Colors of RAW vs JPG in Lightroom and CS3

I am confused by this.
When shooting RAW +JPG on my Canon 350D, the RAW and JPG have different color qualities. The RAW is more yellow, or maybe warmer. The JPG more blue or cooler.
I think this is odd. And it is consistent in Lightroom AND CS3 and yet in Irfanview and Canon Digital Photo Professional they they are identical. Totally.
Why would this be? And which is "right" in Lightroom? The RAW? It looks the better of the two, but hard to compare across programs. But why the difference and why not in all programs, just ADOBE?
Thanks.
~Bob

DPP uses the in camera settings as its starting point to view RAW files, so these files will appear identical to any jpegs produced at the same time. The in camera settings are attached to the RAW file and DPP reads this information when opening or loading a RAW file for the first time.
Lightroom does not have access to this information and so it has its own starting point that it uses when you open a RAW file, thus the RAW file will look different than the JPEG and different to the RAW file opened in DPP (while the JPEG and RAW file in DPP will look the same). Most other RAW programs do not have access to this information (Capture 1, Bibble etc) and they also will have a starting point that is different to DPP. One of the significant advantages of Lightroom over DPP is that you can create your own profiles so you can tailor your "starting point" to suit your preferences and style whereas with DPP you always start where the Canon guy says you should be.
There are a few programs that use the Canon SDK or Canon RAW viewer utility in windows to display images (Breeze Browser comes to mind). Irfranview may be one of these which is why RAW files viewed here may look te same as DPP or the JPEG.
As to which is right. Neither, none or all of them. Right or wrong is purely subjective and based on which you prefer. If you never make any changes to the RAW file you may as well just shoot jpegs and that will be right for you. But then you loose thae ability to influence the look of your files proior to the file creation which is why we shoot RAW in the first place.
Hope this helps
Gordon

Similar Messages

  • Lightroom and CS3 extended

    I have both Lightroom and CS3 installed in the default fashion in XP. In Lightroom>Edit >Pref> External Editor, the program reports that Photoshop is not found and in the Photo Menu of LR the option to edit in Photoshop is greyed out. Help me undo this, please.
    Herb

    Have you double checked the assigned path to CS3 as the external editor for LR?
    Does PS work without any hitches with Bridge?. Does double clicking an image in Bridge open camera Raw?. Sometimes the installation of CS3 is faulty. One sign is the Camera Raw test. Also, Bridge will have no Camera Raw prefs, in that case.
    Do you have CS2 on as well. If you uninstalled it, did you clean the registry before installing CS3?
    Which did you put on first. LR or CS3? Uninstall both, clean the registry, and reverse the order of installation. That may fix it.
    Good Luck.

  • Lightroom and CS3 Simultaneously - How much memory?

    I've been trying to use Lightroom's image management features, but need to finish the "keepers" in CS3. The problem is my computer only has 2G of RAM, and both Lightroom and CS3 are giant memory hogs. Has anyone been able to successfully run both programs at the same time (with reasonably complicated PS files consisting of a dozen layers or so) ?
    If so, how much memory does it take? 4G 8G?
    Thanks,
    --Michael

    The wording of your question seems to suggest that your setup has issues with running Lr and Ps simultaneously. Disk thrashing? Memory swapping? Slow performance? What is your machine configuration?
    I have an Intel Dual 2 Core machine with 2Gb RAM and routinely run Lr (on Canon 20D raw files), Ps CS3 beta, Bridge, email client, and Firefox web client all at the same time with little issue.
    And have you consulted Adobe's knowledge base for performance tips?
    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401088 (Win)
    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb401089 (Mac)
    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=kb400808 (Lr)

  • Using vista 64 bit with current versions of lightroom and CS3

    Since the new versions of lightroom and photoshop are going to run on 64 bit I was thinking of upgrading to vista 64 bit. Will the present versions of lightroom and CS3 function in the vista 64 bit environment
    thanks
    Roger Lieberman

    I use both LR & CS3 on both XP 64 and Vist 64. They wor just fine. In fact you get access to more RAM. Research your printer drivers etc though. That's an issue.
    Doug BIbo

  • Raw or jpg in lightroom?

    Hi
    a stupid question about lightroom , i'm a new customer
    i know that i can edit raw & jpg files
    is there a big suitability to edit raw files in quality???
    or can i edit jpg files as well like raw?
    thanks

    With the power and functionality of today's RAW editors, such as LR, and the cheapness of memory cards and hard drives, there is every reason to prefer RAW capture and development over other formats, especially JPEG, for "most" photography.
    I say "most" because I'm aware that in some instances high-volume and fast turnaround deadlines make shooting in JPEG desirable. An example of this situation would be sports shooting where JPEG allows for faster continuous-mode performance (as well as much more image storage before having to change cards) and, for sports journalist photographers, they may have a short timeline to deliver their images in JPEG format.
    However, for most "serious" photography, the highest quality image is near the top of the list. If you invested in a camera that can give you RAW, you should have no qualms about using that capability. JPEG is for final output when needed, as in Web display or giving to clients to view, but RAW is needed for the best results in the basic editing process. With programs like LR, you can do so much with RAW you may never need anything else to edit for many of your pictures. If you need Photoshop's capabilities, you can export your images from LR to PS with no loss by exporting a copy of your RAW file and PS will recognize all of LR's adjustments. For other applications LR can export as a TIFF, which will prevent the "lossy compression" that is built in to JPEG.
    So, there should be very little (or no) reason to edit a JPEG unless you have no RAW (or PSD or TIFF) to work with the original image quality. We can even print from Lightroom without saving to JPEG.
    Tony

  • Levels differences Lightroom and CS3

    I am finding that the levels adjustments I am making in Lightroom 2.1 require further adjustment in Photoshop CS3. CS3 shows more lightening than Lightroom and it is only after I have made this further adjustment in CS3 that my pictures print accurately. Any thoughts please?

    Could you more accurately describe what you're doing? It is quite unclear to me what you're talking about. Note that if you see a difference between Photoshop and Lightroom, you have a bad monitor profile or have setup Photoshop incorrectly. Both issues are quite common. Or is it that you get dark prints?

  • Why my raw looks different in lightroom and camera's raw processing software

    Hi, I am using a Sony A-100 and just start using Lightroom to process my raw file. I quite like lightroom's interface and its workflow, however, a a problem disturbing me is the image look quite different in sony's raw processing software and in lightroom (just import without any editing). In sony's software, the WB and exposure is correct and I don't need to adjust so much. But in lightroom, the color always looks warm and image is underexposure.
    Is it a common problem or it is just a special case as to sony's dslr camera.

    The main reason is that each different software is interpreting image and color data in its own way due, I guess, to different processing methods.
    In that way, digital is not different than film : no film render colors and contrast the same way.
    You have to choose what fits the best for you.
    As an example, I think ACR / LR handle Canon files pretty well ( quite close to Canon's propietary raw converter - neutral settings - ). On the other hand, Nikon owners have more troubles and seem to prefer Capture 4 or NX renderings.
    Gilles.

  • How to batch convert RAW to JPG in Lightroom?

    Hi. I want to convert a large portion of my older RAW files to JPG, to free up some hard drive space. Is there a way to do that in Lightroom (or perhaps Bridge)?
    Thanks for any help.

    Export as jpg, checking add to catalog and then delete the originals. This will be a mistake. Keep your original files or you will regret it one day. If you need to save space that badly then convert the Raw files to DNG.

  • Lightroom and CS3 Bridge: Can they read eachother's adjustment settings?

    So Im trying to use Lightroom 1.0
    So far it seems like LR doesnt see the adjustments (XMP data) I have added to RAW files in Bridge and Bridge doesnt see the adjustments I make in LR.
    Call me crazy but isnt that a major stumbling block in the usage of Lightroom?
    Or am I doing something wrong?

    I don't use RAW files, but in the case of Jpegs, Bridge has a cache. You have to empty its cache for it to see changes in the files that it didn't make. And to have them made, you have to tell Lightroom to write out the metadata. Globally, it's in Preferences / File Management. It slowed it down so I have it off. If you want to do a file or a directory, you can use Metadata / XMP / Export XMP metadata to file.
    If you write metadata outside of Lightroom (I write capture date and digitized date to files from scanned slides), in Lightroom you have to do Metadata / XMP / Import XMP metadata to file. I always have Lightroom write out the metadata before I fiddle with the files and I would assume that is necessary because otherwise what it reads from the files will not include its data and it will, I presume, lose its data.

  • New imac, lightroom and cs3 can't read NEF files?  What to do

    Adobe support is down so I am here for help from all of you. I don't have a clue what bridge is or whether I need to use both bridge and Lightroom. Anyway, I will be importing nef files from a D300 to an external drive onsite with a windows xp pro laptop and connecting the external drive at home to edit etc..
    Any help, please?
    Sheryl

    What kind of filesystem is on the external hard disk? It might have to be FAT32 for the iMac to be able to import from it. NTFS support is not very good on Mac OS X. You might have to copy the files first manually to your internal harddisk and then have lightroom move them into the folder structure.

  • Optimal Workflow with CS3, Lightroom and iPhoto

    I am using Lightroom and CS3 for my initial workflow, adding keyword tags, ratings and flags to my photos in LR. I would like to be able to work with these photos in LR and CS3 and transfer/copy the best of them into a "iPhoto" directory and import them into iPhoto with the CS3 work, meta data and keywords intact so I don't have to go through these changes again in iPhoto. I prefer CS3 for doing the work, but like the emailing, slideshow and iBook capabilities of iPhoto.
    Thanks in advance,
    Kevin

    Few people use both Lightroom and iPhoto - they both do essentially the same thing but are different and in the past iPhoto has found LR processed photos unacceptable - and they can not operate on the same physical photos - you must export photos form LR and import them into iPhoto since they both manage photos
    If you want to use both you will have to have photos imported into each
    Fortunately external hard drives are cheap -- iPhoto is perfectly happy having its library on an EHD
    LN

  • Lightroom and GIMP color issue using jpg

    Here is what I do:
    Using an iMac (Tiger) and have my monitor calibrated using the built in MacOS tool. The profile is stored in the Library/ColorSync/Profiles folder. In the GIMP settings about color management, I have chosen the monitor profile from above as the monitor profile and the RGB profile.
    I have a (Canon) RAW image mainly in a neutral, if not slightly yellowish, tone with some beautiful golden pins. Imported the CR2 into Adobe Lightroom and exported in sRGB color space, the jpg looks like this: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/18039/1283133
    Now I would love this with a nice frame, so I did a hi quality export, loaded it into GIMP 2.4.3, added a frame, and saved it as full size jpg. When I look at the resulting jpg in MacOS Preview application, it looks fine and so it does when I upload it to the web: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/18039/1284108
    But as I manage all my images in Lightroom, I also want to manage this one in Lightroom, so I imported it. And look what's coming out: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/18039/1284100
    It's all purple!
    It looks the same in Lightroom, Preview and uploaded. Purple. What am I doing wrong? Is there any hidden Lightroom setting I have scambled?
    When I am saving TIFF from GIMP, Lightroom imports with proper colors.

    The third one (reimported into Lightroom) is indeed purplish. Are you using the latest gimp? Versions of gimp before a while ago could not color manage and will probably forget about the profile. It was only recently added. You should have the working space set to sRGB (so not RGB as you wrote above) in the gimp probably for this image. Also, make sure you do NOT save as a progressive jpeg, but only using baseline compression. Lightroom tends to change the color of progressive jpegs. This is probably what is going on.

  • Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

    I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
    Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
    So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
    Thanks for any help!
    Michael

    Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    PS RGB Workspace:  ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
    Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
    I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
    Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient?  Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
    For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
    Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
    With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values.  If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour.  With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase.  Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
    Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
    Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
    Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

  • How to make colors looks same in Lightroom and Photoshop?

    The colors of JPGs with sRGB colorspace are displayed differently between Lightroom and Photoshop and other image view applications.
    I edited RAW images in Lightroom and export them to JPG files with sRGB colorspace, but their colors are eventually different from what I saw in LR.
    (I set ProPhoto as the colorspace for my Photoshop.)
    Is there anything I can do to solve this problem? Or maybe to reduce the color difference?
    What is the best I can do to manage colors for those images that I want to share on the internet?
    Thank you !!! 

    If colours look different between two colour managed applications such as LR and PS then you have either not calibrated your monitor at all or are using a corrupt monitor profile.
    If the former you require a calibration device, such as a Spyder (lots of other around). If the second then re calibrate.
    In the meantime you can set your monitor to use a colour space such as sRGB as a profile. This is not a solution, it is a temporary fix. Using a colour space as a monitor profile is not colour management, but will at least make the colour appear the same on your monitor.
    There are some useful links concerning colour management and LR here you may wish to read.

  • Nikon D90 RAW/NEF color vs. in-camera JPG color

    I'm new to Aperture and also (now) taking more NEF+JPG images.
    I've been satisfied with most of my JPGs in the past but I'm taking more RAW images now and finding that they don't match the JPG color when viewed in Aperture 3. When I use ViewNX to tweak RAW images the "starting point" for color and adjustments is much closer to the matching JPG but when I use Aperture, there are obvious differences between the JPG and Aperture's 'conversion' of the RAW image. The listed White Balance is different when Auto WB is used and the histogram is much different. The RAW image isn't a good starting point from which to begin tweaking to improve upon the JPG.
    I realize that there are efforts by others to "profile" the Nikon cameras but I'm surprised that Aperture is so far off the mark. Both iPhoto and Photoshop Elements seem to do a better job.
    (The latest ACR is installed.)

    I suppose it depends on what in-camera processing you're doing (Normal, Vivid, active D-lighting, etc). What you're seeing on the screen, and in ViewNX is edits applied to the jpeg embedded in the RAW file.
    The RAW will always look different from the jpeg, because the RAW has absolutely no processing done to it. iPhoto should look identical to Aperture as I believe it uses the same RAW processing. PSE/Lightroom/PS all use ACR, and they should all look the same, but will likely look somewhat different from iPhoto and Aperture.
    I generally just keep my D80 on Normal (and it doesn't have active D-lighting, but I can selectively add D-lighting in the edit menu if I choose (I don't)), and I find that a small .05 bump to Contrast, .1 to Definition, .05-.1 to Saturation, and .1 to Vibrance is about exactly what I see on the camera screen. It's a good starting point, and I just created a preset I apply to every image I import (had a very similar preset in Lightroom).
    One thing you could do is set up a tripod, set your camera to RAW+Jpeg, and go through each of the color modes, and active D-light modes. Once you get those into Aperture, you can tweak the RAW to match it's Jpeg, and save that as a preset. Then the next time you're out shooting, when you bring in your RAW images, you can just apply whatever preset (Normal, Softer, Vivid, etc) to them, and you'll have a starting point matching the out of camera Jpegs.
    I'm actually planning on doing just that for my D80, and eventually when I upgrade to a D300 doing the same for it.

Maybe you are looking for