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.

Similar Messages

Why are my raw files from my Canon 5D Mark III dim in Lightroom 4.3?

I am brand new to Lightroom, still reviewing various basic instruction videos, however I am adept in Photoshop CS5 and CS6. I have been able to import and move a file of jpegs but as I shoot jpeg/raw combo, the raw files were left behind in the original file. I can now bring them up, but they are dim and cannot appear to do anything w/them. I would like to move them to the file where I put the accompanying jpegs, but am having no success in finding an answer on how to do this. Nothing seems to activite to let me do this. Along w/this, I generally tend to work straight from camera raw files, the jpegs are generally not used, thus when LR encourages me to work on the jpegs, I'm not interested. I wish to process my raw files and only move to PS6 if I need to do some more intensive work. Can anyone offer a suggestion?

Here's my guess, based upon your description.
When the RAW photos are "dim", you are in the Import Dialog box, and the default operation of the Import is to not let you import a photo if it has been previously imported.
If that's the case, then you have misunderstood a basic operation of Lightroom. You import your photos once, and from then on, you access them via the Library Module, not the Import dialog. So, go to the Library Module and see if your RAWs are present or not.
Side comment: your workflow seems to be import then move. This is unneccessary, creating two steps for you when one will suffice. When you do the import, you also tell LR the destination where the photos should wind up (it's on the right hand side of the Import dialog box), and LR will do the import and the move in one step.

Why are my RAW files created by Vuescan so dark in Aperture?

I've been scanning images using Vuescan and saving as 16/48 bit RAW images. These images always look great in Vuescan but when I import these images into Aperture, the images are very dark. I need to do an exposure correction of +2 just to start seeing anything in the midtones. Ed Hamrick, the author of Vuescan, says this is because the RAW files have a gamma of 1.0 (coming straight of the CCD). If I save the same scan in TIFF format, the images look pretty much the same in Aperture and Vuescan.
My question is what benefits does saving in RAW bring given the large adjustments that I must make. I know I can automate the adjustments at import which might make this less of an issue but I wonder if saving in TIFF is nearly as good. Some of the pictures have a wide dynamic range with lots of shadow detail.
Any suggestions?
Thanks for any help.
Bob

My frustration has been that I am doing the processing twice which is pointless. I need to choose a workflow. Mind you that if Apple supported the full DNG specification, it would be able to deal automatically with these RAW scanned DNG files (I believe they are linear DNGs) and automatically compensate during import just as Lightroom does. I am using the trial version of Aperture - which I feel really comfortable using - but I think I may take Lightroom for a spin prior to making a final choice of software.
As I tried to clarify, there is no benefit in saving as RAW from a scanner. Just save as a normal 16-bit TIFF and you'll and up with a simplified workflow and no loss of data nor detail. Actually, a DNG is internally just a TIFF.
Mind you that if Apple supported the full DNG specification, it would be able to deal automatically with these RAW scanned DNG files (I believe they are linear DNGs) and automatically compensate during import just as Lightroom does. I am using the trial version of Aperture - which I feel really comfortable using - but I think I may take Lightroom for a spin prior to making a final choice of software.
If Apple fully-supported the DNG specification, then the RAW Fine Tuning adjustment would be available with its auto-exposure button to get a good starting point for tweaking the images.
You could provide Apple with feedback via, Aperture>Provide Aperture Feedback.
If I continue with Aperture, I am thinking that I will save these files as RAW TIFFs and do the gamma adjustment at import. This should streamline the workflow by making it possible to scan two 4x5s at one without the need to tweak each one in the scan and then do all my processing in Aperture (or Lightroom). I will just trust the scanner.
You shouldn't trust your scanner, just as you shouldn't always trust matrix metering or 'I'll fix that in post". Aiming for the best starting material is aiming for the best results. So instead, carefully examine each scan, which will not take you that long BTW.
I will still create the scanner profile of the IT8 target which I should then be able to use as a proofing profile to compensate for any color bias in the Fuji Provia film used. Perhaps I am wrong about this.
Actually, you're wrong on this. The IT8 provides an input profile, and not an output profile or working space. Imagine scanning a slide and printing it. Softproofing for IT8, then you can't softproof for your printer and vice versa.
Your post has allowed me to really think through my workflow and I really appreciate the input I've received in this thread. Now, I just wish I could get Apple to add support for Linear DNG (or whatever format Vuescan RAW DNG is which I know contains three colors per pixel rather then one as in Camera Raw) which would provide the additional tools to deal with these DNGs at import.
Although linear DNG support would indeed be nice for unsupported camera's, it is not necessary here. If Vuescan DNG has three channels, than it is a TIFF. (since demosiacing MUST have been applied, there are no scanners with a Foveon sensor as of yet)
Well to cut a very long story short just use TIFF for scans. It's a necessity for proper colormanagement and will simplify your workflow.

Why are my raw files being changed?

If I make changes in the Camera Raw window (i.e. change the exposure) and then "Open" it in Elements from the window, it applys those changes to the raw file, but the manual says "To open a copy of the camera raw image file (with the camera raw settings applied) in Photoshop Elements, click Open. You can edit the image and save it in a Photoshop Elements-supported format. The original camera raw file remains unaltered" - so why is it altering my original raw file?
Thankss

It isn't altering your file. Elements can't write to your raw file; it stores your changes in an xmp sidecar file, not in the original file. But if makes the reasonable assumption that the reason you made changes to your conversion settings is that you want to apply them. If you don't want to keep the changes when you open the file, then undo the ones you don't want to keep before opening the file into the editor. You are never opening your original raw file in PSE, just the converted copy.
To return to the basic elements conversion settings for the file, in the raw converter click the little lines to the right of where it says Basic in the converter window and choose Image Settings.
Here:
That's the mac version, but the location is the same in windows.

Why are my RAW files coming over grainy from Lightroom 5 to Photoshop CC

My images are transferring grainy over the last week. Any ideas why?

What camera raw file is it? Can you provide the EXIF data?
Here's the link to the possible answer:
Help! My RAW files are VERY grainy! :-(
I hope this helps.

Why are my RAW files so small/ruined?

I just imported a few hundred photos from my camera into my computer using iphoto version 6.0.6.
They are now useless little 2x3" jpegs with file sizes of about 16 to 50 kb.
And of course, I used the convenient 'delete files from camera after import' feature so the originals are gone.
Please tell me my photo files aren't ruined.
gg

Hi, guy. Quite apart from resolving the present problem in iPhoto, two pieces of advice:
1. Never use the "delete images from camera after importing" option in iPhoto.
2. If your RAW files are not found anywhere in the iPhoto Library, you can almost certainly recover them from the camera's memory — but ONLY if you haven't written anything to the card since it was erased. So don't use that card again until your pictures are found or recovered. Applications made specifically for data recovery from flash memory cards include:
PhotoRescue
MediaRecover
CardRaider
There's a demo version of each.

Why the exported JPG file looks like completely black?

I've already exported a PDF file by Indesign, but when I exported it to JPG file (by Acrobat), the JPG looks like almost compeletely black. But When I exported it to PNG, or Open this JPG by PS, and save it again, the image looks like normal (no black). This is PDF creating problem ( by indesign) or JPG creating problem (by Acrobat)?

Can you attach a screenshot?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenshot
Use a compressed image type like PNG or JPG to save the screenshot and make sure that you do not exceed the maximum file size (1 MB).
You can try to search for a theme that looks better for you or maybe a solid persona with a suitable color.
*Themes: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/themes/
*Personas for Firefox | Gallery: http://www.getpersonas.com/en-US/gallery/Solid

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:

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

I have a question about extracting pages. When I do the function, adobe saves the individual files as " file name space page number ", so the files look like this "filename 1.pdf", "filename 2.pdf", "filename 3.pdf". Without too many gory details, I a

I have a question about extracting pages. When I do the function, adobe saves the individual files as "<file name><space><page number>", so the files look like this "filename 1.pdf", "filename 2.pdf", "filename 3.pdf". Without too many gory details, I am using excel to concatenate some data to dynamically build a hyperlink to these extraced files. It casues me problems, however, for the space to be the the file name. Is there any way to change the default behavoir of this function to perhaps use a dash or underscore instead of a space?

No, you can't change the default naming scheme. You can do it yourself if you extract the pages using a script instead of using the built-in command.

Why are my exported files not going to me email? I have used 3 different ones.

Why are my exported files not going to my email (receipts & business card)? I have used 3 different ones...2 yahoo and 1 hotmail. I have checked spam box also.

For the Receipts app I chose to export the info as a PDF file..an email was requested..I entered info and clicked send. For the Business Card app I chose Send, not Print..an email was requested..I entered info and clicked send. I haven't received anything, not even in my spam folder.

Why does my RAW image look grainy when I export it in to Photoshop CC from Lightroom for editing?

Why does my RAW image look grainy when I export it in to Photoshop CC from Lightroom for editing?
Checked LR's setting for Ps export and they haven't changed since it was OK a few days ago? It is OK if you zoom in but in 'fit page' it looks terrible!

I have exactly the same problem and it has got worse today as the photos also now open in smaller windows for some reason

Why are ACR PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD?

Why are ACR > PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD? I posted this many years ago and never found an answer. Now that my drives fill up quicker, I thought I might chase this question a little bit further.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.
Why the difference? Is ACR and PSD actually using different compression strategies?
thanks.
Mac 10.8.5 / CC / ACR 8.4.1 - but this has been a consistent behavior over many years and versions, CS6 / CC.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.

Hi Jeff
If it is RLE it's not as efficient as LZW:
Saved ACR>PSD = 40.1MB (sample image this AM)
opened in PS and resaved as PSD = 30.8MB
resaved as TIF without LZW = 40.1MB (this adds to your thought that the ACR>PSD doesn't us any compression)
resaved as TIF/LZW = 9.6MB
Jeff Schewe wrote:
I really think your priorities are a bit off. 10-20% is meaningless...you just need to get bigger.... and quit fussing over a few GB's here or there...
??? I hope that the Adobe engineers are fussing over 10-20% efficiencies.
I'm within arms reach to a rack of 40TB of drives (doesn't include off-site drives), and all 2TB drives are being recycled to 4TB drives, as a result the rack is always growing. Actually the ACR>PSD files don't really make a difference in our long term storage, only for the nightly backups. But anyway, how you save, what you save etc. should all be part of the discussion.
.... so in my case, throw in an excess MB here and there and all of a sudden you are talking TB's. Plus advantages in backup times, drive life, and energy use.
Somebody added compression into the PS>PSD format, but it wasn't included in the ACR>PSD format, was it a decision or an oversight? If it's just a matter of making ACR compatible with PS when saving the same PSD format..... then why not?
regards,
j

Why are my RAW format files no longer supported?

Using a Mac OS X 10.5.8 with versions of Adobe Photoshop CS5, Adobe Bridge CS5 and Camera Raw Plug-in.
Shot .CR2 raw format photos on my Canon EOS 450D (Same as Rebel XSi)
Have always been able to open them successfully in Camera Raw and Photoshop. Now says that the files and/or my camera model/make is not supported by the Camera Raw Plug-in nor by my Photoshop.
Tried converting to DNG first with Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 and even that says that the source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files.
Previous raw files taken with the same camera on the same computer with the same (or even earlier) versions of all these programs have always worked. I can still open those successfully too. However just these new ones I cannot. Nothing has changed about my camera in that time...
What can I do and why is it that these files are no longer supported?

ACR 6.7 and ACR 7.1 RC can open XSi CR2 files at least on Windows 7. I just checked.
However, on Windows, at least, the DNGC 7.1 RC has a quirk in that when you want to convert a folder of CR2s to DNGs, you have to click the Select button when the folder is highlighted in the file selection dialog and the folder listed in the location area of the file selection dialog. You cannot click INTO the folder and then click Select, which sounds like what you are doing. If you do click into the folder and click Select it’ll say there are no compatible files that exist. I think previous versions of the DNGC would recover properly if you clicked into the folder before clicking Select.
Since your files cannot be opened in ACR, either, then perhaps they are corrupted. You might post a download link to one of them in a message here so others can have a look. If you don’t have a large file hosting service, then set up a free account on www.dropbox.com or www.yousendit.com or similar, upload your file, there, then post the public download link, here, in a reply.

TA24505 Why do d600 raw's look totally different than the jpg's that are imported together. When I select a raw, it looks as if it gets adjusted, but I can't figure out why...

When I import nef files from nikon D600, the pictures look good in the preview, but that's just because the preview is a jpg, generated by the camera. When I select the image, it looks like it is processing something and a totaly different (darker) images is presented in the preview window and the thumbnails. In the adjusment window no adjustments look active/selected.
Is the diference because Aperture cannot proces my Nef files the right way or are there some default adjustments selected in Aperture, somewhere that I'm not aware of? Maybe some default import setup...?
I use the latest updated version of Aperture, I'm new to aperture and understand the concept but am not familiar with all the tools.
Anyone?
(thanks in advance!)

Thanks Leonie,
I think this also answers my question:
Are you per chance using the in-camera setting for D-Lighting? If so, this is a Nikon proprietary use where the camera intentionally underexposes the image, then applies in-camera processing to bring it back to normal exposure that offers a slightly enhanced dynamic range. Unfortunately, Nikon does not share how this is done and it can only be rendered by their own software options.
Aperture, or any other third party RAW image processor, can't easily match these proprietary processes in any exact fashion ... they have to develop their own ... not just for one camera or one brand ... but all those they support ... even if they would try to match these in-camera settings ... the likelihood that they would satisfy more than a small batch of users is quite low ... tone and color results are purely subjective so finding a match that would please everyone is almost impossible.
This is why if you plan on using a third party RAW processor like Aperture, it is best to avoid using the in-camera processing settings. Rather you should create your own presets within Aperture to achieve your goals. In this instance, it is better to allow your chosen RAW processor to do the work, rather than the camera do the processing.
The reason you see the change in the image as Aperture loads it, you initially see the embedded jpeg preview from the NEF file. Then Aperture creates a new more accurate view based upon Aperture's RAW processing engine.
See the answer in context

Why are my RAW files looking like infrared?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for