RAW is processed, JPG is not

[inkytog]

This is actually painful.
Really painful.

I've been shooting raw for at least 10 years. Never when I look at the files do they look flat.

There is a very good chance the computer is applying a 'standard' set of settings to the raw file. Lightroom does this. Macs do this at a system level. They take a standardised set of settings AS A BASE to work from. Then adjust away.

If the OP wants me to make that raw file look flat with no loss of data. I'll happily adjust it to look like this.

It's ridiculous now that people chirping in here claiming to be pro photographers can't get such a basic concept that a raw file is purely sensor data. How it looks on your screen straight of of camera is absolutely 100% the RAW info. From the sensor. That's all it is. If it looks too bright- take down the exposure in your photo app. Too saturated? Take down the colour.

Edit the **** thing. Just stop this abject stupidity.

If the OP wants to use the JPEG output straight from camera and his JPEG is not looking good then this is another issue which needs to be looked at.

If he doesn't need the JPEG (and who would when there's a RAW DNG file to play with) then the whole **** topic is moot.

How your computer displays RAW is how your computer and software and colour profile etc will interpret it.

Calibrate your screen perhaps? Then look? Open the raw in Adobe Camera RAW and MOVE THE SLIDERS.

This is so painful.

 

[The-CROW]

This is actually painful.
Really painful.

I've been shooting raw for at least 10 years. Never when I look at the files do they look flat.

There is a very good chance the computer is applying a 'standard' set of settings to the raw file. Lightroom does this. Macs do this at a system level. They take a standardised set of settings AS A BASE to work from. Then adjust away.

If the OP wants me to make that raw file look flat with no loss of data. I'll happily adjust it to look like this.

It's ridiculous now that people chirping in here claiming to be pro photographers can't get such a basic concept that a raw file is purely sensor data. How it looks on your screen straight of of camera is absolutely 100% the RAW info. From the sensor. That's all it is. If it looks too bright- take down the exposure in your photo app. Too saturated? Take down the colour.

Edit the **** thing. Just stop this abject stupidity.

If the OP wants to use the JPEG output straight from camera and his JPEG is not looking good then this is another issue which needs to be looked at.

If he doesn't need the JPEG (and who would when there's a RAW DNG file to play with) then the whole **** topic is moot.

How your computer displays RAW is how your computer and software and colour profile etc will interpret it.

Calibrate your screen perhaps? Then look? Open the raw in Adobe Camera RAW and MOVE THE SLIDERS.

This is so painful.

I hope your comment about "people chirping and claiming to be photographers" is not aimed at me. Cos you don't know the first thing about me or what I do or I've been doing for the last 20 years for a living. I just hope so. Let's keep this civil guys. Many posters in this thread stated wrong things about the very basics of photography and digital sensors but I didn't argue because it was irrelevant to the OP.
Bottom line is: RAW or Jpeg, let's not debate this any further, the OP feels something is a miss, whatever the reason maybe, I just hope he gets to the bottom of it and shares his findings.
With all due respect. Thank you.

 

[malcolmlightbody]

This has gone beyond a point of being ridiculous. RAW does not mean the image will automatically look like a super flat file (dlog for video for example). Dlog is processed. RAW means RAW. It means it you have your exposure settings, fstop, etc correct the image will come out looking very good and natural and will need only a bit of post processing. That is a RAW file. RAW does NOT mean flat to the eyes. If anything it means as close to what it looks like to your eyes naturally. My wife, who has been a professional photographer for decades, shooting both film and digital, instantly knew which of the two images from the OP was the RAW and which was the JPG, she said because the JPG looks as though it has had a filter or color profile applied to it (which you can do on the p4p, and is obviously what the OP has done).

Heck do a google image search for raw photo files. They all look "natural". NONE of them look flat by any measure.

I know this is becoming like flogging a dead horse but I take photos with (at the moment) my Fuji cameras. When I import the raw files into LR they do not look flat because.....as you and many others say - LR reads metadata and applies default profiles. And, as many have said, if you don't like that look you can move sliders or even apply different profiles (Fuji supply a bunch to simulate different films).

When I had the P4, I noticed that if the camera settings were Dlog, then the jpegs looked awful (flat, compressed etc). I admit I was a bit surprised that 'video' settings were being applied to the jpeg conversion, but I just learned not to use DLog, and process DNG files anyway.

Malcolm

 

[Laar]

New as a member of this forum but not to reading the threads for all the useful information this site contains. With that said, I am by no means a good or knowledgeable photographer so I can't comment on the issue. What I can, and will, comment on is how this single thread contains the most pretentious comments I have seen yet. Hopefully this wont get read by many folks thinking of joining, some of the responses will make many reconsider.

 

[inkytog]

New as a member of this forum but not to reading the threads for all the useful information this site contains. With that said, I am by no means a good or knowledgeable photographer so I can't comment on the issue. What I can, and will, comment on is how this single thread contains the most pretentious comments I have seen yet. Hopefully this wont get read by many folks thinking of joining, some of the responses will make many reconsider.

Yes. This thread will stop someone joining the forum. Exaggeration? Much?


Perhaps people like to join a forum to bang their heads against a wall?

 

[Doctorcobani]

1) RAW is purely sensor data.
2) RAW isn't processed!! It's the whole data collected by the sensor and uncompressed, in one file. It's like a negative film, you can't say "it's sepia toning" before reveal the photo!
3) RAW has metadata that the software reads and apply when you open the RAW. These adjust don't change things, the data is still there, you can adjust as you like and export as you like.

And yes, this is a crazy thread...

Enviado desde mi Nexus 6P mediante Tapatalk

 

[Laar]

Yes. This thread will stop someone joining the forum. Exaggeration? Much?

Indeed, that is exactly the kind of pretentious, self-serving comment I was referring to. I appreciate you backing me up.

Cheers!
Perhaps people like to join a forum to bang their heads against a wall?

 

[Spency]

This thread has been very entertaining!! I have also learnt nothing from it. gr8pics and Thomas are certainly skilled in the field of photography, and can definitely stand their ground on the subject.!!!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[gr8pics]

Guys, i stopped commenting on this thread, just cause of all the nitpicking and "schooling" from drone experts which also consider themselves as professional photographer with all that comes with it, in terms of experience in working in all kinds of environments, trough years and thousands of hours of hard work and personal experience.

There is no "perfect" settings for anything, not even in the same environment, the conditions and settings are ALWAYS different, even at the same location, even 5 mins later, if weather is shifting.
I know allot of you are reading up on Google and post from other "experts" and round and round it goes, but in the end, the only true "experts" is the people with own personal hand on experience, not with 20 000 hours on a Phantom or whatever drone, but the ones that have been trough the whole book of every possible scene with years of experience like, studio, night shooting, long exposure, timelapse, high speed, sports, aerial filming from real aircrafts, and from remote controlled platforms, and so on, then you can start to post categorical statements, or at least have strong arguments for disagreeing, and if you then categorically disagree, then at least, back up your statement with some documentation, so we can put an end to the ongoing disagreement.
Those of you that say you know where im coming from, have no idea, but if i tell, this will just end up in a messy pee contest, like it always do in these forums, so i wont bother.

Fact:
A raw file NEVER comes straight of a sensor, a sensor cant even read colors, thats why its a 3 colored filter also known as RGB added on top of the sensor, aka Debayer filter.
The DeBayer filter is used to convert raw image data into an RGB image. In a raw color image, every pixel represents a value for one basic color, instead of three as is the case for an RGB image. In order to get a real color image, the two missing colors have to be interpolated. This is exactly what this filter does.
There is ALWAYS some form of processing done after the light hits the sensor, it varies highly from camera to camera. Some designs do a minimum of processing on the image sensor itself, others do a little more. Those that do more do so mainly in the area of noise reduction either before or after sending the analog data to be converted to digital data. One method is the relative amplification of the signal from pixels masked for red, green, or blue (which is done for reasons related to the different noise characteristics of pixels filtered for the different colors of the Bayer Mask). Another method used after analog-to-digital conversion is to average pixels with a much higher luminance value than their neighbors to a value much closer to the surrounding pixels.

Even different camera models that share the same sensor design may apply different processing to the output from the sensor, either before or after it is converted to digital information, prior to it being saved as a raw data file. Information about the conditions under which the data was obtained (camera model, sensor characteristics, ISO, WB, etc.) will be appended to the file so the application eventually converting the data to a viewable image will know how to convert it. Demosaicing is not normally done to sensor data before it is saved as a raw file. That is done when the raw data is converted to something else, such as an image displayed on a monitor by a raw conversion application, or converted as output as a jpeg or tiff.

So how do i know all this? I learnt it from a Canon engineer. If you still disagree, call Canon and tell them they dont know how their tech works or how to build cameras.

In regards to my OP, forget the jpg vers, it is true what some of you said, that this was much flatter due to D-cinelike profile added, but my concern was only the raw file, which stil in my opinion, have to much contrast and saturation from the STARTING point.
If you start to edit in the far end, you will obviously loose the "maximum" range of "pulling" the picture into the extreme before it starts to crack, this is most visible in the shadow areas where most of the noise will be introduced and noticeable. Thats why it need to be as close to the "center" of the range as possible when you start editing, to be able to take full advantage in any direction, both highlights, and shadows.

Just like DJI failed to make a good D-log file, probably cause they havent got proper "how to" knowledge, i think the tweaking of the raw files can also be improved to take full advantage of 12 stops of DR, even with such small sensor.

I get that some of you love to show off your theoretical knowledge to prove the "pros" wrong, but all this constant nitpicking, Googleing and REDIT posts, is just annoying and exhausting, for everyone.
That is also the one reason i limited my participation in here, even if i could chime in with some good professional advices, cause i know there will for sure always be one or two "forum" experts jumping at me, implying im arrogant, or know where i come from, its simply rude, and utterly provoking.
Grow up, we are all here for the same reason, to share knowledge and help eachother, in a NICE way, or at least, thats how i think it should be, imo.

Cheers

 

[Tomas Wangen]

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

Quote: "A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data"

I can't believe we are still discussing this.

 

[gr8pics]

Raw image format - Wikipedia
"Some camera manufacturers do additional processing before saving raw files; for example, Nikon has been criticized by astrophotographers for applying noise reduction before saving the raw file."

Until we get some facts from Dji, how the raw files actually are saved from the sensor, we can only agree to disagree.
I still stand by my observations and opinions.

 

[Wheatfield]

Very weird handling of the files of this model i must say.
I never seen this before on any camera, but, the Dng files looks processed, fully saturated and high contrast, while the jpg looks dull and just how Dng is suppose to look like when unprocessed.
Anyone else noticed this?
I think i begin to understand now, why im not impressed with the picture quality of this one, cause ive been editing on already processed pics, even though they are Dng, and that is also why theres allot if noise introduced to the shadow areas.

This is my second unit of P4P, as i got the other one replaced by the local dealer, but i didnt notice this before today.
When i check the files from the previous unit, its the same.

Other than me?

My guess is that your raw converter is assigning a profile that you don't like. You might have to build a custom profile that is assigned to your raw converter.
This is a converter problem not a file problem.

 

[gr8pics]

My guess is that your raw converter is assigning a profile that you don't like. You might have to build a custom profile that is assigned to your raw converter.
This is a converter problem not a file problem.

No it doesnt, nor has it ever been.

 

[inkytog]

Oh good lord. Not still this.

 

[inkytog]

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

Quote: "A raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor. While there are many different ways of encoding this raw sensor data into a raw image file, in each case the file records the unprocessed sensor data"

I can't believe we are still discussing this.

I might just weep.

 

[gr8pics]

Oh good lord. Not still this.

Instead of keeping this thread alive with rude and useless comments, maybe you can post something useful, if not, just refrain from it.
Just a thought...

 

[ribjig]

It doesn't matter how "processed" DNG is
coming out of P4P+ since DNG is RAW
& can be reprocessed to one's own taste
in Adobe Camera RAW or other RAW
processor without losing data, right?
Then convert to 16bitTIF for further
processing if necessary to suit one's
own taste. Only after all processing
done does one convert to 8bitTIF &-or
high res JPG for online display or printing...
Am not processing guru, but...

 

[skyeboysteve]

I'm an amateur photographer (and 107 pilot) that somehow managed to get someone to pay me--probably because they were easily amused and impressed.

In any case I don't think the OP has responded to a couple posters pointing out the matter of meta data on RAW files. After all I know from my own experience that Photoshop AUTOMATICALLY "processes" the P4P lens distortion, chromatic aberration, and crops out vignetting when you open up a raw file from P4P. So yes there is some non-destructive "post processing" going on--but only by Photoshop itself--not by the P4P.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[gr8pics]

For the sake of world peace, lets round off this thread

 

[carr1976]

i updated my firmware last night on the p4p. Shot jpg and raw today using AEB hoping for some good HDRs. I am seeing the same issue gr8pics is seeing before i read this large post. i removed all my photos from my LR catalog thinking it was using a default preset for the import and it wasnt. my DNG files come in saturated while my jpgs come in flat (dcinelike, -2,-3,-2). i checked the file size and its 35.8 for DNG and 6.8 for the jpg. Im very confused and fully understand what gr8pics is frustrated about. about a week ago i had the files on my SD card say they were shot the day before and wrote it off to metadata issues. I also had a situation while shooting today where i couldnt change my f-stop while in still camera mode then switched to video, back to camera and I could.

gr8pics: what are you doing in LR to overcome this? have you tried a full reset yet?

also, re-reading the posts...its so obvious what he is talking about. I was getting so frustrated with the posts throwing gr8pics under the bus as if his eyes didnt work. I have been using LR and PS for 5-6 years and its so clear what he is discussing/concerned about and I am nothing close to a pro photographer. THE DNG FILES LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE HAD A HDR PRESET APPLIED (or just very contrasty/punchy) AND THE JPGS LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A DNG TO LOOK LIKE...end of discussion. his first post with the photos proved that. if dcinelike is to blame has anyone else used another one that works better?

I uploaded a screen grab using my jpg as the reference photo (LR lingo) and the dng on the right. both 1/50, f4.0, iso 100. no presets applied on import or edits done in LR. after the screen grab i pulled my contrast slider to -100 and it still had more punch than the flat jpg did...not much but noticeable. i shoot my canon 6d in RAW and neutral and LR brings them in that way. I also downloaded 'fastrawviewer' and got the same result as LR but what is strange in both programs is i briefly see the flat 'preview' (at the bottom of the program) but when it shows the full size image it saturates it (in LR it will show the preview flat, then it switches to the saturated version)