Photoshop problem

[DucoNihilum]

I'm converting my RAW's in PS CS3 (same happend for CS2, though) and my clouds (around sunset) turn out to be a totally different color than they should be....

Here's an example

http://dnpen.com/smallpscs.jpg

http://dnpen.com/800pscs.jpg (Slightly larger version)

What's going on?

[DucoNihilum]

RAW is here

http://dnpen.com/IMG_6484.CR2

[pxl8]

Every raw converter/viewer will give different results from the same file. I downloaded the raw file and opened it in Adobe Camera Raw and got an identical result when the Auto correct was enabled. Opening the same file in Canon DPP or Raw Shooter Professional gave different results.

One of the advantages of shooting raw is being able to adjust the tone curves, white balance, etc. and have more control over the results. The price you pay for this freedom is that you have to do some work to get the shot looking how you want. There's no right or wrong, just different way to process the data so it looks right for you.

[DucoNihilum]

I shouldn't have to process my image at ALL to make it look like the ORIGINAL IMAGE I shot.

[Livinthalife]

I don't know why it would automatically change your shot so drastically. I know it does change a LITTLE bit, but there is a pretty large difference. hmmmm???

[Livinthalife]

hmmm same thing

133476

[DucoNihilum]

Yeah, I've noticed little changes before, so I didn't care much, but every one of my brilliant red shots came out this bad...

[Livinthalife]

133477

Here I converted is using the zoombrowser, and it looks a lot better. Try doing that instead. I know CS2 (3) should do the same but apparently they can't hope this helps.

edit: It's still not AS good as the original RAW, but a lot better than what we came up with before

[Chazs]

Just a guess here, but it looks like the MS raw image viewer boosts the saturation (in order to view RAW the viewer HAS to do some proocessing). PS3 ACR's default settings just don't go to the extent MS does. When I click AUTO in ACR I get the subdued version, but clicking back to Default and increasing the Vibrance to +50 results in the MS-viewer-looking saturation (even when saved to jpeg and viewed). Not sure if this helps.

[DucoNihilum]

I'll use zoombrowser or something else if I cant get PS to working (thanks Livinthalife), but messing up an entire work flow bothers me (I have 30+ more of these images)

Just a guess here, but it looks like the MS raw image viewer boosts the saturation (in order to view RAW the viewer HAS to do some proocessing). PS3 ACR's default settings just don't go to the extent MS does. When I click AUTO in ACR I get the subdued version, but clicking back to Default and increasing the Vibrance to +50 results in the MS-viewer-looking saturation (even when saved to jpeg and viewed). Not sure if this helps.

I dont think the MS raw viewer does that much (especially increasing the vibrance). Every other place I view it I see the brilliant red... EXCEPT PS (including the camera, raw viewer, thumbnails, zoom browser... somethings wrong here) I took the pictures because the sky looked like it did in the good image (it was pretty cool, actually, I saw it out of my window and decided to run out and shoot). I didn't add tons of effects to it to make it look that way.

[davidcrebelxt]

Yeah, I noticed for awhile that when shooting RAW + Jpeg that a RAW conversion from DPP with no adjustments looks more subdued that the Jpeges - even when all settings are equal...

Seems like Zoombrowser is the only converter that will give same "default" processing to the image as in-camera-jpeg. Disappointing to me, as I prefer DPP... and many times only need to "tweak" the image as compared to in-camera jpg.

Maybe that's something Canon can add in a future update in DPP... shouldn't be TOO difficult for them, as they already do it in camera and in zoom-browser. Hopefully they have someone looking at these forums!

[rpolitsr]

Even if there is not a Canon default file, in most RAW converters you can save your ‘default’ settings once and they will be applied as a start for further correction or just for batch processing.

I tested DucoNihilum CR2 file in my zoombrowser and found this:

http://sites.google.com/site/rpolitsr/r_polit_2/pictures/miscelanea/DuccoNihilun_6484_daylight_tungsten.jpg

The left image was converted with White Balance set to Daylight (default) and the right with White Balance set to Tungsten. No other settings affected.

[pxl8]

I shouldn't have to process my image at ALL to make it look like the ORIGINAL IMAGE I shot.

But you're assuming the MS Raw viewer is right and CS2 is wrong. Why?

RAW data isn't an image, just data that needs processing. All the apps process the data differently so the results are all different. As I said before, there's no right or wrong about this just choices.

If you want the raw to look the same as a jpg from the camera would then use DPP to do the conversion as it will keep all the settings from the camera. Any other raw conversion/viewer will ignore these settings and apply its own values. Note the MS viewer provides very basic viewing and won't look like the result from DPP.

[DucoNihilum]

"But you're assuming the MS Raw viewer is right and CS2 is wrong. Why?"

Because that's what I saw on the camera preview screen, and thats what I saw in the real world. Zoom browser also converts it without problems.

[davidcrebelxt]

If you want the raw to look the same as a jpg from the camera would then use DPP to do the conversion as it will keep all the settings from the camera. Any other raw conversion/viewer will ignore these settings and apply its own values. Note the MS viewer provides very basic viewing and won't look like the result from DPP.

Sorry, just to clarify....

As I stated earlier DPP process DIFFERENTLY than in camera jpg. (Unless Canon changes that in future release...) Zoombrowser though, seems to process very closely to in-camera jpg.

[TMR Design]

This issue has come up many times I had a long running thread discussing this exact problem. The answer to it is all about color management and unfortunately I'm still the wrong person to clear it up for you but it has to do with the way each program manages color, if they do. Photoshop does manage color. ZoomBrowser does not. Windows Explorer does not mamage color. The thing that really confuses the issuse is that you would think that it is a Photoshop problem whereas Photoshop is displaying as it should with color management and the other programs need to be told how to manage color, if they can be told. DPP can be set.
Without getting in over my head, I'll point you to the thread that I had started but it turned into a mess with so many people trying to help but never really finding the answer. Ultimately a few people helped me privately to understand it as I explained it to you, reversing the way I was thinking so I understood that Photoshop was correct and the color management or lack of management in other programs was the culprit.

Sift through this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=232069

[davidcrebelxt]

TMR:

I'd like to understand this too.
As far as DPP... I have that set to srgb as working space. But when I take an image with Camera set to parameter 1 (boosts saturation, tone, and sharpness I believe) the RAW by default is processed differently than the in camera jpeg. Boosting saturation in DPP up to 3 gets it closer, but still not the same. Whereas Zoombrowser's default processing is pretty close to camera jpeg to start with. Only explanation I've heard is that zoombrowser uses same algorithms as DIGIC chip my camera, whereas DPP uses its own.

If I'm way off base with this, let me know.

[lostdoggy]

It doesn't matter what is seen in the lcd viewer, its what is seen when the image was capture. If a custom WB was set, I don't believe the image would be this red. I looked at the RAW file in C1Pro and sampled the image for a "GOOD" wb point and it was 2400K, original was 5000K.

So I believe that what you see from one convertor to another is not important unless you custom WB the cam first.

[cfpackerfan]

I had this same question a while back... Curtis N gave a good reply HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=229473)

There are some great replies here.... thanks for all the info folks.

[tim]

One of the RAW convertors is applying its own auto settings.