Don't know why RAW looks different in photoshop CS2 and zoombrowser

[brosen72]

I have a G5 and I always shoot in RAW. My images look different in Zoombrowser than they do in Photoshop CS2. Truth is, they look much better in Zoombrowser.

I played around with the sliders in Photoshop's RAW viewer, unchecking the "auto" options first and then monkeying around more significantly. Only a lot of work got the raw image in photoshop to look like the one in close to the one in zoombrowser.

Incidentally, the RAW image displayed in Picasa 2 looks similarly bad as it does in photoshop.

My question is: why? Does Zoombrowser use a different method of processing the image? If so, how can I get results in photoshop as good as those in Zoombrowser? I'd like to do all my post processing in photoshop but not at the cost of the image looking worse. As it stands, I have to convert to jpegs using zoombrowser and then do what I want in photoshop on the jpeg image.

Thanks for the help.

[tim]

Different RAW processors use different algorithms - use the one you like best. I use PS CS2 most of the time, but on occasion i'll use RawShooter because of its fill light feature, which CS just couldn't do.

[scottbergerphoto]

You need to also check in preferences and color settings that your apps are using the same color space and monitor profile.

[brosen72]

Thanks for the tip. I don't think the problem is in the monitor profile or the color space however, because when I take the pictures that I previously converted from RAW (CRW) to jpegs in Zoombrowser and open them in Photoshop or Picasa, they look great. It's just that the RAW files themselves look poor in Photoshop.

I'm pretty bummed about this because I really would like to work with RAW in Photoshop given CS2's ability in that area, but the pictures look so much better when first converted by Zoombrowser. I guess I find this surprising because Photoshop is supposed to be of such quality and Zoombrowser is a free app bundled with the camera. Could it be that Photoshop (and other software such as Picasa) just doesn't decode RAW as well as the software that photo manufacturers include with the camera?

[brosen72]

I should also add that the Photoshop/Picasa rendering of the pictures are much darker, less vibrant, and far less reflective of what the scenes in real life than the Zoombrowser rendering. That is, not only is the Zoombrowser rendering more pleasing, it is far more realistic. Basically, the Photoshop rendering is just off, and this is what seems odd to me.

[tim]

So use Zoombrowser if you like it better.

[BlueTit]

I have similar problems, see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72209.

When you are viewing the images in ZoomBrowser are you looking at the raw image or the converted raw image? I assume the converted raw image, in which case what did you use to convert?

I use ACDSee and the preview of the raw image in there is better than the converted image from Photoshop Elements/ Canon Digital Professional or raw shooter. I just want the image I see previewed in ACDSee 7.0 to be the smae or similar to the converted version. So far I am still processing each individually which I hate doing as it takes so long and I would prefer to be taking photos.

Hopefully someone will have a solution for you, and it might help me too.

[J Rabin]

Brosen. I think you may be confused. Zoombrowser, ACDSee, etc., are not viewing the RAW for you, it's viewing a jpg thumbnail that was created with the parameter settings you set in camera for sharpening, saturation, tone, contrast. When you ACTUALLY open the RAW, say in PS, none of these settings matter. The RAW converter makes it's interpretation of white balance and tone. Also, the converter gives YOU complete control of ALL parameters that dramatically change an image: contrast, saturation, and sharpening in addition to color of light (white balance) and tone.
Think of it this way, in Zoombrowser, you're viewing some photo processor's print interpretation of a film negative. In RAW, you're looking at the negative, even developi ng the negative, and can process it any way you please for best results.

[tzalman]

"Think of it this way, in Zoombrowser, you're viewing some photo processor's print interpretation of a film negative. In RAW, you're looking at the negative, even developi ng the negative, and can process it any way you please for best results."
This is true of Picasa, ACDSee and other viewers but by clicking in ZB on Edit/Process Raw File you access the Raw Image Task converter which allows control of all those parameters. It may not do it as well as more advanced converters in the areas of highlight detail recovery, noise reduction and sharpening, but since I am still running Win Me I can't use PSCS, RSE or C1. Nevertheless, I believe that while it may not be a smooth or fast workflow, as long as I can get all the data into 16 bit I can perform all those manipulations just as well in my editor, Photo Window Pro.
Elie

[brosen72]

I hear what you're saying JRabin but it seems that in both I'm looking at a negative. In Zoombrowser (or at least the RAW image viewer that Canon supplies with Zoombrowser) and in Photoshop I see the interpretation of an unprocessed image. And in both this is a starting point to then manipulate the image. Now, Zoombrowser's starting point, its default interpretation of the RAW image, is both better and more reflective of the image.

One commenter suggested I use Zoombrowser then. It seems the obvious solution. But I'd like to manipulate the image some in RAW and Photoshop is much better at that than Zoombrowser, which has just a few stock options for different WB and filters.

Another commenter implied that whatever I'm seeing in Zoombrowser I could get in Photoshop with some work. That's probably right, but it would require a lot of work for each image. I've devoted a couple of hours to it already, and I could get somewhat close to Photoshop showing me in RAW what Zoombrowser was, but (1) it took a couple of hours and (2) it didn't quite get me to the image that for Zoombrowser is the starting point.

It seems s the way I'm going to have to proceed is to have the RAw converter that comes with Zoombrowser change the RAW to jpegs and then work on the jpegs in Photoshop. I was hoping that when I bought Photoshop, I could do everything in it, but oh well.

This wouldn't perplex me so if the RAW images displayed in Photohsop and Zoombrowser were different from each other and neither reflected reality. But the thing is, the Photoshop display of the RAW images is not capturing reality. The Zoombrowser display is.

All of this leads me to believe that adobe hasn't quite figured out how to interpret CRW. Could this be the case? Would it be worth trying to use dcraw with Photoshop? Is that even an option?

Thanks again for the help folks.

[jfrancho]

Here is a comparison between Zoombrowser(not a RAW Viewer), ACR 3.1, C1 Pro, Canon File Viewer Utility. http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/21907997-L.jpg They all look a little different, but that is affected by the default settings in each app, where available. Exactly which represents "reality" to you? If you don't like the default settings in ACR, but still want to use it for processing RAW, then change them.