Replicating the In-camera Jpeg

[MarkNicholas]

Having read on a number of forums several contributers complaining that they were unable to process their RAW file to accurately replicate the in-camera Jpegs I decided on my next assignment to shoot RAW + Jpeg and to see whether I was able to replicate the Jpeg.

After a few hours of play my conclusion was that it was fairly easy the replicate (and significantly improve) the exposure settings. The camera was fairy good at getting the highlights and shadows correct but usually made an awful job of the mid-tones.

Replicating the colours was another matter. I tried various combinations of calibration profiles (and the individual sliders settings), white balance sliders and the colour adjustments (saturation, hue and luminance). My conclusion was that it was fairly easy to say individually replicate the blue in the blue sky or the green in the green grass etc. but almost impossible to get both the blues and greens correct at the same time. They were not wildly out but were definitely not the same. I suspect that there is a certain combination of settings that would produce the same colours in both at the same time but that there are too many permutations that it would be sheer luck to do so.

I would like to experiment further on some of my older RAW (with no Jpegs). Is there any way to view the embedded Jpeg file in the RAW files in Lightroom ?

 

[Mark Sirota]

No, but you can pull out the embedded JPEG yourself using a variety of tools including Jeffrey Friedl's EXIF viewer, exiftool, or Instant JPEG from Raw.

 

[MarkNicholas]

Thanks. Downloaded Instant Jpeg and it works a treat. Only thing is that the embeded Jpegs are not full size. but these will do for my purposes.

 

[dj_paige]

The easiest way to replicate .jpg look is to shoot .jpg and not Raw.

I don't see the point of shooting Raw and then trying to make it look like a .jpg.

 

[MarkNicholas]

The easiest way to replicate .jpg look is to shoot .jpg and not Raw.

I don't see the point of shooting Raw and then trying to make it look like a .jpg.

Please read my OP again. What I am trying to do is replicate what the camera does to create the Jpeg. This is purely academic although I think it is a good starting point for further processing. There is a consistent opinion amongst Canon users that the in-camera processing creates purer colours than LR, even with the new camera profiles.

 

[Denis Pagé]

Or, make your own camera profiles with the DNG Profile Editor.

 

[dj_paige]

Please read my OP again. What I am trying to do is replicate what the camera does to create the Jpeg. This is purely academic although I think it is a good starting point for further processing. There is a consistent opinion amongst Canon users that the in-camera processing creates purer colours than LR, even with the new camera profiles.

Okay, I understand that this is purely academic ... until you say "I think it is a good starting point for further processing", which of course isn't academic, as you have moved into the non-academic area of "practical".

Which leads me back to my original question ... why? Why shoot RAW and then work to get to a .jpg-like appearance and then do further processing? I simply don't get it. Why not just take the RAW and process it to where you want it to be, without detouring to a .jpg-like appearance?

If Canon in-camera processing produces "purer" colors than LR (what does "purer" mean, anyway?), why not just go with the .jpg?

 

[MarkNicholas]

Okay, I understand that this is purely academic ... until you say "I think it is a good starting point for further processing", which of course isn't academic, as you have moved into the non-academic area of "practical".

Which leads me back to my original question ... why? Why shoot RAW and then work to get to a .jpg-like appearance and then do further processing? I simply don't get it. Why not just take the RAW and process it to where you want it to be, without detouring to a .jpg-like appearance?

If Canon in-camera processing produces "purer" colors than LR (what does "purer" mean, anyway?), why not just go with the .jpg?

A valid question which I will do my best to answer !!

One reason is to confirm my long standing opinion that you can always get better than the camera Jpeg by processing the RAW file in Lightroom (even the colours). This is purely academic.

As to where to start my processing I agree that it does not really matter and like you usually start from LR defaults. However, I would like to have the option to be able to start / continue my processing from what I would have got from the camera Jpeg. Although a long standing RAW shooter I personally think the camera does a reasonable job with the highlights / shadows and colours of its Jpegs. If that leaves me just to sort out the cropping, mid-tones, dust spots etc. then that "could" save me a lot of time. I am not saying that this is the best way to go but I want to try and see for myself whether it is. To satisfy my curiosity.

It may also enable me to come up with my own camera profiles / presets to be applied to my RAW files upon import to give me a more advanced starting point.

You may think this is all a waste of time but I will enjoy the ride and I hope to report back at some point on my findings.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Good for you mark, looking forward to your findings!!
I do recommend that you look at the profile editor to achieve the colours you are seeking.....

 

[Denis de Gannes]

I posted this in another forum a short while ago and think it is relevant here also.

Quote.
"At the point when I am getting colours close to what I would get from Studio or Master as a starting point I will pick up Bibble again. until then Capture one gets close enough to the output from Studio to make it my preferred converter."

My reply.

I started shooting raw back in late 2''4 and began using ACR, then at v 2.4 in PS CS.
In early 2''5 Photoshop upgraded to PS CS2, ACR 3.x with relatively significant improvements.

Instead of upgrading I started testing some other raw conversion software (Rawshooter, SilkyPix etc) and testing compared with Olympus Master output.

I found that none of the other converters matched the vibrant and pleasing results I got from Master no matter how hard I tried. I then decided I had to do some specific tests and took a picture of an ornament figure in controlled lighting on my porch with a white balance tool (WIBAL). Processed the raw file and color corrected in both programs. Still, while the colors were pretty close, the tone and vibrance did not match. After many hours of frustration I decided to go get the ornament and place it next to my computer screen only to realise that the rendition done in Master was the one that was the furthest from reality.
Since that test I realised it was futile trying to get the raw converter that I am using to match the camera manufacturers rendition since it was not realistic or correct. Everyone is trying to present the user with what they believe is a pleasing rendition.

I presently use Lightroom 2.3, SilkyPix 3.' and Bibble 4.1' and consider them all very good at the job they perform, each having their strengths.

Raw conversion software is rapidly improving and it will be some time yet before one will emerge as the best.
Capture One is also one of the top converters which I have tested but the ones I have are satisfying my needs.
What is the best starting point?, use the tools that work for your taste, and timing schedule.

If only your Camera manufacturer was providing you with software to convert your raw files or only providing a jpeg output, what development could you expect? I think it would be pretty slow. The competition only benefits the user.

 

[Denis Pagé]

In the end, no raw converter and no camera system will ever never and forever give you what your eyes saw. And I hope it will stay so! Imagine the temperature of the sun hanging on your wall... I don't want my house to catch fire! :lol:

EDIT: By chance, our cameras, converters and printers are limited in their color space and not reproducing gamma rays... yet.

 

[Brad Snyder]

OT, heh, Denis, for gamma rays, you need a camera with a good *burst* mode.

 

[sizzlingbadger]

I struggled with this sort of thing for ages, I think the reason we think like this to start with is because we usually pay a lot of cash for our camera and therefore would like to believe that the manufacturers know best. Of course this is just not true, they are only human too. The in-camera jpeg is just a guide for me.

 

[BobT]

I posted this in another forum a short while ago and think it is relevant here also.

Quote.
"At the point when I am getting colours close to what I would get from Studio or Master as a starting point I will pick up Bibble again. until then Capture one gets close enough to the output from Studio to make it my preferred converter."

I started shooting raw back in late 2''4 and began using ACR, then at v 2.4 in PS CS.
In early 2''5 Photoshop upgraded to PS CS2, ACR 3.x with relatively significant improvements.

Instead of upgrading I started testing some other raw conversion software (Rawshooter, SilkyPix etc) and testing compared with Olympus Master output.

I found that none of the other converters matched the vibrant and pleasing results I got from Master no matter how hard I tried. I then decided I had to do some specific tests and took a picture of an ornament figure in controlled lighting on my porch with a white balance tool (WIBAL). Processed the raw file and color corrected in both programs. Still, while the colors were pretty close, the tone and vibrance did not match. After many hours of frustration I decided to go get the ornament and place it next to my computer screen only to realise that the rendition done in Master was the one that was the furthest from reality.
Since that test I realised it was futile trying to get the raw converter that I am using to match the camera manufacturers rendition since it was not realistic or correct. Everyone is trying to present the user with what they believe is a pleasing rendition.

I presently use Lightroom 2.3, SilkyPix 3.' and Bibble 4.1' and consider them all very good at the job they perform, each having their strengths.

Raw conversion software is rapidly improving and it will be some time yet before one will emerge as the best.
Capture One is also one of the top converters which I have tested but the ones I have are satisfying my needs.
What is the best starting point?, use the tools that work for your taste, and timing schedule.

If only your Camera manufacturer was providing you with software to convert your raw files or only providing a jpeg output, what development could you expect? I think it would be pretty slow. The competition only benefits the user.

Denis
I too have struggled with this issue. I would love to have Camera Matching Profiles for my Oly E-3 but alas Adobe have been rather unhelpful on this issue. Their bias leans heavily towards the Canonikons. The reason I would like these profiles is that I would like to see my RAWs in the Olympus picture modes available for JPEGS. I want to see what Oly thinks is the optimally pleasing capability of their glass/sensor/software system. If you ever manage to develop these profiles for LR, I will be you first customer. It's beyond my capabilities.