![]() If you like how your jpeg looks you might not want to waste hard drive space on storing the raw. So when you decided to export the raw without any adjustments you are exporting a flat unprocessed picture. Basically, that means you are expected to do the post-processing, so adjusting white balance, noise reduction, etc. When you capture the picture and it is saved as a raw picture there is very minimal processing. When it captures a picture it makes those adjustments and saves them as a jpg and throws away a lot of information. Think of things like white balance, contrast, noise reduction, etc. When you take a picture with your camera it makes choices about how to process it. Choose there something other than "Adobe Standard" and see how you like it. If you happen to like JPEGs out of camera, you can use the recommended raw converter, as MBaz so rightfully points out or you can try Adobe emulation based on reverse engineering of in-camera results, those are available under "Camera Calibration", in "Camera Profile" drop-down. Fortunately, off-line converters are rather flexible, and it is not hard to get what you want out of them. Decisions "in bad taste" happen too, (even) with the raw converters recommended by the cameramakers (that includes in-camera converters). There are also bugs, like premature clipping of the highlights, wrong black levels, incorrect midtone calibrations, poor colour transforms, ignoring sample variation. If you are not into reproduction, there is no right or wrong there is "I like this more", "I like this less", "I do not like it at all". But the sole reason for the existence of different film developers is to produce different images.Įvery cameramaker changes their in-camera JPEG engine once in a while, sometimes between camera generations, sometimes with a firmware upgrade. It would not be reasonable to expect exactly the same results even from 2 different mini-labs printing the same negative, using the same paper and the same chemistry. In many ways, raw converters are like film developers. You can get different JPEGs from the camera, depending on the camera settings. So it seems that the issue is purely technical and just for nikon. I just found out that if you import canon or pentax raw file in lightroom it looks very close (not to say exact) to the image that you see on your rear lcd on your camera (the image that you expect to see) but this is not the case with nikon because nikon algorithms are proprietary and canon and Pentax gave the algorithms to adobe. I found this link that answers my question: So I tought that the raw editors can read this data and preset the sliders to this values as a starting point. This tag contains nikon data that is described here: It has a lot of camera settings that are stored inside the medatada in the raw file. Maybe there is some setting that I need to set to tell the editors to produce the jpeg exactly as the camera did or maybe I am missing something ?ĮDIT: Inside the metadata of the raw file there is a tag MakerNotes. I noticed that for the same raw file, they auto set different values for some of the parameters like exposure compensation, contrast, blacks, and other. I expected all these editors to produce the same jpeg but they do not. Then I also tried Photoshop and again got a little different image. This file also had a little different exposure compensation compared with the original jpg, and with the jpeg from the RawTherapee. I opened the raw file with Darkroom and exported in jpeg. I thought that RawTherapee does not work well. The one was a little overexposed and other had changes that I cannot describe. ![]() ![]() I expected these two files to look the same, but they did not. Then I opened the raw file in RawTherapee and without doing any changes I exported it in jpg next to the jpg file generated by the camera. I just started using RAW files (to be more correct I set my camera to RAW+JPG).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |