you like. Are you actually opening the Raw file in Photoshop, or in Bridge? Bridge is the program normally used for browsing through new images and for making the basic adjustments that you want to use as the starting point for final processing in Photoshop. It has a wide range of options for adjustment including things like lens correction values and colour temperature. You can choose "default" values, which will leave everything as it comes from the camera, you can make individual adjustments to specific parameters, or you can choose "auto" settings, which will use pre-set algorithms to "optimise" the settings. When you then open the image, it will open in Photoshop ready for final adjustments. The appearance of the image that opens will depend upon the choices made in Bridge. Given that all else is equal, I would expect the "auto" choice to produce an image closest to the jpeg produced in camera, but it will of course depend upon the camera, the inbuilt algorithms and the extent to which the camera allows the operator to tweak the camera settings. Programs for converting RAW files vary in their approaches. RAW files vary a great deal, depending upon the camera used and conversion programs have sometimes struggled to deal with a particular camera. It took Adobe some time to produce a version that dealt well with the Fuji camera that I use. The Adobe program is highly regarded, but lots of photographers prefer other programs for particular cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Ok hopefully the pics below will help illustrate this better: Pic 1 is the NEF in its raw state Pic 2 is the NEF opened in PS but with no intervention by me, simply open it and export as JPEG. Pic 3 is the JPEG created in the camera. My real question was around how surprised I was by how different Pic 2 and Pic 3 look, and was asking whether the automatic processing Photoshop does when you open a photo is really that different to the processing the camera does as the 2 pics look so different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Since you mention NEF files you are obviously using a Nikon. First, to state the obvious, all the images that you have shown are from jpeg files and must therefore have undergone some processing. You should not therefore be surprised if they look different. The first image is a bit underexposed for the car. That may happen if the metering mode that you are using is trying to average the exposure over the whole frame. The large white area on the right may play a part in this - notice that this part of the image is better exposed in this image than in the other two. You might want to see if more centre weighting or even spot metering on the car will brighten the colour of the car. It's a good idea to have a look at the image histogram. I think you will find that it is well over the top on the right side. The final image is quite large for a jpeg so it ought to be a good image with little compression effect. The colours will depend upon the camera algorithms and on the extent that you have any control over the colour values used. I don't know your camera, but both of the ones that I use most have "style" settings that give differing colour results. The other setting that can make a difference is colour temperature. I normally leave mine on auto because I process in RAW and can alter the colour temperature there if I need to, but if you are choosing another option it will make a difference. Before I comment further I would be interested to know more about the workflow that you have used. Which version of Photoshop are you using? Do you open your NEF files directly into Photoshop or do you use Bridge to browse the images. I would normally do some adjustments in Bridge or in the first stage of Photoshop before the "Open" option is engaged. At the very least I would use this stage to limit the extremes of exposure - the highlights in the white door to the right, for example, are blown and you could use the "highlights" and "whites" options to limit this before opening image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Thanks, a lovely detailed response as always! I am using a Nikon, it's a D90. Yep I'm ok with the fact they were all processed and would have expected them to be different, just not to quite such a degree? I'll be completely honest that I am very much a novice user, so a lot of that stuff has gone straight over my head. I agree with you about the garage area being overexposed, I'll have to look up centre weighting and spot metering to understand how that works. I don't fiddle with the camera at all in most cases, I leave it in "P" mode and other bits (white balance, etc.) all in auto. I'm using Photoshop CS5, and opening the photos directly which opens them up within the "Camera RAW" plug-in. I haven't used Bridge, but sounds like I should give that a try then. I've been recommended that Lightroom is a better tool than Photoshop if you're just tweaking several photos rather than heavily working just a few - is it something you have experience with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I'm abit confused with photos 1 and 2 as they're both jpgs, so the first one can't be the RAW file as like sagitar said that is just a collection of data. How did you open the NEF file and save it as a jpg to show on here for photo 1? If I open a NEF file in camera RAW and compare it to one I've saved as a jpg with no processing they look exactly the same, so I can't understand how you've got the two photos above. I wouldn't worry about the difference between the NEF file and jpg, some of mine have a noticeable difference and like sagitar said it all depends on the metering and exposure used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I'm abit confused with photos 1 and 2 as they're both jpgs, so the first one can't be the RAW file as like sagitar said that is just a collection of data. How did you open the NEF file and save it as a jpg to show on here for photo 1? If I open a NEF file in camera RAW and compare it to one I've saved as a jpg with no processing they look exactly the same, so I can't understand how you've got the two photos above. I wouldn't worry about the difference between the NEF file and jpg, some of mine have a noticeable difference and like sagitar said it all depends on the metering and exposure used. Yep it was a bit of a bodge to get the first one on here, it a screenshot of the image on screen - it was just illustrative more than anything else. I'm not too worried about it, just made me think that even if you're not going to edit the photos, it's better to convert the RAWs to JPEGs using PS rather than the camera created JPEG which is not as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 There are all sorts of way to approach processing pictures and you will find a lot on the internet about it. I have used Canon SLRs for a long time and Adobe Camera Raw works well with them. The RAW files are *.CR2 and the "sidecar" files that carry the adjustment data etc are *.xmp. I changed to Fuji X cameras a while ago because the Canons were just too heavy for me to carry and found that Adobe did not deal well with Fuji Raw files (*.RAF and *.xmp). Fuji uses a different pattern of colour filters on its sensors in order to get rid of the need for an anti-aliasing filter and that made it a bit difficult for the conversion program writers. For a while, the jpegs straight from the camera were better than I could get with Adobe, but that has been sorted now - to my satisfaction at least. Both Canon and Fuji provide RAW converter programs with their cameras. I am not sure whether Nikon does. I know there was a time when you had to buy Nikon conversion software separately and there were those who said that the Nikon converter was better than Adobe, but I have no experience one way or the other. If you use your camera in Program mode it will be making choices for you and I can't comment on these choices because I don't know the niceties of your camera and I don't know what effect on the P choices other settings will have. If I use my camera in Program mode, the choices made by the camera are affected by: the ISO speed set; the picture style set; any custom functions set. Like you I record both RAW and jpeg files at the same time. Program mode gives excellent results most of the time, but if you want to learn about the effects of adjustments, you really have to venture into using the non-automatic modes. I learned in the days of film and I carried a notebook in which I recorded all the values that I chose for every shot. It was a slow process because of the long delay between taking a shot and seeing the results. It's a lot easier now because the result is visible immediately and all the exif data is recorded in the "sidecar" file. It costs nothing to take a few shots with varied settings and see what happens. My favourite mode is Aperture Priority, i.e. I set the aperture value and leave the camera to choose the shutter speed (but I do keep an eye on the speed). I look at the histogram generated by the combination chosen and I may fiddle with the ISO value or the exposure compensation value if I don't like the look of the histogram. I use Shutter speed priority occasionally when I'm taking action pics but the routine is much the same as above. I also use bracketing on occasion so that the camera automatically takes a series of images with settings on either side of the target setting. Then I just choose the one that gives the best result, or combine a number of images to get the best effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I'm abit confused with photos 1 and 2 as they're both jpgs, so the first one can't be the RAW file as like sagitar said that is just a collection of data. How did you open the NEF file and save it as a jpg to show on here for photo 1? If I open a NEF file in camera RAW and compare it to one I've saved as a jpg with no processing they look exactly the same, so I can't understand how you've got the two photos above. I wouldn't worry about the difference between the NEF file and jpg, some of mine have a noticeable difference and like sagitar said it all depends on the metering and exposure used. Yep it was a bit of a bodge to get the first one on here, it a screenshot of the image on screen - it was just illustrative more than anything else. I'm not too worried about it, just made me think that even if you're not going to edit the photos, it's better to convert the RAWs to JPEGs using PS rather than the camera created JPEG which is not as good. How did you save the jpg in photoshop and what settings did you chose after opening the NEF file in camera raw for the 2nd photo? How did you save the screenshot for the first photo? Whenever I save the RAW as a jpg unprocessed it always looks the same so I have a feeling something has happened when you've saved one of those photo. That is one of the main reasons I bought a DSLR, I was fed up with how the camera was processing the jpgs and this gives more control over how they look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The Nikon P mode is similar, you set the ISO, the camera either chooses the aperture and shutter speed itself or you can select a preset combination. Agreed, I stick with Adobe as I've read that it's the only one that produced something very similar to Nikon's own product (CaptureNX I believe). It was literally a screenshot as it was a 5 minute quick bodge - I'm not too fussed about that first pic to be honest, it was more that the PS created image was so much better than the camera created one. For the second pic, simply opened it in camera raw, and then saved it as a JPEG - did nothing to the pic at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.