Loaded OMD raw pictures are over saturated

Hi Gang:
When loading a raw image from my beloved OMD the initial image shown (supposedly from the imbedded JPG) is reasonably saturated. When loading is complete the image shown (now supposedly from the RAW) is significantly over saturated. Why would the imbedded JPG appear reasonably saturated, but the RAW loaded image be overly saturated? This must have something to do with how Aperture handles raw OMD files. RAW Fine Tuning does not seem to help with this. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Jeff Stulin

Hi Jeff,
Is your monitor calibrated? With a hardware calibrator? Which one?
Do you have the most recent version of Aperture, and the most recent version of Apple's RAW converter (it is part of the OS; a new version came out this week)?
What you describe as the process of drawing the Image on the screen is correct. There is nothing "supposed" about it.
The JPG that is shown is (usually) prepared by the camera. It is possible that this image has been post-processed in-camera. Do you have any PP settings applied when you record exposures? Any "style" or anything else other than focus distance, focal length, ISO, aperture, and exposure duration?
What do you have set in Aperture Prefs for using the in-camera JPGs? (I don't have access to Aperture right now and can't tell which preferences tab this is on.)
It is odd that you aren't seeing changes when you make changes using the RAW Fine Tuning Brick. Nothing happens when you change the Hue Boost? Are you recording RAW+JPEG, or just RAW? If RAW+JPEG, which do you set as the Original (a/k/a "Master")?
(Sent from my magic glass.)

Similar Messages

When importing from my camera or file in Lightroom 5 my pictures are over-exposed by 1-2 stops, while they are well exposed on the camera-screen. How to get the 'right-exposed pictures on the screen?

When importing from my camera or file in Lightroom 5 my pictures are over-exposed by 1-2 stops, while they are well exposed on the camera-screen. How to get the 'right-exposed pictures on the screen?

There is an option in your Lightroom preferences on the General tab, "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate images". If you have that option checked then Lightroom will import and display both your raw and JPEG files. Are you using active D-lighting on your camera? If you are then you need to turn off that feature.

Imported Stills are Over-saturated

We're using PPro CS4 on a 64-bit Vista machine. We've imported video into our timeline and it looks fine. However, when we import the JPEGs we made in Photoshop CS4, they come in much more saturated than they show in Bridge. We've checked in Camera RAW and there are no adjustments being made to the JPEGs. We made the JPEGs color space to be sRGB. Two questions:
1. What color space does PPro use?
2. What is causing the over-saturation and what can we do to solve it besides manually adjusting each image within PPro?

This is likely because Bridge is Color Managed, while PrPro is not. The color space should be Adobe RGB (1998). What is the Color Space of the JPEG's?
Also, instead of JPEG's, have you considered keeping your still images in .PSD? I only use JPEG for delivery to Web clients, and never for Video, but then I am old-school, and all of my work is in Camera RAW to PSD, so just keep things in that format. Also, if you started with JPEG, and then did a Save_As JPEG, you HAVE recompressed the data, and this is seldom a good thing.
Good luck,
Hunt

All pictures are over exposed

All my pictures in Apertura are over exposed. If I ajust the exposure down with a fraction the red color goes away. The preview pictures are fine. I have left the pictures in there original library position. This happend after a few days use og Apertura. Did I hit a wrong key?

The Red (or Blue for underexposed) is not really there. It only appears to alert you, and lets you choose to address or not. The iPhoto is just not showing you that.
You can click View, and then assuming Highlight Hot and Cold is checked, uncheck it. You can then forget it if the photo looks good enough to you.
But you can address it on one photo, click on Metadata, and then Lift Adjustments. Then you can choose one or more other images, and Stamp the same adjustment.
Ernie

Photoshop Elements 13 Editor doesn't use the monitor description, loading a RAW-picture

I'm using a Lenovo ThinkPad, Windows 7 pro, 64 bit. Loading a jpeg, all Parameter of the Monitor are used. Loading a RAW-file, not.

So where are these Forum experts?????
Here is the chat support. What a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
system: PC Win7 64 bit SP1
Intel i5-3470 3.2GHz. 8G ram HD GC
While you wait, you can try our community forums where experts are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
info: You are now chatting with Baljinder Kumar.
Baljinder Kumar: Hello
Baljinder Kumar: Welcome to Adobe Installation Team, How may I help you today?
Baljinder Kumar: I'll be glad to help you with your issue today.
Baljinder Kumar: Please allow me a moment while I look into your account & verify the details.
D.R. OLDFIELD: APE 13 For PC when I click on Editor the screen loads but freezes.
Baljinder Kumar: Thank you
D.R. OLDFIELD: hello?
Baljinder Kumar: May I have the serial number please?
D.R. OLDFIELD: 1057- - - - -
Baljinder Kumar: Thank you
Baljinder Kumar: Well unfortunately technical support for this product is only available on forums.adobe.com
D.R. OLDFIELD: So there is no solution? I was on the Forum and sent here?!!!
Baljinder Kumar: Well you can post a new query there and you will get a response from the expert
D.R. OLDFIELD: I've posted two query's.
D.R. OLDFIELD: Whom is this expert?
Baljinder Kumar: Well there are Adobe users who are helping other Adobe users
Baljinder Kumar: Adobe Experts also replies on forums
D.R. OLDFIELD: And this is called company product support?
Baljinder Kumar: This is called forums support.

Facebook, Yahoo and YouTube load as HTML, pictures are blurry

Facebook, Yahoo and YouTube load as HTML (I think is what it's called?). There are no pictures, just links with little boxes underneath them. My profile picture on Google is blurry. Overall, Firefox is running slow and awkward. I tried re-installing it, but that did not fix it. Firefox help site, and other random websites are working just fine.
Please halp! I really don't like using IE.

Reset the page zoom on pages that cause problems: <b>View > Zoom > Reset</b> (Ctrl+0 (zero); Cmd+0 on Mac)
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Zoom_text_of_web_pages

Pentax K3 Raw pictures are not recognized by Aperture 3.5. Importing these photos leads to error message. Any tips?

I recently bought the Pentax K3 SLR. Before I used the K5 with Aperture without any problem. Now when i try to import raw images the message is "image not recognized". It makes no difference if I use the DNG Raw or Raw+ or the PEF pentax raw format. Jpegs are no problem but I want to use raw data. Does anybody have any hints?

Each raw support is camera specific - different sensors, different lens.
Apple has been pretty quick with raw support lately, a new raw support release every few month, but it is very hard to predict. Some cameras have never been supported. I am still waiting for the support for my camera after three years.
You could use the camera specific software to convert your raw files to a supported format, while you are waiting, or shoot raw+jpeg, and use the jpeg as originals. That can be reversed, when the raw support is available.

RAW pictures are half displayed all I am getting is pinkish resolution???

Anyone knows what is the issue here?
OpeningRAW files in Lightroom are displayed(not all of them)that way
most of them are displayed right but at the momemnt I click on them they become distorted this way

I only use adobe bridge to sort and choose the pics and then Lightroom to enhance them.
The funny thing is I download the pictures from Compact flash directly to portable hard drive...I choose them from there and relocate them onto my computer...
It never did that before..I occasionally get the corrupted pictures on the compact flash but now...looks like they are multiplying once I click on them on Lightroom...

Over-Saturation

I was told by a couple of pro photographers on a web site I frequent that my photos are generally over-saturated. I have PSE 10 and almost always make the following edits:
- using the Quick selection, do an Autofix, then increase the Shadows, Highlights, and Midtones to bring out more definition
- using Full, do an Auto Levels, sometimes do an Auto Color Correction (depending on how it looks), and finally do a bit of sharpening using the Unsharp Mask
Rarely do I specifically adjust (increase) the saturation. So my questions are:
1) I think I have a general idea of when photos are over-saturated, but what specifically do you look for to indicate that they are?
2) do any of the PSE edits I am doing above implicitly change the saturation? If so, how can I modify my edits so as not to over-saturate?
3) can you take a look at some of my photos and give me your opinion as to whether they are over-saturated? The first photo of the butterfly in the photostream was specifically adjusted for saturation, but most of the other ones were not.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98772145@N05/
Thanks.

I see the same thing if I edit the example fox image in the same ways as you've specified, although this particular image doesn't need much done to it, in my opinion, and so the oversaturation is less than some others.
I think you are on the right track saying out of the Quick Fix things, because these reduce the overall dynamic range more than a little and boost the saturation slightly so the net effect is an unnatural mismatch between the overall contrast and the saturation. Normally if you reduce contrast in a scene the colors are also muted but with your multiple iterations of fixes the opposite occurs.
The other comment is that the sharpness is being applied to things that don't deserve it, mainly noise, and the way you reduce this is to up the threshold a bit to avoid sharpening areas that don't have edges. I found that on the fox picture, a threshold around 15 seemed good, which sharpens the glint in the eyes and some of the fur that is in focus, but leaves the out-of-focus noisy areas alone.
You asked what you might do different, and I have two approaches to give, none of which use Quick or Auto fixes and actually take less steps. First is to use Levels and Shadows/Highlights which are both under Enhance / Adjust Lighting. The third option in this menu is Brightness/Contrast but the fox picture was almost ok so didn't really need any of that. Here are screen shots of the menu items and the adjustments I made to your photo using them:
First I used Levels to adjust the black point to 12 which was where the histogram ran out of values at the low end, and then boosted the overall brightness using the gamma slider to where it looked ok but not overly bright. In this example I used 1.20. With a different sort of picture, you might need to move the white-point down to where the histogram ran out of values on the bright end but this picture had pure white already in it, so that wasn't necessary. The Auto Levels command actually does the black and white point adjustments but it overdoes them a little so I like using the Levels black and white point sliders to be more precise:
Next I did like how you brought out a little more detail in the highlights, so used Shadows/Highlights to compress the light values slightly, and also used the Midtone Contrast to give the textures of the image a little more pop:
None of this increased the saturation appreciably nor compressed the dynamic range so much to make things seem unnatural.
I left your sharpening except using a threshold of 15 as I stated, above. This image was quite blurry so it probably needed more sharpening attention using different radii and perhaps the other sharpening tool, but I didn't want to spend time with that since the most obvious issue at hand was oversaturation.
The second technique, which is a bit more radical but more useful in my opinion, is to open the JPG in the Camera Raw plug-in despite not being a raw format file. This has the advantage of having all the toning sliders available at once without having to go though various menus and buttons to find each small set of adjustments and also just one Auto button to click, though usually I back off most of what the Auto decided for me but it's still something quick to try at the beginning. There is also better sharpening and noise reduction.
Ok, to open a non-raw file in the Camera Raw plug-in, you can use File / Open As... and after choosing the image, set the File Type to Camera Raw, then click Open:
Here is your original image opened in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with all the toning adjustments at zero:
Below is how I adjusted the toning sliders. I had first clicked Auto and didn't like how it was too dark, so I only left the Blacks at +1 from that, and reset or readjusted everything else. The overall image seemed a little dark to me so I increased the Exposure by half-a-stop, but that washed out the highlights so I dialed them back by setting Highlights to -87, just so there was some detail in the chin fur and foreground rock. Finally I increased the Clarity, which inreases the contrast of the textures, and finally I added a tiny bit of Vibrance. If I had adjusted the blackopint down quite a bit, then that might have oversaturated everything, and I could have addressed that by merely setting the Vibrance or Saturation to a slightly negative value. I also like a little bit extra color in my processing, so a slight bit of added Vibrance seemed good to me. The Vibrance slider is different than Saturation in that it doesn't boost skin tones (reds/oranges/yellows) as much as the greens and blues, so it works to increase color in people pictures without overdoing their skin. I've put the original to the right on the same line so it's easier to compare:
Besides toning you can do detail adjustment, which involves sharpening and noise-reduction. Here is the face portion of the originally processed image at 100% if you click on it. The first thing you'll notice is that all the grainy noise is sharpened even in areas that are out of focus or blurred due to the left-right camera motion, and the other thing to notice is the green and mostly reddish-purple splotches of color noise that weren't quite all removed in camera:
Here are the Sharpness and Noise-Reduction settings I settled on after a few minutes:
The main thing to notice is that the only sharpened parts are the ones that have relatively sharp details, the glint in the eyes and the fur on their side of the eyes and a bit of the whiskers. The rest is mostly out of focus. For a better shot, without the camera motion, the sharpening settings might have been entirely different. The way I accomplished only sharpening the edges that where relatively sharp already and ignoring the noise and other out-of-focus areas was with the Sharpen Masking setting, which is 77 in this case. This is somewhat similar to the threshold setting of the sharpening in the regular Unsharp Mask in PSE, but it has a way to set it visually, by holding down the Alt key while sliding the Masking slider back and forth until only the bolder edges are shown:
I see in this screenshot that I had the Detail slider set to 5, which was probably better than the 25 I used in the screenshot, above. The other thing to notice is the Luminance and Color sliders in the Noise Reduction area are set to reduce the tiny specs of noise and the green/purple splotches.
One thing I need to mention about using Camera Raw is that I think in PSE10 the highest version you can update to may be ACR 6.7 which won't have the same set of toning sliders as in my example--I hacked a version of the 7.1 beta plug-in to use with it to get the new sliders, but normally you would have those available in PSE10 I don't think. You would need to use PSE11 or better yet, wait for PSE12 which comes out in another week or two.
This new method of toning and detail adjustment works ok with images one-by-one via File / Open, but it isn't that efficient ot use for many images. The best thing for that that isn't expensive Photoshop, would be to get Lightroom, which has these same adjustments but also optimized to work with dozens, hundreds, or more images from one photoshoot. The other benefit to Lightroom is that you can use a wide array of filters and brushes that are limited in the Elements-hosted version of the Camera Raw plug-in.
Remember when I said I thought the overall fox picture was too dark, well what is really wrong is the fox is too dark and I could care less about the rocks and other non-important background items. Here is a version of the same fox picture using Lightroom's radial filter to darken the surroundings so the fox is more prominent. The one without the radial filter darkening is at the right:
Lightroom is currently on sale for $129.99 and upgrades are $79.99 with a 30-day trial version available for download if you want to try it:
http://www.adobe.com/lightroom/

Cannot send RAW Pictures per Mail

I loaded several RAW Pictures from my Canon 5D M II at my iPad. Then I tried to send a picture via Mail to a friend. The picture program freezed a while and the iPad switched to the front desktop without sending the mail. I tried it with other pictures without a success.
Has anybody the same foult?

Those raw files are too large for email. Most email providers have a 10 mb limit. The files from your camera are much larger. To transer large files you can use an ftp server (Goodreader is a great app that handles large files and connects to ftp servers and much more).

Dim Screen and Over saturation Mac Pro 1,1 - 10.6.5

Hi I have read a bunch about this issue but cant seem to find a resolution. I recently upgraded from 10.5 to 10.6. I am currently running 10.6.5 and I am experiencing a weird issue with my display. It appears much darker and the colors are over saturated.
I have heard that this is because the apple changed the gamma from 1.8 to 2.0 (or 2.2... i forget) anyway. The screen looks awful. I have tried other profiles, recalibration, etc... with no luck. However while the computer is on if I simply pull the dvi connection out of the machine and put it back in it reverts to a traditional gamma, saturation and overall appearance of what the screen looked like in 10.5.
Now although I think it is really absurd that I need to do this I dont care that much EXCEPT this solution does NOT work with the secondary display port. I will pull the dvi out and plug it back in and the secondary screen is still very dark and saturated. I noticed it first in 10.6.4 and was hoping the issue would be resolved in 10.6.5 update but no luck.
Whats the deal?
Is there any solution to get the traditional saturation, color and brightness of my displays restored?
Just so you have a little background on myself, I am an IT technician of 5 years and a digital artist of 10 years. I do not believe that this issue can be resolved with recalibrating the display profile because I have tried it (many times). I REALLY hope this is not the new standard.
If it is see ya later 10.6! Hello 10.5.
Thanks in advance

Although it seems like a pain, I think it best to clean install. Reason only being, you want to cut out as many variables as you can.
If you have a spare drive, just install 10.6 on there just for experimenting; you don't need to install any programs. You just wanna eliminate all variables, so see if and if so, where up until (10.6.3?) the problem arises.
A clean install is fast, especially with snow. 20-30 min maybe? Run diskwarrior after that if you have it too.
Also, what happens when you adjust the brightness? Does it just stay dark? (I'm just trying to grasp what the "darkness" looks like)

My photos look over saturated when opened in CS6

When i look at my photos in Ulead Instant Viewer or Breeze Browser Pro they look similar to what they did on the back of my camera.
But when i view them in my newly purchased CS6 the saturation is increased by around 25 to 30 units.
When i scanned some 35mm colour negatives and viewed them in photoshop they had exactly the same saturation as when viewed in Ulead Instant Viewer and Breeze Browser Pro.
Can anyone help please?

CS6 the saturation is increased by around 25 to 30 units.
if Photoshop is not displaying your RGB faithfully, either your monitor profile is off or Photoshop is being configured to use (or assume) the wrong soure profile (it is possible your problem documents are over saturated and Photoshop is only displaying the problem)
i would have you download the PDI WhackedRGB.jpg and see what happens in your apps...
tip: if you confirm Photoshop is indeed using the whacked source profile, and it is not displaying proper, I would suspect your monitor profile (try Edit>Color Settings> Settings> North American Prepress 2 for now - then quit Photoshop and reopen the Whacked test image, "Use the embedded profile")...

Update to IOS 6 has been a nightmare. Facebook would allow me to save pictures unless I granted access to my foto album. Does this mean my pictures are going be planted all over the web? The safari keeps crashing and loading is slow.

update to IOS 6 has been a nightmare. Facebook would allow me to save pictures unless I granted access to my foto album. Does this mean my pictures are going be planted all over the web? The safari keeps crashing and loading is slow. Most infuriating is that YouTube was deleted from my entertainment apps and I now have to pay for it if I want it back!! This is a bloody disgrace.

Back up all data.
Boot into Recovery by holding down the key combination command-R at the startup chime. Release the keys when you see a gray screen with a spinning dial.
Note: You need an always-on Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection to the Internet to use Recovery. It won’t work with USB or PPPoE modems, or with proxy servers, or with networks that require a certificate for authentication.
When the OS X Utilities screen appears, follow the prompts to reinstall the OS. You don't need to erase the boot volume, and you won't need your backup unless something goes wrong. If your Mac was upgraded from an older version of OS X, you’ll need the Apple ID and password you used to upgrade, so make a note of those before you begin.

LR3: Exports are dark and over-saturated

... or: LR3 shows everything dull and to light...
I've upload an image and described my problem her:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcdk/4753052290/
But here it is:
I'm having some color and curve problems with my exports, it all looks to dark and to saturated when I export from Lightroom 3. So I'm trying to figure out what's happening.
Here's the setup:
Windows XP
Nvidia 8600GT graphics card
One Dell 2407WFPHC screen
One Dell 2408WFP screen (my main)
Huey Pro color calibration kit (software version 1.51)
Everything calibrated. It looks good to me when I import in lightroom (from raw from Pentax K20D, and Panasonic LX3)
Exporting to jpeg (sRGB) or tiff and viewing in anything else the colors are darker and over-saturated (tried in firefox (profile aware), Internet Explorer, irfanview and chrome). Loading the jpeg into Lightroom and comparing it to the RAW, they look the same (not dark or over-saturated).
What you see above is a screen grab, of a test chart viewed in Lightroom and IrfanView. They where just imported/loaded - nothing was done. No development settings are applied as part of my LR3 import.
The colors in lightroom 3 are dull compared to the IrfanView.
Sample rgb values:
1 red:
Lightroom 224,52,27 (not that pure)
Irfanview 254,0,0 (~pure red)
4 purple:
Lightroom: 124,1,251
irfanview: 131,0,254
9 green:
lightroom: 126,255,54 (far from pure green)
irfanview: 0,255,3 (pure green)
The red and the green are the worst - a lot more "energy" in them. So imagine the reverse process. I've a photo in Lightroom and it looks good to me. I export it and every 126,255,54 gets made into pure green. Darker and over-saturated!
I've no idea what's happning or what to do about it. I've tried everything I can think about.
I don't really think I had this issue with LR2 - not enough to notice anyway.
System info:
Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)
Version: 5.1 [2600]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 1,8 GHz
Built-in memory: 3007,1 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716,8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 278,4 MB (38,8%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 266,7 MB
Memory cache size: 49,7 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Displays: 1) 1200x1920, 2) 1920x1200
Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
Library Path: P:\Lightroom\Lightroom 3 Catalog\Lightroom 3 Catalog\Lightroom 3 Catalog.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Documents and Settings\Thomas Christensen\Application Data\Adobe\Lightroom

So in my case it seems I'm better off running uncalibrated as that seems to produce something more natural across the board than when I use calibration and it goes between extremes, fine or totally wrong... I can see the images fine on my controlled environment but if you're distributing online then things don't work out at all!
This is a very common misconception. Needless to say it is wrong. the only way you can get reasonable colors on everybody else's monitors is to calibrate your display and only trust color managed apps. If you don't calibrate and don't use color managed apps, your output will basically be completely random. At least with calibration and management you will be targeting the standard (sRGB) that most monitors cluster around (that's what they were designed to), so while individual monitors will be more or less random, on average they will show what you intended. If you don't calibrate and manage you will target only your specific monitor. Since this is a wide gamut display, the average viewer (who doesn't calibrate nor color manage) will see a dull desaturated image with respect to what you see.
Bottom line: If you use a wide gamut monitor, calibrate and only trust color managed apps. If you have a normal gamut monitor, calibrate and trust color managed apps the most, but non managed apps will be OK if you use sRGB as your export space. You cannot do away with the calibration step if you care about what others will see.

Greens from my Nikon D800 are way over saturated and too bluish 14 bit NEF

Greens from my Nikon D800 are way over saturated and too bluish 14 bit NEF uncompressed files. I have no problem with raw files from other cameras is there a setting I am missing somewhere?

Hi,
I have been shooting my D800 for over a year now, and I have not observed what you are discussing, particularly in outdoor, natural light situations.
I have downloaded your NEF, and imported it into Aperture (3.4.5). I notice two things right away: 1) you are using Uncompressed NEF, 14 bit recording; and 2) you seem to have a custom White Balance. The former should be of no matter, but would be interested if you have been able to discern any advantage over Lossless Compression, 14 bit?
However, the important concern is with the Custom White Balance impact on the rendering of NEFs in RAW in Aperture. I am planning to do a study of this, and am wondering if you could test your resutls in similar shots with Auto White Balance rather than any preset (yours or the camera standard presets)?
I by practice only shoot Auto White Balance (and RAW), but recently I have found benefit to using a preset WB when shooting video since that result will not be modifiable later on the computer. After doing this, I have sometimes forgotten to reset the WB to Auto before again shooting stills in RAW, and the resulting difference vs once reset has been curious.
While it is well known that Picture Controls when used and shooting RAW will likely result in wide differences between the Camera Preview and Aperture's first rendering, I am less certain what the dynamics of White Balance settings and first rendering in Aperture.
Thanks for the test image and chance to discuss this.
Ernie

Loaded OMD raw pictures are over saturated

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for