so every time i shoot, and check my photos in camera i think to myself, thats a great pic. but when i throw it on the computer its almost always a huge dissapointment and have to spend ages attempting to edit it to look like what i was when i saw it on camera
1. edited
2.original
3.original on camera (mind the haze)
In camera the pic seems to "pop" more and the colours are different. (yes my screen is callibrated). why does it look so dull and flat when it goes onto my computer?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 866 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 15 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 800 Image Height 530 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:17 13:13:49 Exposure Time 30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 10.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1600 Image Height 1193 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Are you shooting raw or jpeg?
raw
in-camera you are looking at the jpg preview that is imbedded into all raw files.
That jpg preview is subject to all of the filters your camera has active, as well as a few that get applied to the preview by the manufacturer just to make it look nice on the camera.
But extract that jpg preview and view it on a decent size screen and it will reveal just how shit it really is.
There will always be some previews that lok decent outside the camera, but generally a decent screen with a decent color depth will reveal how excessively over-contrasted, over-saturated, over-sharpened and heavily compressed the jpg preview is.
Also; if you cant just (in post) apply the camera specific curve, and hit auto-exposure for a generally decent image then there is something wrong with they way you shoot, or perceive what you think you are recording.
Pretty much everyone over processes the fuck out of everyhtig these days, so it can be difficult to correlate what a raw captures with all the 'popular' shit that is really just heavily saturated and crushed black distortion.
>>2770904
Adjust your camera profile in the very bottom module in lightroom. It'll automatically switch to Adobe Standard on import, which makes everything really dull and lifeless, but technically more accurate. If you switch the profile from Adobe Standard to the one you used in camera (probably a vivid or landscape preset looking at the screengrab and going from what you're telling me), you should see a dramatic difference.
>>2770918
is there a way of turning that shit off? cause that crap is throwing me off
>>2770935
No, raw data is literally just numbers, so in order to see it at all, it has to be converted. The best you can do is shoot a custom scene mode where you turn saturation, contrast, sharpness, and noise reduction down as low as they'll go to mimic the flat "bland" nature of the raw image you'll get afterwards.
>>2770931
This is very good advice that everybody who uses Lightroom should know, and yet very few seem to be aware of it.
Adobe has gotten better over time, though, I find that I often end up liking Adobe Standard more than the camera profiles with the current version of LR and files from my D610. Back in LR3/4 and when I was shooting with a D3 and D300, I used to have my import preset automatically apply Camera Standard, but now it's a case-by-case thing.
>>2770957
i mean so i can see the raw data in camera instead of the false vivid like preview
i just did a quick test shot, and changed the picture control in camera from standard to monochrome sepia, and the raw file comes out monochrome sepia, but only as the tumbnail, once you open in and loads fully it changes to colour
>>2770931
Not OP but vivid crushes the blacks, I hate that shit.
neutral 4 lyfe
>>2770935
Not really. But you could make a profile that displays a preview that looks more like the raw. Thing is, a raw is just a means to an end, so making a profile where color and contrast is somewhat muted is sort of pointless, because ultimately you'll edit it anyway.
Just deal with the fact that the camera preview is a poor and misleading facsimile.
Personally I avoid ever looking at my preview except very briefly and very infrequently, and even then only to make sure I'm not doing anything astoundingly wrong. Making decisions based on the camera-preview about whats a good shot, or allowing other people to do so is a huge mistake.
You may start to see a consistency with a body and particular lenses that tend to look the same in preview as in final image, this should be fairly common in newer lenses that have inbuilt chips to feed the camera distortion and color reference info, which the camera adjusts accordingly for writing to raw. But in the end you should never put too much faith in the preview. It's resized, compressed, and written into the raw *for speed*, so really it's a poor guide, but an adequate ballpark for things like blown highlights and gross underexposure.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software GIMP 2.6.12 Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 750 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:10:09 14:46:48 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 500.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2770992
Like this poster said: use a muted or neutral profile. That will at least write a jpg preview with less saturation and contrast.
>>2770985
thats the imbedded jpg preview, note that it's only a 720px or so image
the raw data is separate
cheers for the help everyone, got a much better understanding now
>>2770993
lol raw pixel data
>>2771005
unmodified raw?
raw with all sliders/modifiers set to zero?
You know what it means ArmchairCynicFag
>>2771019
It's still being interpreted by something some process, and it's misleading to call it "raw pixel data", since RAW files don't have pixels.
>>2770993
How the fuck do you get that fucked up bokeh?
>>2771019
>an old, single nerd using the word fag
oh how I do enjoy the consistent chuckles you provide.
>>2771021
herpa derpa
Obviously.
Sorry I didn't spend the time to come up with a short description that wouldn't rustle your jimmies.
"neutral/zero adjustment export from raw to jpg"
>>2771080
I photoshop it in special for that extra pro mystique.
>>2771083
juvenile stalker newfag detected.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software GIMP 2.6.8 Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 900 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:09:08 19:39:24 Exposure Time 1/750 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 600.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 4928 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2771087
I'm not anon from above, but I feel this thread deserves a little bit of education.
If zero adjustment was made to the raw information when exporting to jpeg, you would end up with a really fucked up image!
My camera for example (doesn't every camera with Bayer pattern?) creates green-tinted raw images, as if I looked through green glasses.
So the very least thing EVERY raw-converter does, is to apply a tone-curve and white-balance that it finds fitting to the camera model or manufacturer! For the white-balance it may take the information embedded in the raw-file, for the tone-curve there isn't any data. Hence, the same raw file looks different if develloped with different raw-converters since they are applying different default tone-curves.
Let's not even mention the demosaicing algorithms needed to get pixel-true colour information from RGB-matrix sensor data.
If you are interested in the specific changes a raw-converter makes by itself, I recommend DarkTable, which is similar to lightroom, but actually shows you what it does to the image before you can begin editing it.
tl;dr:
Every raw-converter applies several adjustments, which are not "neutral/zero" at all, but alter the available data quite drastically!
>>2771236
If i remembered what the link was I'd link the article someone wrote for one of the 'big' photography sites last time I bought up the concept of what editors, notably LR, do to images by default. It explained it (paraphrased the thread) relatively well iirc.
inb4 some other newfag writerlukrer profits from /p/ by rewriting a similar gumby article, again this year.
Yes, well demosaicing aside - which all produce almost visually identical base images anyway - lets assume I have half a clue, am using an application that doers let me see what it's doing (used to use RT, now tend to use DT), and that I'm not going to use a green tinted demosaic/none method for illustrating how the 'raw image' differs from a jpg preview.
... in retrospect this is a poor example anyway, becasue it's so similar across the board.. but it was an image I made back when I was experimenting with exactly what OP was having issues with: camera preview vs imbedded preview vs raw image vs final image.
>>2771664
incidentally, RT doesn't apply any curve by default. Unlike DT.
So when you set all sliders to zero and uncheck everything that can be unchecked, and leave WB on 'camera'
... that's what I call zeroed/neutral/no editing
or lolrawpixeldata
turn down the brightness on your lcd
>>2771236
>>2771664
Here's a green tinted image before the color correction. (done by turning off color correction and all other adjustments in PhotoNinja)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
