One raw file, different converter results?

[Cathathome]

I shot this yesterday and loaded it from my camera to the 'puter using the camera's software (Canon ZoomBrowser). I always start my workflow this way and have never questioned the exposure results while I pick my initial keepers and deletes at this stage.

Because I'm not a fan of Adobe Camera Raw, I've been using Raw Therapee and thought I was getting good results. Imagine my surprise when I reviewed a file that was still open in ZBex: the exposures are vastly different, and now I'm wondering how I'm supposed to properly process this!

Is the Canon software somehow correcting how the image views in a way I don't know about? I can't find any settings that would indicate this. Ideas?

[mjs1973]

I use to notice this when I first started shooting RAW. My RAW converter (ACR) was set to make "auto" corrections so it was basically processing the image the way it thought it should look. I turned that setting off, and haven't had any problems since. It could be that one of your programs is set to "auto correct" and the other isn't.

[Frog]

No expert here but they don't appear to be the same shots?

[Cathathome]

No expert here but they don't appear to be the same shots?

Hmm, I thought they were the same file..:blush2:

Raw Therapee has no corrections applied at open, I've kept the settings at "neutral". However, in ZoomBrowser, I can't find similar set up preferences. But let me go back and make sure I'm comparing the same apples. I could swear I double checked the file numbers...

[Medley]

Cath, you're not going crazy. Most manufacturers have proprietary data within their Raw files that is meant only for their Raw converters. Canon in particular has made no secret of the fact that they are loathe to share any more proprietary information than is absolutely necessary.

What this means to you is that any Raw converter that isn't ZoomBrowser ( ImageBrowser for a Mac) actually has to "guess" at the colors.(It's actually a little more complicated than a simple guess, but you get the idea).

I don't want to give you the idea that Canon is the only manufacturer out there that does this, several of them do. But I don't think there is a company out there that is more firm and unapologetic about the policy than Canon.

If you dont want to use Canon's utility, the best workaround that I've found is to use the camera's Raw+JPEG mode, and take your color cues from the JPEG image.

- Joe U.

[Singletracklovr]

Cath, you're not going crazy. Most manufacturers have proprietary data within their Raw files that is meant only for their Raw converters. Canon in particular has made no secret of the fact that they are loathe to share any more proprietary information than is absolutely necessary.

What this means to you is that any Raw converter that isn't ZoomBrowser ( ImageBrowser for a Mac) actually has to "guess" at the colors.(It's actually a little more complicated than a simple guess, but you get the idea).

I don't want to give you the idea that Canon is the only manufacturer out there that does this, several of them do. But I don't think there is a company out there that is more firm and unapologetic about the policy than Canon.

If you dont want to use Canon's utility, the best workaround that I've found is to use the camera's Raw+JPEG mode, and take your color cues from the JPEG image.

- Joe U.

You would think Canon or the other mfgs doing this would offer a plugin or something that couldn't be hacked.
Heck they(camera mfgs) give you the RAW downloader for free when you buy the camera. There's no money exchanged...

Good find Cath.

[readingr]

I just looked at this on my system and my ZoomBrowser is almost identical to the Adobe PSE 6.0 Organiser view, other than the adobe raw converter has applied some exposure difference of -0.4 stops to the picture which I then need to correct to make it look like the ZoomBrowser version.

The difference is nowhere near the one you have shown with Therapee.

Roger R.

[Medley]

That's one of the advantages of using products from an industry leader like Adobe Rodger, though I have heard of color conversion problems between Canon Raw files and LR2. The difference between ImageBrowser and the ACR plug-in in CS2 is minimal as well.

Keep in mind too the Raw Therapee is a freeware product. Although it has demosiacing algorithms that rival some of the best products out there, it was meant as a sort of stop-gap measure: give everyone the ability to convert Raw files. Think "kit lens".

- Joe U.

[Cathathome]

So I guess the only other solution besides shooting RAW&JPEG is to stick grit my teeth and use only either ZoomBrowser and/or ACR? I loathe those little xmp files that get added to files converted with Adobe's raw converter...

Does anyone have any info on Canon's Digital Photo Professional? I recall exploring it briefly, but forget now why I dismissed it.

Ta,

[SmartWombat]

I used DPP but when presented with a folder tree containing a weekend's work at a race meeting it had a fit and sulked for over 20 minutes. It never even got to showing the folder names let alone their contents and it was only 3000 images.

So I abandoned it and now use Lightroom.
There is for me no "correct" rendering of the raw image, because I always end up adjusting them to convey what I saw in the scene rather than what the camera captured.

I'm not trying to do fine art reproductions with exactly the same colour as the original, so for me it's not a really big deal. So long as I can get what I want in the end.
I'm not doing catalogue product photography, where the right colour is critical.

If you need that, then something to calibrate the colour in the image is essential.

[Cathathome]

Well this has made me stop and rethink things. I have noticed slight variations in colour/contrast and sometimes sharpness depending what I'm using to view the files (eg. Picture Viewer or other program) but I assumed that the editor or converter being used was giving me an accurate output of what I was working with, and that changes to exposure, brightness, colour, were similarly accurate. But now I just don't know who to trust :skep:

Paul, your approach to making corrections based on your own intent makes sense. I guess I'm really questioning if the software is properly providing me the whole picture vis a vis exposure and such. Yeah, a properly calibrated monitor would be good, and all the possible adjustments have been applied, but I'm still only working within the limitations of the screen I have right now.

Thanks for your input, all!

[drg]

Well this has made me stop and rethink things. I have noticed slight variations in colour/contrast and sometimes sharpness depending what I'm using to view the files (eg. Picture Viewer or other program) but I assumed that the editor or converter being used was giving me an accurate output of what I was working with, and that changes to exposure, brightness, colour, were similarly accurate. But now I just don't know who to trust :skep:

Paul, your approach to making corrections based on your own intent makes sense. I guess I'm really questioning if the software is properly providing me the whole picture vis a vis exposure and such. Yeah, a properly calibrated monitor would be good, and all the possible adjustments have been applied, but I'm still only working within the limitations of the screen I have right now.

Thanks for your input, all!

This is one of the many reasons there are so many RAW enabled programs hitting the market. They target different users.

Via licensing and profiles a 'best' or 'automatic' option is available. That set of parameters will vary with even small things like mixed lighting (tungsten and fluorescent, or daylight with reflection, or open shade) that white balance must customized to handle. Two different quality of lenses can affect the outcome under identical conditions.

As with a film image, there is no exactly perfect 'development'. There are set standards (like those set by each film maker in the past for a particular emulsion) for a DSLR for a sensor type, and how the image data is recorder and 'should' be rendered. Yes, some of the camera's data is proprietary, but that just gives them an edge in how to produce the 'best' image or let them determine how that 'best image' is going to appear.

This and having the widest possible options later is the prime reason for RAW. For quick photos or non-critical work in-camera JPEG's are now more suitable than ever with newer cameras. As was mentione RAW+JPEG is a great solution as then you have the RAW you can return to later if needed for something quite different such as B/W rendering or to make color separations.

One possible way to figure out what your next step might be for software/RAW conversion is to download various trial programs and see if one of them is better on auto or you like the way it works. There are about half a dozen RAW enabled applications for less than $200 that additionally include complete editing facilities.

Just out of curiosity, what about the .xmp files bothers you? They can be deleted (I wouldn't) if you don't want to keep track of the work you have already done in ACR. Metadata is a necessity in one form or another with digital photography or you are starting over every time you open that application to look at your files. The .xmp files will make all of your prior work pop up in other ADOBE or .xmp aware products quickly with the changes applied and ready to go.

[Cathathome]

As with a film image, there is no exactly perfect 'development'. There are set standards (like those set by each film maker in the past for a particular emulsion) for a DSLR for a sensor type, and how the image data is recorder and 'should' be rendered. Yes, some of the camera's data is proprietary, but that just gives them an edge in how to produce the 'best' image or let them determine how that 'best image' is going to appear.

This and having the widest possible options later is the prime reason for RAW. For quick photos or non-critical work in-camera JPEG's are now more suitable than ever with newer cameras. As was mentione RAW+JPEG is a great solution as then you have the RAW you can return to later if needed for something quite different such as B/W rendering or to make color separations.

One possible way to figure out what your next step might be for software/RAW conversion is to download various trial programs and see if one of them is better on auto or you like the way it works. There are about half a dozen RAW enabled applications for less than $200 that additionally include complete editing facilities.

Just out of curiosity, what about the .xmp files bothers you? They can be deleted (I wouldn't) if you don't want to keep track of the work you have already done in ACR. Metadata is a necessity in one form or another with digital photography or you are starting over every time you open that application to look at your files. The .xmp files will make all of your prior work pop up in other ADOBE or .xmp aware products quickly with the changes applied and ready to go.

A. Find the software that works best for me/provides the tools/results I'm happiest with - got it!

B. xmp: hate the extra clutter. I have a hard enough time keeping my image files organized and this add-on is a nuisance.

C. I have tried numerous trial versions of converters, but still haven't found the "right" one. I like the recovery tool in ACR, but have channel options in Raw Therapee. Pixmantec is not bad, but is limited. Picture Window has many tools, but the interface is ghastly.

Thanks!

[adamsti]

There is a bunch of confusion here. When you shoot RAW only, there is still a tiny jpeg embedded in the RAW file, it is what shows up on the back, on your LCD. A huge RAW file can't pop up for display that fast. When you browse your RAW files, (I use bridge and Breezebrowser), those little tiny thumbnails you see, that is the embedded jpeg, so there is no reason to shoot RAW+jpeg. I have always only shot RAW for this reason. Now when you go to convert the file to a TIFF, or what ever file you choose, that is when you are working on the actual RAW file.
There are a lot of converters out there. ACR used to be junk, but most agree that ACR and C1 are the best two converters out right now. ACR is leaps and bounds better than it was years ago.

[drg]

adamsti,

I'm not sure what confusion you are referring to about the RAW+JPEG. It's not about what pops up on the display at all. There are reasons to shoot RAW+JPEG for some photographers. Many want to have 'quick' access to those files for either quick proof printing in the field, or as was mentioned for some who are not using the same software as others to get a comparable image.

I agree that ACR has come a long, long way from it early versions, but then so has a lot of other conversion software. Capture One (if that is what was meant by C1) has also come along way from Phase One's earliest efforts.

One underplayed or not widely recognized capability in the latest ACR/Photoshop/Lightroom is the ability to produce directly from RAW files the same image as comes from the camera with many RAW file types. Via Profiles (from Canon as an example) the in camera choices are now available as part of the RAW 'options' that can be 'pre-selected' or chosen as a possible way of 'developing' the image from it RAW form.

The embedded thumbnails are indeed not what one should be evaluating an image. The histogram tools in cameras continue to improve their sophistication and worth to determine what can be potentially produced from what the camera captured.

The added storage real estate of an included JPEG is minimal for photographer's and is easily deleted/replaced. It can be seen as a workflow aid to easily compare different engines abilities to faithfully or even semi-accurately render the image that the photographer desires.