Photoshop CS4 (Camera Raw 5.0) vs. CS3 Color

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by Noel_Carboni

I'm using the ACR 4.4 profile, by the way. A while back I loaded up the beta profiles with CS3, and they did provide a good starting point, but if I can stay with the mainstream released profile I will.

But why? The entire purpose of those beta profiles is to get ACR to produce the exact same color character as you get from your in-camera JPEGs. Isn't that what you want? The fact that they're beta (now beta 2, as of Oct. 22) shouldn't matter much, as any further updates to those profiles from here out should have only insignificant consequences for Lightroom users, and my impression is that you burn all your stuff to RGB, anyway.

[Jerry Skrocki]

Noel,

If you prefer the color rendered by the camera processor, why shoot RAW?

Jerry

[Noel_Carboni]

Well, there are advantages to shooting raw. It is actually possible to pull more detail out of images shot raw, and also the lens correction features work better in the raw converter - for example color fringing correction.

Plus, having a starting point (Camera Raw Default) that is virtually identical to the camera's output is WAY easier on this old brain. Then I can tweak it as needed.

In answer to your question, Martin: Because I hadn't yet embraced the possibility of creating a custom profile. That was then.

At this point using the beta software I have successfully created a profile I've called "40D JPEG Color Match", which I've been testing. It's VERY satisfying to have my Camera Raw default look just like the JPEGs.

FYI, none of the pre-packaged profiles matched the camera JPEGs particularly well.

I wonder if there would be a mild commercial interest in a profile that would give color consistent with the JPEGs...

-Noel

[Martin_Doudoroff]

A decent new video overview of using the “DNG Profiles” in Lightroom and ACR.

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by Martin_Doudoroff

I think the new camera-specific profiles Jerry is referring to and the associated DNG Profile Editor are a pretty big deal for addressing the RAW color problem (we discussed them briefly, here). In my personal experience, the out-of-the-box color I get in my 5D images using the new profiles instead of the ACR 4.4 standard are a much better starting point for further adjustments.

Absolutely! Rolling your own profiles with a Macbeth provides pretty nice results, superior over the supplied profiles.

And as said, expecting to get a JPEG and Raw (initial rendering) to match is always going to be a big stretch. Custom DNG profiles will get you closer, but there's a huge amount of proprietary processing going on in the camera.

[DougAxford]

Originally Posted by Jerry Skrocki

Noel,
If you prefer the color rendered by the camera processor, why shoot RAW?
Jerry

I know I'm going into quicksand here but time to stick my neck out again.

In the past month we've been shooting tens of thousands of sports T&I kids. Assembly line stuff but all of it is on location outdoors and it's a pretty tough assignment to keep watching the sky, the kids and your exposure. Everything must be shot on full Manual, anything auto is impossible with a mix of uniforms from white to black and lots of fluorescent colours. We're expected to match all skin tones and uniforms on the team, regardless of whether the sun was shining or a storm cloud suddenly appeared.

I've sent some of the summer staff out with the camera pre-set for raw+jpg (for safety) while I shoot jpg only.

After a great many images and lots of testing, I've concluded that raw does give me a bit of safety if exposures are off by more than 2 stops but the final results are only slightly better and still sub par from what I would call salable if it's that far off. At 2 stops or more over, there's no detail in the highlights for raw to adjust. Nothing but noise is being added. Closer than 2 stops, jpg wins for me every time.

In all the shots taken I've reverted to using the raw files only on one occasion (she changed settings on me!!!). With jpg I can make adjustments to obtain at a better image far faster. I think Andrew hit the nail on the head with his statement,

Originally Posted by AndrewRodney

there's a huge amount of proprietary processing going on in the camera.

.

Please keep in mind that I'm dealing with high volume, assembly line photography. It doesn't necessarily convert to anyone else's workflow. I use Express Digital for corrections and printing and the workflow is very similar to LR - correct one and apply to all, or others.

For me, I've become much more comfortable with the raw workflow and it's a great feature that gives me peace of mind but it still doesn't replace proper metering of exposure and WB. That's the risk that I see some photographers assuming they can shoot raw and worry about exposure in post. Only so far.

Bottom line is that the camera mfg's do an amazing job of getting a pretty decent image in the can. Not to everyone's taste but good enough for many of us.

Just my 2 cents - fire away

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by DougAxford

Bottom line is that the camera mfg's do an amazing job of getting a pretty decent image in the can. Not to everyone's taste but good enough for many of us.

Exactly. They do an amazing job, unless you mess up (wrong WB, exposure etc) or want to alter the color appearance whereby you're kind of stuck with a baked JPEG. Much like baking a cake, the JPEG may be tasty to you, but to someone else, too sweet. You can't unbake that effect. With Raw, you've got all the ingredients to mix prior to baking. So if the JPEGs do a nice job fine, only problem is, when they don't. I'm also not willing to accept a rendered, 8-bit, JPEG in a small color space!

Having custom DNG profiles that more closely mimic the default JPEG rendering is a step in the right direction. But I seriously doubt that even with a family of such profiles, you'll get 100% (or even high 90%) matching to the JPEGs, 100% of the time. Fortunately, since you've got Raw, a tweak here or there (and a copy and paste to other similar Raws) and you've fixed that issue.