• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • 21 May 2024 It's Lightroom update time again! See What’s New in Lightroom Classic 13.3, Mobile & Desktop (May 2024)? for all the update news, including Generative Remove using Firefly AI and more!

Import Raw vs jpg rendering

BobT

Active Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
645
Location
Australia
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Lightroom Version Number
13,2
Operating System
  1. Windows 11
When shooting raw + jpg and importing, the rendering of the two appear noticeably different. The unedited raws look better than the jpgs, which surprises me. My understanding is that when Adobe creates camera matching profiles, they are intended to make converted raws look as close as possible to the corresponded jpg. I have no doubt the Adobe techs are expert at creating profiles but I wonder why there is such a difference. Perhaps my understanding is wrong, or I have set some setting that causes this. I don't use presets for editing. Any ideas?
 
If you take a look at the camera profiles in the list, there are several Adobe Named profiles and a few listed as “camera…”. Those with the “Adobe…” names are Adobe’s best efforts at achieving a RAW rendering with those settings. Those with the “Camera…” name are the reverse engineered renderings of the various modes offered in the camera. In camera, you have an ability to adjust edits settings beyond the mode settings of the camera.

If for example you choose Camera Vivid as an in camera mode and no other in camera adjustments, then imported your RAW file choosing Camera Vivid and no other default settings, the camera back jpeg and the image on opening develop would be similar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If you take a look at the camera profiles in the list, there are several Adobe Named profiles and a few listed as “camera…”. Those with the “Adobe…” names are Adobe’s best efforts at achieving a RAW rendering with those settings. Those with the “Camera…” name are the reverse engineered renderings of the various modes offered in the camera. In camera, you have an ability to adjust edits settings beyond the mode settings of the camera.

If for example you choose Camera Vivid as an in camera mode and no other in camera adjustments, then imported your RAW file choosing Camera Vivid and no other default settings, the camera back jpeg and the image on opening develop would be similar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I understand that. You second para is exactly my point, one would expect them to be similar but they seem different enough to suggest something else is going on. It's very noticeable if bursts are shot in raw + jpg. In culling, one clearly sees the change from raw to jpg in each successive pair. Perhaps I'm expecting too much. It's not a problem since I would edit to my liking anyway. I'm just curious. I'll investigate further.
 
I am wondering if you are seeing the embedded preview for the jpeg files and the Adobe-generated preview for the raw file?

--Ken
 
I am wondering if you are seeing the embedded preview for the jpeg files and the Adobe-generated preview for the raw file?

--Ken
This is what you would expect to see. The Adobe Generated Preview Should match closely the JPEG IF the same profiles is used for each With the JPEG Profile coming from the Camera and the Adobe being from their reverse engineered Profile.
 
This is what you would expect to see. The Adobe Generated Preview Should match closely the JPEG IF the same profiles is used for each With the JPEG Profile coming from the Camera and the Adobe being from their reverse engineered Profile.
Yes, I agree, but sometimes reverse engineering can provide you with a slightly different result, which could be better or worse depending on one's expectations. To be honest, I was surprised that Bob preferred the Adobe rendered preview, as so many people post to complain that they want what their preview to look exactly like the embedded one the camera created.

--Ken
 
Yes, I agree, but sometimes reverse engineering can provide you with a slightly different result, which could be better or worse depending on one's expectations. To be honest, I was surprised that Bob preferred the Adobe rendered preview, as so many people post to complain that they want what their preview to look exactly like the embedded one the camera created.

--Ken
This was shot as a jpg + raw, imported into LrC and exported directly as jpgs for this thread. It was shot with the Camera Natural profile. The raw is an ORF file. The first is the jpg, the second the raw.
To my eyes, the jpg looks natural although I would probably want to enhance it a bit.
The raw, perhaps, looks the most pleasing albeit the greens look over saturated.
I know, most would expect the jpg to the more saturated one but not so here.
So, this is my point, as far as toning is concerned, one would expect them to be fairly close. I would not have expected such a big difference. Something in the process is not right or am I expecting too much.
|
_3260005jpg.jpg
_3260005raw.jpg
 
When shooting raw + jpg and importing, the rendering of the two appear noticeably different. The unedited raws look better than the jpgs, which surprises me.
Interesting discussion. One thought, you will not be seeing unedited RAW since a RAW needs to be converted into an image as I know you know. The embedded JPG in the RAW is created by the camera. A question is if the embedded JPG, in the RAW file, is using the same settings as the separate side car JPG created. This would be dependant on Olympus in this case. Also, after LrC has created preview, before develop, it will look different as well. I don't know if there are any processing options for that conversion from RAW to a preview image.

A suggestion is to compare the embedded JPG image with the separate JPG create and see if that explains some of the differences. Unfortunately, the only way I know how to extract the embedded preview JPG from the RAW is using EXIFTOOL. Here's an example of extracting the embedded preview JPG to T.JPG from an ORF. The extracted preview is 3200x2400 pixels.

Code:
exiftool -b -PreviewImage -w t.jpg your_photo.ORF
So, this is my point, as far as toning is concerned, one would expect them to be fairly close. I would not have expected such a big difference. Something in the process is not right or am I expecting too much.
As mentioned, LrC/Camera Raw, approximates the settings for the JPG. Personally, I just start from the RAW rather than comparing Olympus in camera processing vs LrC which will have have not abilities.

Just my 2 cents (Canadian)
 
Interesting discussion. One thought, you will not be seeing unedited RAW since a RAW needs to be converted into an image as I know you know. The embedded JPG in the RAW is created by the camera. A question is if the embedded JPG, in the RAW file, is using the same settings as the separate side car JPG created. This would be dependant on Olympus in this case. Also, after LrC has created preview, before develop, it will look different as well. I don't know if there are any processing options for that conversion from RAW to a preview image.

A suggestion is to compare the embedded JPG image with the separate JPG create and see if that explains some of the differences. Unfortunately, the only way I know how to extract the embedded preview JPG from the RAW is using EXIFTOOL. Here's an example of extracting the embedded preview JPG to T.JPG from an ORF. The extracted preview is 3200x2400 pixels.

Code:
exiftool -b -PreviewImage -w t.jpg your_photo.ORF

As mentioned, LrC/Camera Raw, approximates the settings for the JPG. Personally, I just start from the RAW rather than comparing Olympus in camera processing vs LrC which will have have not abilities.

Just my 2 cents (Canadian)
The folks who created Fast Raw Viewer also created Raw Preview Extractor: https://www.fastrawviewer.com/RawPreviewExtractor . Pretty easy to use.

--Ken
 
This was shot as a jpg + raw, imported into LrC and exported directly as jpgs for this thread. It was shot with the Camera Natural profile. The raw is an ORF file. The first is the jpg, the second the raw.
To my eyes, the jpg looks natural although I would probably want to enhance it a bit.
The raw, perhaps, looks the most pleasing albeit the greens look over saturated.
I know, most would expect the jpg to the more saturated one but not so here.
So, this is my point, as far as toning is concerned, one would expect them to be fairly close. I would not have expected such a big difference. Something in the process is not right or am I expecting too much.
|View attachment 22983View attachment 22984
I do see the differences that you describe, although I find the blues in the jpeg image to be a touch warmer and just a bit more saturated. It would be interesting to see what the embedded jpeg looks like in comparison if you extract it. I suspect it should look identical, but best not to assume anything. Which Olympus body are you shooting with?

--Ken
 
Interesting discussion. One thought, you will not be seeing unedited RAW since a RAW needs to be converted into an image as I know you know


As mentioned, LrC/Camera Raw, approximates the settings for the JPG. Personally, I just start from the RAW rather than comparing Olympus in camera processing vs LrC which will have have not abilities.
JPEGS are produced in the camera from the RGB conversion of the same RAW data using the tiny computer built into the camera and the images adjustments that you chose long before the time when you actually clicked the shutter.

What you end up with is an average photo.

The starting point with a RAW file in LRC is an RGB conversion with similar generic adjustments. If you are happy with a generic photo, you can use the JPEG produced by the tiny computer engine in the camera or apply no further adjustments to the RGB image produced by the more powerful computer and Lightroom Classic app.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Just my 2 cents (Canadian)
About the same as the AUD, so not a problem :)
It's not a big deal for me. I would edit how I like it anyway, mostly from raw. I was just curious as to why the big difference and was it perhaps my settings.
 
Last edited:
This was shot as a jpg + raw, imported into LrC and exported directly as jpgs for this thread. It was shot with the Camera Natural profile. The raw is an ORF file. The first is the jpg, the second the raw.
To my eyes, the jpg looks natural although I would probably want to enhance it a bit.
The raw, perhaps, looks the most pleasing albeit the greens look over saturated.
I know, most would expect the jpg to the more saturated one but not so here.
So, this is my point, as far as toning is concerned, one would expect them to be fairly close. I would not have expected such a big difference. Something in the process is not right or am I expecting too much.
|View attachment 22983View attachment 22984
Hi, Bob T, the jpeg file would automatically show the image with the Camera Natural profile however the RAW image would be displayed with the profile you have selected in the Profiles from the Develop Module.
Have you selected the Adobe Natural profile or the Camera Matching Profile.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-03-29 at 6.38.10 PM.png
    Screenshot 2024-03-29 at 6.38.10 PM.png
    731.2 KB · Views: 21
  • Screenshot 2024-03-29 at 6.37.16 PM.png
    Screenshot 2024-03-29 at 6.37.16 PM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 21
Hi, Bob T, the jpeg file would automatically show the image with the Camera Natural profile however the RAW image would be displayed with the profile you have selected in the Profiles from the Develop Module.
Have you selected the Adobe Natural profile or the Camera Matching Profile.
The profile chosen in the camera is "Picture Mode Natural" which appears as "Camera Natural" in LrC.
 
I extracted the jpg from the raw as suggested above. That shows that the out-of-the-camera jpg is indeed enhanced as expected but still leaves the question as to why the developed raw is even more saturated, as I demonstrated with the images above. I thought it was an Adobe issue, but it seems not. Doing the same exercise with OM Workspace produces the same result, that is, the raw is more saturated than the out-of-the-camera jpg, when one would expect them to be similar. Comparing the two developed raws, one from LrC, the other from OM Workspace shows them to be virtually indistinguishable. One could say that Adobe did a good job at emulating the OMS profile. So, the issue is not with Adobe but with OMDS.
I'll take this up on another forum.
Thanks guys.
 
I extracted the jpg from the raw as suggested above. That shows that the out-of-the-camera jpg is indeed enhanced as expected but still leaves the question as to why the developed raw is even more saturated, as I demonstrated with the images above. I thought it was an Adobe issue, but it seems not. Doing the same exercise with OM Workspace produces the same result, that is, the raw is more saturated than the out-of-the-camera jpg, when one would expect them to be similar. Comparing the two developed raws, one from LrC, the other from OM Workspace shows them to be virtually indistinguishable. One could say that Adobe did a good job at emulating the OMS profile. So, the issue is not with Adobe but with OMDS.
I'll take this up on another forum.
Thanks guys.
Just a thought, the difference you are seeing on your monitor will be affected by your “Monitor profile” and raises the question have you used a hardware device to create a monitor profile?
 
Just a thought, the difference you are seeing on your monitor will be affected by your “Monitor profile” and raises the question have you used a hardware device to create a monitor profile?
If you mean, have I calibrated the monitor, then yes. The desktop monitor is calibrated to Adobe RGB but this laptop I'm typing this on is sRGB but I'm seeing the same thing.
 
If you mean, have I calibrated the monitor, then yes. The desktop monitor is calibrated to Adobe RGB but this laptop I'm typing this on is sRGB but I'm seeing the same thing.
Adobe RGB and sRGB are not Display Monitor profiles they are working color space.
They may display consistent color but not accurate color. There is an article on this in the LightroomQueen blogs in the website.
 
I extracted the jpg from the raw as suggested above. That shows that the out-of-the-camera jpg is indeed enhanced as expected but still leaves the question as to why the developed raw is even more saturated, as I demonstrated with the images above. I thought it was an Adobe issue, but it seems not. Doing the same exercise with OM Workspace produces the same result, that is, the raw is more saturated than the out-of-the-camera jpg, when one would expect them to be similar. Comparing the two developed raws, one from LrC, the other from OM Workspace shows them to be virtually indistinguishable. One could say that Adobe did a good job at emulating the OMS profile. So, the issue is not with Adobe but with OMDS.
I'll take this up on another forum.
Thanks guys.
After further testing, I've found I had made an error and my statement above is incorrect. OM Workspace is consistent in the rendering of both raw and jpg. So, the problem lies with LrC. Coincidentally, someone on another forum, also with an OMS OM-1, has complained of the LrC Camera Matching profiles not matching the out-of-the-camera jpegs.
I don't know where I go from here. Do I put in a bug report?
 
Do I put in a bug report?
Sounds like a plan - see the link at the top of the Forum page for details on submitting a Feature Request / Bug Report
 
Sounds like a plan - see the link at the top of the Forum page for details on submitting a Feature Request / Bug Report
Thanks, I'll give it a go.
You may be aware that when Olympus was making cameras, it was rumoured that it had a strained relationship with Adobe. Being a small fish in a big pond, Olympus was secretive over its IP, including colour profiles. It would be a shame if that was still the case with OM Digital Solutions.
 
After further testing, I've found I had made an error and my statement above is incorrect. OM Workspace is consistent in the rendering of both raw and jpg. So, the problem lies with LrC. Coincidentally, someone on another forum, also with an OMS OM-1, has complained of the LrC Camera Matching profiles not matching the out-of-the-camera jpegs.
Just reviewing this I'm not sure, from a workflow perspective, what you are trying to achieve. No offense intended but it sounds like you are trying to get two post processing software to work identically in some aspects of tonal and colour control; OM in-camera and LrC. Yes, I consider the conversion of the RAW to JPG post processing software.

If you are saying that you want to start with the LrC Camera Profile on RAW to match the in-camera OM post processing then it may be more that you are looking for the in camera edits to be recorded in the JPG that you could then copy to the RAW. I doubt andy of the camera manufacturers share their JPG preset edit values to Adobe and/or record in JPG (have you checked?)

Personally, I ask out of curiosity as my workflow only deals with the RAW. I 've found I like the Adobe profiles better than the camera emulation. So another cynical observation is that Adobe is trying to make their profiles more attractive than camera emulations.
 
Back
Top