My RAW files look washed out jpegs are OK

My RAW files look washed out, in camera I introduced warm colours by setting it on cloudy and set to vivid. They look great in other programs, how do I retain the original colors?

Buddy, the issue is that Photoshop Camera Raw / Bridge don't use the parameters you set in-camera at all.  It may seem odd that it doesn't, but that's the way it works. 
The idea is that these software tools give you full control over literally hundreds of factors that go into your raw conversions, and trying to emulate the presets on the camera just doesn't make sense.
You need to save new Camera Raw Defaults to deliver color you like in new exposures you haven't opened before.  Check especially the Camera Profile setting in the Camera Calibration tab in Camera Raw.  Adobe does provide some options that will get you close to what the camera does, then you can tweak the settings further.
For what it's worth, it's not wrong to want the color to match, especially if you like the color the camera delivers.  I've created Camera Raw Defaults for my own cameras that provide a very good match between the in-camera color and what a new exposure looks like when first opened in Camera Raw...  I don't always leave it that way, though. 
-Noel

Similar Messages

  • All exported files looked "Washed out"

    So I've read a great deal of what's already been posted and I still for the life of me don't know what's going on. 
    When working in Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign (all CS5) and export to a pdf, Acrobat (9.4.6) shows all colors looking fairly gray in tone. This wasn't an issue until my last update, and I have no idea what could have happened as I'm doing nothing differently to export, or the in the way I export these files. Is there a setting I need to adjust in Acorbat to fix this issue?

    When you use Export, you are not using Acrobat, but a feature of those other programs. You should ask in those forums. I am not sure what the equivalent of PDF Maker is for those packages (not sure there is one since they have the export). You can also print to the Adobe PDF printer to create the PDF -- using the Acrobat printer features.

  • Import "RAW files only" also imports JPEGS (+ steps to reproduce)

    I filed this bug report to Apple:
    Summary:
    When importing "RAW files only" the accompanying JPEGs are also imported when the files are stacked (cmd-K) in the import screen.
    Steps to reproduce:
    1. Create a new library
    2. Insert a card from a camera (checked with Canon G9, Lumix DMC-LX3) which holds RAW files and their accompanying JPEG files (same filename, different extension)
    3. Cmd-I to import, if the import screen does not open by itself.
    4. Make sure "RAW files only" is selected
    5. Select "Uncheck All"
    6. Select a few RAW files (for example 4) (click first, shift-click last, click checkbox, all 4 are selected at once)
    7. Cmd-K to put them in a stack.
    Above the "Import Checked" button the number of files to be imported is shown, 4 in this case.
    8. Click "Import Checked"
    Wherever the images are imported, not only the 4 RAW files will be imported, but also the accompanying JPEG files. This is also the case when only JPEGs are requested, in that case the RAW files will be imported as well.
    Is is essential that the images to be imported are stacked in the import screen. If this is omitted, only the requested files (either RAW of JPEG) are imported (4 in this example).
    Koen

    Hi again
    Sorry the delay in getting back to my post but I've been a tad busy.
    Well, after a bit of testing I can confirm that the problem does seem to be an issue with Vista (32bit and 34 bit) as Jeff states.
    I tried importing the raw files into Vista 32-bit, Vista 64-bit and XP 32-bit and whilst all operating systems allowed the import of JPEG files, I was only able to import the raw files into XP.
    I havent got a card reader so am unable to test this at the moment.
    Stephen

  • When I open my RAW files in Photoshop CC they are grainy and the JPEGS are not. What is going on? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with my CACHE levels either.

    When I open my RAW files in Photoshop CC they are grainy and the JPEGS are not. What is going on? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with my CACHE levels either.

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    A screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too,
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Why are my RAW files looking like infrared?

    Hi All,
    I use Aperture frequently for my editing - just recently had a ridiculous problem that results in my RAW files looking infrared.
    Have I enabled only a red channel or something?? Please help!  See pic!

    Wow, what a silly oversight - I knew I had had an update to do, but hadnt bothered with it yet. Thanks a bunch Ernie, I should have thought of us.
    Much appreciated.

  • Why do Sony DSC-RX100M3 raw files look strange in PE9 when flash has been used in the shot?

    I have just bought a Sony DSC-RX100M3 camera and use it to shoot raw + jpeg.  I want to use the raw files in my Photoshop Elements 9, which has the Camera Raw plug-in version 6.5.0.216 installed. I have downloaded the Adobe DNG converter version 8.7.1.311 so I can import my Sony raw files into PE 9 as they cannot be used directly. Most of the time these raw files look OK, but when I use the flash on my camera and then look at the raw files in PE9 they look far more pink than the corresponding jpeg files. The jpeg files look more or less as I remember the scene when I shot the picture.
    When I look at the same raw and jpeg files in Sony's own Image Data Converter software (version 4.2.04.17270) the raw and jpeg files look very similar to one another, and there is no pink colour cast in the raw file.
    What am I doing wrong in Photoshop Elements? I though the DNG converter keeps all the information from the original raw file and makes no changes to it, so why does the raw file look so different when flash has been used?
    Thanks for any help you can give!
    AVM

    Looking at the pictures of the camera online, I'd say there is no lens shade--a device to keep light from the sides from causing lens flare--and the camera lens, itself, was just too far extended and there was a lens shadow.  You probably can't use the flash that close up and should back off and zoom in further.  Experimenting would give you a sense of what situations will have a shadow of the lens or not.
    Your ACR plug-in is old enough not use have Process Version 2012, yet, only 2010 and 2003 so Adobe didn't have the idea to put the selector down next to the camera profile. The toning options are better with Process 2012 so that would be a reason to upgrade, but I am not sure that the Camera Neutral profile in PSE9 would be different than PSE13.  If Adobe changed the camera profiles then people's pictures would look different once they upgraded to a new version and that's not something that's supposed to happen.
    You can certainly download the PSE13 trial and see if things look any different, but they may not:  Download a free trial or buy Adobe products | Adobe downloads   There would be newer minimum OS version requirements for the newer versions of Adobe software so check those out before trying to install, unless you're on Windows 7+ or OSX 10.8+ then it should be fine.
    One more thing, the White-Balance tint is set to +10 by the camera:
    This As Shot WB is more magenta and even when using the Adobe Standard profile, moving the Tint down to +0 makes things a little more green like your camera JPG.  So there is more than just changing the camera profile that you can do:

  • Icons/Folders/Thumbnails look "washed-out" in Tiger. Is there a setting?

    Hello.
    After installing Tiger I notice that the icons for the folders and the picture thumbnails look washed-out or grayed-out, not fully colorful as usual. I looked at all the Finder preferences but can find nothing to change it.
    It's not so bad for the folders on the desktop but I really need to be able to see picture thumbnails clearly.
    What setting am I not setting??
    Thanks!!

    From your description, it sounds like the "Finder" setting to display all items including those that are invisible has been enabled. In earlier versions of OS X, the behaviour was that only normally invisible items would appear "grayed out" (a useful indicator of its status), whereas normally visible items would have the regular appearance. This changed in "Tiger", where everything appears faded with that setting, something I would consider to be yet another example of the trend in erosion of usability of the OS X "Finder" that seems to accompany every revision.
    As far as I know, there is no built in GUI way to change that setting - it likely became enabled through the use of some third party utility. Such utilities are an annoyance because, while they generally do no harm, they do nothing more than set "hidden" settings that are a part of OS X. As such, the effects of the utilities may persist, even after they themselves have been completely removed from the system. Then it is left to the user to try to figure out what setting was modified, or to remember what app they may have downloaded then uninstalled months in the past.
    Your options are unfortunately limited, you presumably had chosen to display hidden files in the past for a reason - under 10.4, normally visible items will appear "washed out" when showing invisible items and I'm not aware of a way to change that. On the other hand, disabling the setting should cause visible items to appear with full opacity, but you would no longer be able to see the "invisible" items. The setting can be stored in a number of places, but for starters, to disable it, try launching "/Applications" > "Utilities" > "Terminal.app" and entering these commands:<pre>defaults delete -g AppleShowAllFiles
    defaults delete com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles
    osascript -e 'tell application "Finder" to quit'</pre>After entering the commands, restart the "Finder" by clicking on its "Dock" icon.

  • Possible solution to PDFs looking washed out/colors faded

    I decided it would be easier to post this as a new thread in itself than to reply to each and every thread related to this problem.
    I searched the forums to try and find a solution to images looking washed out/colours looking faded after exporting from InDesign CS3 to PDF.
    After looking through the forums I came to the conclusion that the reason the images looked faded was because I have objects with less than 100% opacity in InDesign so if you also have similar settings this may work for you also.
    When exporting from InDesign, under the Output tab I changed the Colour Conversion setting to Convert to Destination.
    Other than that I left everything else as it was.
    This solved my blacks looking washed out, particularly my fonts which had become a sort of grey/brown colour.
    However I noticed that on the pages with images after the pages that had objects with varying transparencies, they still suffered from looking washed out.
    The next step I came across purely by chance: Opening the PDF using Acrobat, under the Advanced tab I chose PDF Optimiser and noticed that the Transparency option in the sidebar hadn't been checked like the Fonts and Image options had.
    So I checked the box and set the Preset to High Resolution and clicked OK.
    It took a minute or so to Save the new file and once I opened it, the richness and contrast of the images had returned, if anything slightly over saturated but a lot better than the washed out/faded appearance of the previous document.
    Hopefully this will work for a few people out there having the same problem.

    I've actually responded a few times to others on the forums regarding images looking washed out/faded in Acrobat 8. I thought I'd pass that information to you here just in case it helps. In those cases, the images that had that appearance either had transparency applied or interacted with it in some way. However, if the file was viewed with the Output Preview dialog open (under Print Production tools) the colors appeared correctly. They would also be correct if the transparency was flattened.  As it turns out, there was a bug in Acrobat 8 that affected the onscreen display of those images that interacted with transparency or had it directly applied and the transparency was still "live" (not flattened). This was fixed in the update to 8.1. If you are running 8.0 you might want to try updating to 8.1 and see if that helps?

  • Why do my images look washed out...

    Why do my images look washed out after I have worked in Photoshop CS6 and saved them in Finder? I have been a Photoshop user for a while now and have never experienced this problem. It started 2 months ago and no one can seem to tell me why or how to fix it. I am a professional photographer and I have clients waiting on their images but I can't send them looking as horrible as they do. My workflow is: drag and drop an image from iPhoto or Finder to Photoshop. I change things like levels, contrast, image size and use the healing too. Then I save to Finder so I can upload to dropbox or to website or burn to a DVD. Now when I save the image the thumbnail looks washed out, without color and looks horrible!!! I don't know if my photo files are corrupted or ? If I open the image in Photoshop or Bridge it looks fine. I would be grateful for any suggestions or explanation. Things were working just fine, but not now.

    Examining the image direct from the camera of the child on the beach, using http://regex.info/exif.cgi  there is a small embedded thumbnail (with black bars top-and-bottom to letterbox it to the LCD aspect ratio), and a small preview probably used for zooming in on the camera LCD screen, and the fullsize jpg image all contained in the one JPG file.  All three of these seem to have identical histograms other than the black-bars causing a dark peak on the thumbnail image, but otherwise the shapes of the histograms and the position of the peaks from light to dark are the same. 
    In other words the full-size JPG and the embedded preview and thumbnail all seem the same other than size so the darkened version seen in Finder is not coming from the camera.  The one issue the above website reports is that the camera JPG has a color-profile tag (name of the profile) but does not actually contain the color profile, itself.  All other versions of the image have an actual embedded profile not just the name in a tag.  It is possible that this is confusing Finder into assuming a different profile or gamma curve for the image that sRGB warrants, but most all camera images have this issue so I wouldn't expect a Mac to show images from all cameras as too dark.
    It is a mystery to me why the Finder preview looks darker, but at least in the one side-by-side provided, it does, and is different-looking than all other representations of the image from what I can see.
    At the beginning of this thread you said you were worried the photos coming out of Photoshop were washed out and had bad colors.  From my perspective, what comes out of Photoshop looks the same as what comes out of the camera, so only Finder has it wrong.  Are you seeing the darker image anywhere else besides Finder (and perhaps iPhoto which we don't have a screenshot of)?
    Most importantly does the image you see on screen in Photoshop, while you're making adjustments, look dark like the pre-PS Finder thumbnail or does it look lighter, like the post-PS Finder thumbnail and all the images on DropBox? 
    If more than just the pre-PS Finder thumbnail is darker then you may have a monitor calibration issue that needs to be addressed, otherwise just ignore the pre-PS Finder thumbnail when evaluating if the image needs any adjustments and assume they are all ligher than the Finder image.
    BTW, I tested for a sRGB vs AdobeRGB mismatch, and if an sRGB image is assigned an Adobe profile then the colors become more intense but the whole image does not become darker so that can't explain what is happening. 

  • Photos looked washed out when played through a TV....

    I have a new G5 iPod and a 60gig Photo. When plug then into the same TV with the same cable (s-video and audio) the pictures from the G5 look washed out. The iPod Photo colours look "brilliant" and are all but identical to the original digital pictures and when shown on my iMac 20" screen.
    Is this because of the video aspects of the G5 and the "corners" cut to get the unit size down (hence no fire wire).
    Please advise, I feel like returning this and sticking to the Photo.
    Thank in advance.
    David

    Got a refund today
    Will wait for better resolution iPod to be released. The Photo still rox

  • Typeface in pdf looks washed out/light

    When I convert a document to PDF the typeface looks washed out. Recently I was looking at a document on line and wanted to copy a paragraph. When I tried it a window came up saying that the page needed to be scanned/converted before i could copy from this document. I said "Ok". Ever since then, instead of the typeface being clear and solid, it's washed out and lighter looking. What happened, and how do I correct this problem?
    I have AA XI

    Hello,
    Yes, the iMac's monitors are very good. They are among the best in the Apple LCD line.
    But, Macs have a very distinctive difference in their video appearance. They will look less sharp when compared to a PC.
    The difference is in how the Mac displays it's video. Basically, as I understand it, this is a visual perception based on the Mac's use of Anti-Aliased screens / fonts.
    So, it does take some getting used to if you are new to Macs.
    I've gotten accustomed to it. But, there is a noticeable difference in how the Mac displays video and how the PC displays it.
    I have connected a number of PC monitors to my Macs, and the visual perception is the same as it is using a built-in Mac monitor. The PC monitor looks sharper and more defined on the PC than it does when connected to a Mac.
    The difference is in the Mac OS and how it displays or renders it's screen and fonts. So, it's not the monitor.
    Now, you can go into System Preferences (under the  menu) and then go into displays and tinker with the calibration settings and such.
    Also in System Preferences is the "Appearance" pane. You can go in there, and towards the bottom is the "Smoothing" option. You can adjust those options as well. Note that the smoothing options don't take effect until after you restart.
    So, there's a couple of places you can tinker to try and tailor it to look closer to your preferences.
    I hope this helps.
    Let us know if you have other questions.
    P.S., if you'd like, go ahead and click the "Helpful" or "Solved" buttons on any of the posts / replies above if you feel they were helpful or adequately answered your question.

  • Adding RAW files to Aperture when JPEG exists

    Here's my situation:
    I recently bought Aperture and loaded my existing iPhoto library into it.  This library only includes JPEG files.  I have been shooting RAW+JPEG with a newer camera so I have an entire set of RAW files in a separate folder on my computer (which I never added to my iPhoto library).  I want to now load these RAW files into Aperture -- will they correctly pair up with the corresponding JPEG's?  What are the steps I need to take to ensure that they somehow pair with the existing JPEGs and I don't end up with duplicate RAW+JPEG files in different areas of my Aperture library?  I would also like the RAWs to become the master over the JPEGs. 

    Read this page of the manual:
    http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=4%26sec tion=6%26hash=apple_ref:doc:uid:Aperture-UserManual-91292IMP-SW5
    To import the RAW files that match the JPEG files in your Aperture library
    Choose “Matching RAW files” from the Import pop-up menu.The Include pop-up menu appears below the Import pop-up menu.
    Do one of the following:
    To import all matching RAW files regardless of rating: Choose “All matching files” from the Include pop-up menu.
    To import all RAW files matching JPEG files that are unrated or better: Choose “Unrated or better” from the Include pop-up menu.
    To import all RAW files that match the current rating: Choose “Current filter” from the Include pop-up menu.

  • Hi there, i bought an Ipad air and trying to upload the pictures that i have taken in raw files via itunnes. however pictures are quite blurry which is disappointing. appreciate any suggestions on how to make it right via itunes?

    Hi there, i bought an Ipad air and trying to upload the pictures that i have taken in raw files via itunnes. however pictures are quite blurry which is disappointing. Appreciate any suggestions on how to make it right via itunes?
    Thanks

    Hi there, i bought an Ipad air and trying to upload the pictures that i have taken in raw files via itunnes. however pictures are quite blurry which is disappointing. Appreciate any suggestions on how to make it right via itunes?
    Thanks

  • My 2009 imac display looks washed out

    can anyone help me my mid 2009 imac color looks washed out take a look for your self
    if anyone knows how to fix please tell me

    Hi jono from opunake,
    Thanks for the question. Let’s take a look at your accessibility preferences to see if the Display contrast has been increased at all:
    OS X Yosemite: Display pane of Accessibility preferences
    http://support.apple.com/kb/PH18394
    - Matt M.

  • D600 RAW files look different that D300 raw files

    Please help me understand what's going on and more importantly, how to fix it.
    RAW files from my D300 and my D600 look completely different. These are both NEF files, imported to Lightroom 4.2 using exactly the same import preset. I did NOTHING to either file, except that the D300 one was at 1/160 second and the D600 one was at 1/200 second, so I changed exposure on the D300 one by 1/3 stop so they would match. What I did was to shoot the D300 picture, then carefully changed the lens over to the D600 without moving anything, changed the D600 to DX mode to match the field of view and shot the same picture. The files should be essentially identical.
    [b]This is from the D300:[/b]
    [b]This is from the D600:[/b]
    You will notice that the saturation on the D600 image is much higher. And it's much more yellow. The pictures were shot 2 minutes apart, from the same spot. Same lens, same camera settings.
    First thing I did was to change the color temperature and tint to match: from  4150/+6 to 4200/+2. There was no visible change (I'm looking at them in compare mode in Lightroom on a calibrated monitor).
    Next, I tried to change the D600 image to match the D300 one. I had to make substantial changes to both color balance and saturation of various colors, as well as contrast and black levels to get close. I'd give you absolute numbers but it varies from image to image. In this case, I had to drop the color temperature to 3500, for instance. The easiest way to do this was to use the white balance eyedropper on a grey area in the road.
    I'm wondering if this is related to how LR handles the D600 NEF files. LR 4.2 says the D600 algorithm is 'preliminary'. Could this be part of it?
    Anyone else here have a D600 and noticed the same thing?
    Message title was edited by: Brett N

    I'm not really good at using the right technical terms. Let me go back to basics.
    Adobe came out with Lightroom 4.2 which has (preliminary) support for the D600. I installed it. I put the memory card from the camera into the card reader and Lightroom popped up because that's what I had set for the default for uploading photos. I told it which folder to store the image in (J:photos/2012-10/2012-10-05) and where to put a second copy (D:/px/lightroom import copies). Then I told LR to "save Current Settings as New Preset..." and I named it "D600 imports". Then I clicked "Import".
    When I looked at the files afterwards in Lightroom, the sliders were all at zero except for the ones I noted before. I don't know why Lightroom chose 25 for the sharpening, but it did. Coincidentally, that's the same number it chooses for my D300 imports. I also don't know why it chose a color temp of 4200 and a tint of +4 (I was shooting on auto white balance).
    Then I plugged in the card from the D300. I decided not to touch the preset (which still said "D600 imports") and I clicked "Import". The files went to the same folders and presumably, had the same sharpening and other slider levels applied.
    Now when I look at the camera calibration in the develop module, under profile it says "Adobe Standard" on the D300 images and "Beta" on the D600 images, so Lightroom somehow knows which camera I used and sets itself accordingly.
    At no time did my fingers ever leave my hand, and I did not modify, click on or even breathe on any of the Lightroom default settings. FWIW, my programming days are 35 years behind me and I'm a total non-tekkie user now. I wouldn't know how to 'hack' the D300 files if my life depended on it.
    I know that conditions could have changed in the 98 seconds between the D600 shot and the D300 shot. Trust me when I say they didn't.
    Regarding Noise Reduction: as far as I know, there are only two user accessible settings in the cameras: "Long Exposure Noise Reduction" and "High ISO Noise Reduction". Generally I have both of those on... but since these shots were at 1/200 sec and ISO 400, they wouldn't have kicked in anyway.
    For WB, I used exactly the same spot on the road in both images. But you're right, I should use a grey target and I will next time.
    To make the two pictures match as best I could tell onscreen (I changed the D600 image to match the D300 one), I had to change the temp from 4200 to 3500, the tint from +4 to +18, the exposure to -.33, shadows to -48, blacks to -19 (these are huge changes) and it still didn't look as good as the D300 image. It was 'harder' or 'crisper'. There was no mood, no softness to it. It's like looking at a "vivid" Jpeg vs. a "Standard" Jpeg, or a cooked HDR, if that makes any sense.
    This isn't so much a complaint as a request for understanding, so that I know when I bring up an image, how to fix it. I shot a landscape and blew it up onscreen to 200%. I could see every leaf, every twig, every shadow's hard edge. That's not a bad thing, that's amazing: I just want to be able to control it.
    Glenn

Maybe you are looking for