Probably offTopic: A Question about display of RAW-Files -> RawTherapee

voronwe · August 06, 2014, 09:16:46 PM

Hi

this question does only belongs in parts to IMatch, but maybe somebody can help me with this questions anyway.

After a long time being happy with the JPG coming out from my camera (which is a Nikon D90), I lately started also to safe my pictures as NEF-Files. For the beginning in the development I used RawTherapee.
Currently the set of my Camera is to save the NEF and besides the JPG in best Quality (lazy as I am)
And now comes my question:

In IMatch the JPG and the RAW looks exactly the same, which is (from my point of view) great, so I assume that IMatch reads out the presettings from the NEF.
However, in RawTherapee, the picture looks different, especially the colors are much colder, so it seems to me that RawTherapee is not reading the presettings.
Does anybody know how to force RawTherapee to use the presettings in the camera.

And, second question, because I'm playing with the idea of using it: Does Lightroom uses the presettings?

Sorry for this very off-topic question. And if I'm wrong with my idea of presetting, please tell me so

Thank you

JohnZeman · August 06, 2014, 10:10:51 PM

I've never used Raw Therapee but I'm guessing it's processing the raw file as you import it which will display it differently as you've noticed. Lightroom can also do this if you want it to (and I do). In Lightroom after optimizing the raw image you can update the internal preview saving it back to the raw file which should make it display the same in Lightroom and IMatch.

lenmerkel · August 06, 2014, 11:01:44 PM

Quote from: voronwe on August 06, 2014, 09:16:46 PM
Sorry for this very off-topic question. And if I'm wrong with my idea of presetting, please tell me so

Hi, not off-topic at all!

I believe you may have a little misconception about raw files, how they are 'viewed', and how raw converters (like RawTherapee) handle them.

The reason that in IMatch your JPG and NEF look the same, is that when 'viewing' the NEF in IMatch, it is displaying the JPG preview image embedded in your NEF. You can't really view any raw file, because there is NO image to view. The raw file contains a 'dump' of your camera's image sensor data, plus a whole bunch of metadata about your camera's settings, shooting conditions, date/time, etc. Your camera also embeds a preview JPG image inside the raw file so that applications like IMatch (and even Windows Explorer, via codecs) can 'display' the raw file visually. The embedded JPG preview is prepared by your camera using exactly the same algorithms and settings that your camera uses to create the JPG file. The only difference might be the preview size and quality. Most cameras these days embed a full-size preview. Anyhow, this is why the NEF and JPG 'look' the same in IMatch, because the embedded preview and the JPG are created in the same way.

RawTherapee is 'cooking' the raw data in your NEF to product a viewable image. This is a similar process to what your camera does when it creates a JPG. However, RawTherapee, and any other raw converter, will use different algorithms to 'cook' your image (because these algorithms are written differently by different people). Also, raw converters usually completely ignore your camera's settings when they 'cook' (e.g. saturation, contrast, sharpening). They have their own settings for that, which they provide tools for you to adjust. So, it's highly unlikely that what you see in RawTherapee, or any other raw converter, will look the same as the JPG created by your camera (or the embedded JPG preview). You should expect them to look different.

So, which is right? What you see in IMatch, or what you see in RawTherapee? The answer is: there is no right or wrong! There is only: which one do you prefer?
There are typically 2 reasons for shooting raw. One, you have more latitude & flexibility with making image adjustments in post-processing than you do with JPGs. Two, you get complete control of how your the raw data is transformed into the image you want to see, rather than the camera making these decisions for you. Of course, this also means you have more work to do (but IMHO that work is fun

).

FYI - You can change the way that IMatch5 generates the image it displays from your NEF in the program preferences. By Default, it shows the embedded JPG, which is very fast, and represents what your camera's settings and algorithms produce. You can tell IMatch to instead 'cook' its own version of a displayable image from the NEF, just like a raw converter. This is slow. It will look different from the embedded preview, for the reasons above. There is really no reason to do this unless your camera has very low resolution embedded previews.

Hope this helps!

Ferdinand · August 06, 2014, 11:54:18 PM

A related question is why doesn't IMatch show the RAW file as edited by RT, or some other converter? The answer is much the same. In most cases, the RAW converter doesn't update the embedded thumb, which is what IMatch uses to display the image. The same is true for other image display programs that don't do their own conversion of the RAW.

For IMatch to display the image as edited by the converter, it would need to be able to interpret the converter's saved settings and replicate its conversion algorithm, and do this for each converter - an impossible task and sure to get you sued.

lenmerkel · August 07, 2014, 02:53:24 AM

Quote from: Ferdinand on August 06, 2014, 11:54:18 PM
For IMatch to display the image as edited by the converter, it would need to be able to interpret the converter's saved settings and replicate its conversion algorithm, and do this for each converter - an impossible task and sure to get you sued.

Very true! This is where IMatch's visual proxy comes in handy.

Mario · August 07, 2014, 07:19:43 AM

There is also this FAQ: Why do my RAW files look different in IMatch than in my RAW Processor?

voronwe · August 07, 2014, 08:16:00 AM

Thanks a lot for all this information, especially to @nmerkel. Things become now much clearer for me.

In a conclusion for myself, I think I will give Lightroom also a try (at least with the 30days test period

). Even if I'm not a big fan of Adobe, I think it is the one with the most tutorials in the net, so this could be a good start.

sinus · August 07, 2014, 10:23:13 AM

Quote from: voronwe on August 07, 2014, 08:16:00 AM
Thanks a lot for all this information, especially to @nmerkel. Things become now much clearer for me.

In a conclusion for myself, I think I will give Lightroom also a try (at least with the 30days test period ). Even if I'm not a big fan of Adobe, I think it is the one with the most tutorials in the net, so this could be a good start.

A good step. You will find a lot of stuff about LR and you will find also more help for LR than for RT, I think, simply because LR is far more in use.

ubacher · August 07, 2014, 11:23:16 AM

If you want to convert your NEF file exactly as the in-camera conversion does it you need to use the
Nikon provided software (Capture NX) - but it does not have a high reputation for usability etc.
( There was some discussion in this forum abot the new Capture NX and its file handling)
Inside the NEF file the settings which you made in the camera - and which were used for the conversion - are stored.
But only the Nikon software knows how to use these settings.

If you use Lightroom then the settings which you use for the translation will be stored in the accompanying XMP file
and will be available again if you reprocess the file at a later date.
If I recall correctly RawTherapee stores the settings in a separate, program specific file. Not convenient for Imatch.

cytochrome · August 07, 2014, 12:56:40 PM

Hello,

Unless you still have a copy of CNx2 (which is discontinued by Nikon but still edits your D90 NEF) your only choice now is to use ViewNx2. ViewNx2 (free) is a quite capable converter (try it and you will be surprised) which updates the in-NEF JPG with all your edits. IMatch will show the thumb and jpg exactly like it appears in the converter.

In addition ViewNx2 writes full metadata to the NEF, which is handy when you use a workflow without XMP sidecars. IMatch reads the metadata written by VnX2 and vice versa.

CNx2 has been replaced by CN-D (free) which does not write your edits to the NEF, so same problem as with RT, LR, ASP etc..

Francis

voronwe · August 07, 2014, 09:14:48 PM

Quote from: cytochrome on August 07, 2014, 12:56:40 PM
Hello,

Unless you still have a copy of CNx2 (which is discontinued by Nikon but still edits your D90 NEF) your only choice now is to use ViewNx2. ViewNx2 (free) is a quite capable converter (try it and you will be surprised) which updates the in-NEF JPG with all your edits. IMatch will show the thumb and jpg exactly like it appears in the converter.

In addition ViewNx2 writes full metadata to the NEF, which is handy when you use a workflow without XMP sidecars. IMatch reads the metadata written by VnX2 and vice versa.

CNx2 has been replaced by CN-D (free) which does not write your edits to the NEF, so same problem as with RT, LR, ASP etc..

Francis

Thanks Francis for that information, I checked it out. For a first glimpse it seems ok, but I found that there is no way to reset a specific change (like eg. you changed the White balance and the Brightness and now you want the brightness back to original -> seems there is no way to do this, all or nothing).
It does not seems what I'm searching for, but it is for free, so no problem with that.

As I said, I think I will give Lighroom a try in September (If I want to try it now, I would be half of the the testtime on vacation without a PC

)

But again, thanks to all for your help

cytochrome · August 08, 2014, 10:50:36 AM

I am not an expert at VNx2, routinely I use ASP2, but I don't see what you describe (or I don't catch it). I can set WB, luminosity etc as I want and move back any of these settings to the stating point.

As said it modifies the in NEF JPG (you have to you hit CTRL-S to register the changes in the NEF) and they show in IMATCH (after you do a rescan to update the image).

Otherwise I see no mean to have IM or other viewers show edits that you do to your NEF.

Francis

Erik · August 08, 2014, 11:06:15 PM

This may be obvious, but a question the OP should ask before going down this road is what is the motivation for shooting RAW?

If you are shooting NEF files and your goal is to have them look the same as the JPG file, OR, if you are using RawTherapee, Lightroom, etc. with the goal of bringing yourself back to the JPG, then do you really need to shoot the NEF file in the first place?

The primary reason people shoot RAW formats is because they aren't necessarily happy with the initial JPG file their camera produces and they want the flexibility to adjust the RAW data to a visual representation they do like. This will generally not match the jpg from the camera (but could be similar).

Of course, after you process a RAW file you then end up in the case Ferdinand and Mario described and alluded to where you won't see what edits you made in IM5. You either have to output a new JPG, TIFF, etc from the RAW editor or possibly embedded an updated JPG preview in the RAW file (LR can do this with DNG files).

Anyway, I mostly posted for the first part because some people are happy with the JPGs out of their camera but change themselves to RAW formats because they are told its better and not necessarily because they take advantage or intend on it. I don't think there is any correct answer other than what works best for you as a user. I wish I could take JPG images I was happy with all the time. It would save a bit of work, but I'm not much of a photographer and need the RAW files to save me from my limitations.

cytochrome · August 09, 2014, 10:56:43 AM

On the D90 one can define a lot of presets (picture control) plus a host of individual settings. I understood voronwe does not see the effect of these settings in RT. So the answer is use VNx2 or define in RT a preset which will mimick the in-camera settings.

Of course I agree that using a raw converter to try to obtain what the camera does quickly and well when producing JPGs is a waste of time. Sometimes I set my cameras on raw + jpg and after converting the raw I compare: with well exposed shots it is quite often a lesson in modesty...

Francis

Ferdinand · August 09, 2014, 02:33:25 PM

Some people I know shoot RAW+JPG because they don't have the time to edit all the RAW files, but they want then in case they need them for a special image. I suspect there are a lot of professionals who operate this way. It's not a bad discipline, as you have to be sure that the captures are pretty close to what you want, i.e. you can't just be sloppy and think that you can fix it up in post-proc. So you have to nail Exp and WB.

voronwe · August 09, 2014, 11:48:01 PM

Quote from: Ferdinand on August 09, 2014, 02:33:25 PM
Some people I know shoot RAW+JPG because they don't have the time to edit all the RAW files, but they want then in case they need them for a special image. I suspect there are a lot of professionals who operate this way. It's not a bad discipline, as you have to be sure that the captures are pretty close to what you want, i.e. you can't just be sloppy and think that you can fix it up in post-proc. So you have to nail Exp and WB.

I have to point out that this is exactly ho I do it, (I'm not a professional as all), simply because I'm lazy, but if needed, I want to have the opportunity to get the best out of the picture.
I think this is also because I come from the old days of analog photography, where it was a lot lot of work to change something after the shooting (In B/W it works (but time consuming) because I hab a lab with some friend, in color it was very hard (discussing with the guy at the local photo store), with frames it was impossible). So it was the hard way to learn that the picture should be as good as possible at the time of shooting

Erik · August 11, 2014, 05:32:48 PM

Quote from: Ferdinand on August 09, 2014, 02:33:25 PM
Some people I know shoot RAW+JPG because they don't have the time to edit all the RAW files, but they want then in case they need them for a special image. I suspect there are a lot of professionals who operate this way. It's not a bad discipline, as you have to be sure that the captures are pretty close to what you want, i.e. you can't just be sloppy and think that you can fix it up in post-proc. So you have to nail Exp and WB.

I do this quite often, but I have created a generic enough preset in LR now that I can get a decent JPG without any work on the RAW at home.

However, I have gotten into a new habit of actually shooting RAW+JPG with the JPG file produced in black and white. It helps my composition skills quite a bit, and I tend to like to convert to black and white anyway.

Ferdinand · August 11, 2014, 05:54:55 PM

Quote from: Erik on August 11, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
However, I have gotten into a new habit of actually shooting RAW+JPG with the JPG file produced in black and white. It helps my composition skills quite a bit, and I tend to like to convert to black and white anyway.

Mmmmm, and with a Fuji you also have the option of several B&W filters, in addition to a straight monochrome rendition. Of course this approach means that the embedded thumb in the RAF is B&W as well as the JPG, which can be a bit confusing. Another approach with Fuji is to shoot the RAW in colour and do an in-camera conversion to B&W. I think this is getting a bit OT, so I will warn myself not to go any further ....