Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 05 Oct 2014 (Sunday) 14:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

IQ Problem Between RAW vs TIFF Files

 
Paul ­ Haynes
Member
36 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Oct 05, 2014 14:36 |  #1

Is there a way of exporting RAW files from DPP to another format without losing image quality? As you can see when I export finished edited photos from DPP they are losing colour and sharpness and I need to re-edit. But that negates the need of using DPP in the first place surely? My old Photoshop 7 does not read RAW files.

The last image is my attempt to increase saturation and re sharpen to regain what I lost but the original RAW files looks smoother and nicer and my effort looks a tad harsh.

Any one else have same problem?

RAW & TIFF Thumbnails from Windows Explorer

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …D/2014-10-05_20-18-46.jpg (external link)


RAW file screenshot from DPP (after edting)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …anon%2040D/Elis​sa-RAW.jpg (external link)


TIFF 8bit file screenshot from Photoshop 7

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …non%2040D/Eliss​a-TIFF.jpg (external link)


TIFF 8bit (incresse saturation + sharpened), Saved at JPG 100% quality from Photoshop 7

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …/Elissa-JPG-Re-Edit-2.jpg (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Paul ­ Haynes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Oct 05, 2014 15:51 |  #2

OK from DPP I selected "convert and save" and saved as 16bit TIFF with embedded ICC file. When I opened it up in Photoshop 7 I had exact same image as in DPP = brilliant!

BUT I am unable to "save to web" without the colours dulling off. Seems there's an issue with "Proof Setup". If non is selected my photos stays the same until I go to "save to web" then the colours dull off. When I change to any of the Proof Setup options like CMYK, Windows RGB, MAC RGB, thats when the colours change for the worst. I'm stuck!

Any ideas?

Edit:
Doesn't look like you can. So I have to accept the change of colour (desaturation) in Photoshop and then add saturation back in and then save!

So here's a saturated version from Photoshop. I've added a tad more colour to accentuate her blue eyes. But when I go back to DPP the image still looks better!

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …r20/Canon%2040D​/Final.jpg (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ Haynes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Oct 05, 2014 17:05 as a reply to  @ Paul Haynes's post |  #3

I have solved the mystery!

Seems like it was a colour profile mismatch somewhere. When you open a photo with a saved ICC file in Photoshop, Photoshop will warn you of a "Embedded File Mismatch". I finally changed it to "Convert Documents to Working Space".

I've Now Set (or confirmed) All My Colours to sRGB

Camera Colour Space = "sRGB".
DPP = sRGB.
Monitor ="sRGB".
Photoshop Colour Settings = "sRGB" with Colour Management - OFF.

With everything set this way what I see in DPP I now see in Photoshop and exported as JPGs

Original RAW - screenshot from DPP

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …anon%2040D/Elis​sa-RAW.jpg (external link)


JPG from Photoshop (although I felt it had lost a shade of sharpness so I sharpened by 8%
That said, when I view the same photo back in DPP, DPP displays photos with a shade more vibrance under closer inspection. Something to note that what we see in DPP is not 100% seen in other formats, especially on the web.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i864.photobucke​t.com …0/Canon%2040D/F​inal-2.jpg (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Oct 05, 2014 19:05 as a reply to  @ Paul Haynes's post |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

Is the color profile. Makes sure you keep it consistent. You can use Adobe color profile but as soon as you save it in jpeg, you must convert to sRGB.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Oct 06, 2014 04:18 |  #5

Paul Haynes wrote in post #17195490 (external link)
I have solved the mystery!

Seems like it was a colour profile mismatch somewhere. When you open a photo with a saved ICC file in Photoshop, Photoshop will warn you of a "Embedded File Mismatch". I finally changed it to "Convert Documents to Working Space".

I've Now Set (or confirmed) All My Colours to sRGB

Camera Colour Space = "sRGB".
DPP = sRGB.
Monitor ="sRGB".
Photoshop Colour Settings = "sRGB" with Colour Management - OFF.

With everything set this way what I see in DPP I now see in Photoshop and exported as JPGs

Original RAW - screenshot from DPP

[JPG from Photoshop (although I felt it had lost a shade of sharpness so I sharpened by 8%
That said, when I view the same photo back in DPP, DPP displays photos with a shade more vibrance under closer inspection. Something to note that what we see in DPP is not 100% seen in other formats, especially on the web.
2.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

yes, I've also noticed DPP is slightly different than other formats




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ Haynes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Oct 06, 2014 11:33 |  #6

TooManyShots wrote in post #17195690 (external link)
Is the color profile. Makes sure you keep it consistent. You can use Adobe color profile but as soon as you save it in jpeg, you must convert to sRGB.

How do you convert to sRGB in a JPG?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Oct 06, 2014 15:05 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

Paul Haynes wrote in post #17196915 (external link)
How do you convert to sRGB in a JPG?


In Photoshop, select Save for Web. Here is a tip. :) You can use Adobe color profile in your entire editing process. I think it is actually better because I believe that with the adobe color profile, it contains more data. I actually compared the shots in both profiles by looking at the histograms. Your final save to jpeg must be in sRGB. In Photoshop, you can edit in the adobe color profile and to save it in SRGB and you won't notice any color changes or shifts.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,000 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Oct 06, 2014 16:16 |  #8

TooManyShots wrote in post #17197326 (external link)
In Photoshop, select Save for Web. Here is a tip. :) You can use Adobe color profile in your entire editing process. I think it is actually better because I believe that with the adobe color profile, it contains more data. I actually compared the shots in both profiles by looking at the histograms. Your final save to jpeg must be in sRGB. In Photoshop, you can edit in the adobe color profile and to save it in SRGB and you won't notice any color changes or shifts.

no colour space makes no difference to the number of colours that you have to work with. In an 8 bit format you only have 256 possible levels in each or the RED Green and Blue colour channels. This gives a total of 16777216 possible colours. The difference between colour spaces is best described as how far apart each colour is. So sRGB is like counting from 0 to 255 in steps of 1, you get a maximum value of only 255, but you get to see each individual step. aRGB is a bigger space, so like being able to go from 0 to 511, but you still only have 256 steps available, not 512. So to count from 0 to 511 you have to count in steps of two: 0, 2, 4, 6 etc. So each number you have has to represent twice as much space.

Now because of this, converting from one 8 bit colour space to another will always cause errors. If you are converting from a smaller space to a larger one, well you still only have colours that will fit in to the smaller space, so in my numbers example you will still only have a maximum value of 255, so you lose not only all the odd numbers, but you only have the bottom half filled as well.

Converting from a big space to a small space is just as bad. Again in my example of a set of numbers, you would lose all of the numbers in the top half, that can no longer be represented. And you have to figure out what to do with those higher values. Also as you only have even numbers in my example you also only have half the total possible values in the smaller colour space with data in them.

Both of these situations is bad, so it is really much much better to not have to change colour spaces at all in either direction if you are using 8 bit colour data. If you are editing in PSE then you will pretty much have to edit in 8 bit colour.

The fortunate thing about shooting RAW is that a RAW file is not actually a colour image, so it has no colour space. The colour space is actually assigned during the RAW conversion process. If you do not actually know why you should be using a different colour space to sRGB, have your RAW converter create sRGB files for you, and never change the colour space, you will get much better results. I would only recommend using a different colour space to sRGB if you really know why you want to use it. Then I would have my RAW converter convert my file in to that colour space directly, and again avoid changing from one colour space to another.

The only time I might suggest a different approach to colour management would be if you used Lightroom. LR uses it's own internal colour space, which you cannot change, and so may benefit from a different approach.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Oct 06, 2014 17:01 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

BigAl007 wrote in post #17197493 (external link)
no colour space makes no difference to the number of colours that you have to work with. In an 8 bit format you only have 256 possible levels in each or the RED Green and Blue colour channels. This gives a total of 16777216 possible colours. The difference between colour spaces is best described as how far apart each colour is. So sRGB is like counting from 0 to 255 in steps of 1, you get a maximum value of only 255, but you get to see each individual step. aRGB is a bigger space, so like being able to go from 0 to 511, but you still only have 256 steps available, not 512. So to count from 0 to 511 you have to count in steps of two: 0, 2, 4, 6 etc. So each number you have has to represent twice as much space.

Now because of this, converting from one 8 bit colour space to another will always cause errors. If you are converting from a smaller space to a larger one, well you still only have colours that will fit in to the smaller space, so in my numbers example you will still only have a maximum value of 255, so you lose not only all the odd numbers, but you only have the bottom half filled as well.

Converting from a big space to a small space is just as bad. Again in my example of a set of numbers, you would lose all of the numbers in the top half, that can no longer be represented. And you have to figure out what to do with those higher values. Also as you only have even numbers in my example you also only have half the total possible values in the smaller colour space with data in them.

Both of these situations is bad, so it is really much much better to not have to change colour spaces at all in either direction if you are using 8 bit colour data. If you are editing in PSE then you will pretty much have to edit in 8 bit colour.

The fortunate thing about shooting RAW is that a RAW file is not actually a colour image, so it has no colour space. The colour space is actually assigned during the RAW conversion process. If you do not actually know why you should be using a different colour space to sRGB, have your RAW converter create sRGB files for you, and never change the colour space, you will get much better results. I would only recommend using a different colour space to sRGB if you really know why you want to use it. Then I would have my RAW converter convert my file in to that colour space directly, and again avoid changing from one colour space to another.

The only time I might suggest a different approach to colour management would be if you used Lightroom. LR uses it's own internal colour space, which you cannot change, and so may benefit from a different approach.

Alan


Besides the math, try to see them for yourself. I have. :) Editing the file with the adobe color profile and to convert them to sRGB as your final output would result in little or no color shifts. The histogram shows it and retaining all the highlights and colors. Now, I can go through all the troubles showing you the difference visually with photos and screen shot captures. Again, I have better things to do... So, see them for yourself....


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Oct 06, 2014 18:10 as a reply to  @ TooManyShots's post |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

Also, the red channel is affected more by the color profile conversion. With the Adobe color profile, red channel in the mid and high tones are more pronounced than in SRGB. Even saving in jpeg in srgb. Even the same file being saved in srgb would have a different look depending if the file is converted from the adobe color profile or just from srgb to srgb.

The in camera color profile won't matter if you are shooting in raw.

Personally, I would export my file from Capture One Pro 7 to adobe color profile. Edit the shot and to finally save it in srgb. This way, I found that my red channel is preserved and matching with what I was seeing in Capture One Pro 7. If export the file to srgb directly to CS5, the file will lose most of the red from the red channel.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 06, 2014 18:32 |  #11

Is your screen calibrated? My tablet isn't but your photoshop7 tiff photo looked the best of your 3 photos as the others looked way too red.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ Haynes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Oct 07, 2014 16:02 |  #12

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #17197741 (external link)
Is your screen calibrated? My tablet isn't but your photoshop7 tiff photo looked the best of your 3 photos as the others looked way too red.

I'm using a new 27" EA83 IPS LG monitor set to 2560x1440. It's colour mode is set to "sRGB". Apparently it has been calibrated at the factory as I have a certificate to show! But I do not have my own calibrating device, no.

The last two photos are true to life, the duller ones were not.

http://www.wexphotogra​phic.com …i7c5do4m8ecfu7m​taodqh4avw (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Oct 08, 2014 07:30 |  #13

TooManyShots wrote in post #17197326 (external link)
I believe that with the adobe color profile, it contains more data.

Your belief is wrong. They both contain the same amount of data.

It's like the difference between the set of all integers between 0 and 100 compared to the set of all even numbers between 0 and 200. The second set covers twice the range of the first, but they both contain the same amount of data.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Oct 08, 2014 11:31 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #17201077 (external link)
Your belief is wrong. They both contain the same amount of data.

It's like the difference between the set of all integers between 0 and 100 compared to the set of all even numbers between 0 and 200. The second set covers twice the range of the first, but they both contain the same amount of data.

It does not matter to me since I am seeing more color and highlight editing in the adobe color profile and to save it in sRGB. This is more so if the shot has more pronounced red channel. I edit with my eyes, not with numbers.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 08, 2014 16:47 |  #15

Paul Haynes wrote in post #17199781 (external link)
I'm using a new 27" EA83 IPS LG monitor set to 2560x1440. It's colour mode is set to "sRGB". Apparently it has been calibrated at the factory as I have a certificate to show! But I do not have my own calibrating device, no.

The last two photos are true to life, the duller ones were not.

http://www.wexphotogra​phic.com …i7c5do4m8ecfu7m​taodqh4avw (external link)

Displays drift over time and need to be re calibrated often for best results. The calibration device for my desktop ask me to recalibrate every 2 weeks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,389 views & 0 likes for this thread
IQ Problem Between RAW vs TIFF Files
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dm19dm
1582 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.