Adobe DNG converter change the color of the images???

Hi guys!!!

I always shoot RAW + High quality JPG

I generally follow this flow to convert my images:

NEF -- via Adobe dng converter --> DNG -- via Photoshop --> PSD --> via Photoshop --> TIF or JPG

When the file first open in Camera Raw 4.6 i just keep it "as shot" and then I open it straight with Photoshop for editing. I also tried with "Reset Camera Raw Defaults" but nothing change.

I noticed a difference between the JPG straight out of Camera and The Edited JPG.

So I tried other flows

NEF -- via View NX 2 Coverter --> TIF --> via Photoshop --> PSD --> via Photoshop -- JPG

And I had no changing in the final result... I mean... The JPG straight out of Camera is exactly the same as the JPG out of this last flow.

So the problem is not Photoshop and the convertion to PSD but DNG converter...

Why?

The camera writes some metadata fields to the raw file. That metadata can then be read by Nikon's software and interpreted to create a JPEG image just like the camera made. Think of it as a recipe; the camera-generated JPEG was cooked in the camera, and the software-generated image was cooked in your computer. Only the kitchen was changed, but the recipe was exactly the same.

Other software, such as Adobe's raw converter, have nothing to do with that metadata so they just ignore it.

Raw files aren't really image files. They are actually data files, that can be read by raw converters and then create an image file. Each raw converter may treat it differently.

If you use the Adobe software through-and-through, but basically ignore Camera Raw, you're not really doing anything with your raw file. Use the tools in Camera Raw to brighten shadows, darken highlights, etc. It can recover detail that Photoshop can't get to later.

Federico Nov said:

... So the problem is not Photoshop and the convertion to PSD but DNG converter...

Why?

Click to expand...

Yeah... why DNG?

Your NEFs contains all data and will never change... DNGs are stripped files. And Adobe property...

So what I should do to solve this problem?

I cannot open NEF straight with Photoshop CS3 so I need a converter.

Maybe is Adobe DNG that change the RAW or it could be some setting that I cannot reset in Adobe Camera Raw.

Camera Raw look like this when I open the file:



shouldn't it be be all in zero?

Janoch said:

Federico Nov said:

... So the problem is not Photoshop and the convertion to PSD but DNG converter...

Why?

Click to expand...

Yeah... why DNG?

Your NEFs contains all data and will never change... DNGs are stripped files. And Adobe property...

Click to expand...

OK but I cannot open NEF of my D3300 straight in Photoshop CS3.

Use Nikon ViewNx, that came with your camera.

It's one of the best pre-view programs for Nikon NEFs and you can add a button to it's menu bar, like 'Open in CS3'.

If you test Nikon's new(ish) Capture NX-I (?), you may even find you prefer it's output over your CS3...

I love ViewNX 2!
I use it to view all pics, evaluate, select them and convert to light jpg...

Didn´t know that could allows me to open NEF in CS3...

This is a HUGE data man... Thank you

I'll check out for Capture NX... I guess it could be good for fast editing

Federico Nov said:

So what I should do to solve this problem?

I cannot open NEF straight with Photoshop CS3 so I need a converter.

Maybe is Adobe DNG that change the RAW or it could be some setting that I cannot reset in Adobe Camera Raw.

Camera Raw look like this when I open the file:

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you used the Adobe DNG converter to create a DNG file from your NEF file; and that when you open that DNG file in ACR you see this in the Basic tab?

If so, what you are seeing is the default settings that ACR uses for all files unless you change the defaults. If you want Blacks, Brightness and Contrast to be zero just set them to zero and then Create New Camera Raw Defaults - you do that by clicking the tiny triangle at the end of the bar that has Basic in the middle, then scroll down to the bottom of the drop-down menu that appears.

Before setting the new defaults you should look at all the other tabs to see if there are other non-zero values you want to alter; look especially at the Camera Profile in the Camera Calibration tab.

Federico Nov said:

shouldn't it be be all in zero?

Click to expand...

It should be anything you want. I have created defaults for each of my cameras that present my raw files the way I like to see them. As each camera has a different sensor each default is slightly different from the others.

Modern sensors generally have wider dynamic range than older ones. The defaults you show, especially the Black value of 5, seem to have been developed to suit cameras that existed some years ago.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

As other have pointed out the Adobe RAW interprets in a certain way the data from RAW than Nikon software. You can tweak the Adobe RAW to mimic quite closely the Nikon approach but by changing the HSL parameters not by resetting to defaults that are far away from that approach.

Here are two examples of processing approach:


Capture NX-D




Adobe Lightroom

--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://picasaweb.google.com/victorpetcu69/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://picasaweb.google.com/v.petcu.gci/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpetcu.gci.arhiva/
http://picasaweb.google.com/v.petcu.poze/
http://picasaweb.google.com/millenia.advisory/
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Federico Nov said:

So what I should do to solve this problem?

I cannot open NEF straight with Photoshop CS3 so I need a converter.

Maybe is Adobe DNG that change the RAW or it could be some setting that I cannot reset in Adobe Camera Raw.

Camera Raw look like this when I open the file:

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you used the Adobe DNG converter to create a DNG file from your NEF file; and that when you open that DNG file in ACR you see this in the Basic tab?

If so, what you are seeing is the default settings that ACR uses for all files unless you change the defaults. If you want Blacks, Brightness and Contrast to be zero just set them to zero and then Create New Camera Raw Defaults - you do that by clicking the tiny triangle at the end of the bar that has Basic in the middle, then scroll down to the bottom of the drop-down menu that appears.

Before setting the new defaults you should look at all the other tabs to see if there are other non-zero values you want to alter; look especially at the Camera Profile in the Camera Calibration tab.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

shouldn't it be be all in zero?

Click to expand...

It should be anything you want. I have created defaults for each of my cameras that present my raw files the way I like to see them. As each camera has a different sensor each default is slightly different from the others.

Modern sensors generally have wider dynamic range than older ones. The defaults you show, especially the Black value of 5, seem to have been developed to suit cameras that existed some years ago.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

Click to expand...

I start to undestand but I'm still quite confused

If I put Brightness and contrast in 0 the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera that i see just perfect on my camera monitor and on any monitor...

It's quite crazy that a software start with +50 brighteness as default

It looks like in this "world" you cannot rely on numbers.

I'll have to calibrate the monitor and then set a new camera raw default.

Thank you

Federico Nov said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Federico Nov said:

So what I should do to solve this problem?

I cannot open NEF straight with Photoshop CS3 so I need a converter.

Maybe is Adobe DNG that change the RAW or it could be some setting that I cannot reset in Adobe Camera Raw.

Camera Raw look like this when I open the file:

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you used the Adobe DNG converter to create a DNG file from your NEF file; and that when you open that DNG file in ACR you see this in the Basic tab?

If so, what you are seeing is the default settings that ACR uses for all files unless you change the defaults. If you want Blacks, Brightness and Contrast to be zero just set them to zero and then Create New Camera Raw Defaults - you do that by clicking the tiny triangle at the end of the bar that has Basic in the middle, then scroll down to the bottom of the drop-down menu that appears.

Before setting the new defaults you should look at all the other tabs to see if there are other non-zero values you want to alter; look especially at the Camera Profile in the Camera Calibration tab.

Federico Nov said:

shouldn't it be be all in zero?

Click to expand...

It should be anything you want. I have created defaults for each of my cameras that present my raw files the way I like to see them. As each camera has a different sensor each default is slightly different from the others.

Modern sensors generally have wider dynamic range than older ones. The defaults you show, especially the Black value of 5, seem to have been developed to suit cameras that existed some years ago.

Click to expand...

I start to undestand but I'm still quite confused

If I put Brightness and contrast in 0 the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera that i see just perfect on my camera monitor and on any monitor...

Click to expand...

Read the explanations given by other people about how Adobe software interprets the raw data differently from the way the maker's software does. And remember that by "maker's software" I mean the in-camera JPG engine as well as it raw converter - which are designed to give the same output as each other.

Federico Nov said:

It's quite crazy that a software start with +50 brightness as default

Click to expand...

No, it isn't at all crazy. It's the sensible response to what you said above "the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera". Increasing brightness is done to stop it looking too dark.

Federico Nov said:

It looks like in this "world" you cannot rely on numbers.

Click to expand...

Yes you can. But first you must understand what the numbers mean.

Federico Nov said:

I'll have to calibrate the monitor and then set a new camera raw default.

Click to expand...

Yes.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
[email protected]

Janoch said:

Use Nikon ViewNx, that came with your camera.

It's one of the best pre-view programs for Nikon NEFs and you can add a button to it's menu bar, like 'Open in CS3'.

If you test Nikon's new(ish) Capture NX-I (?), you may even find you prefer it's output over your CS3...

Click to expand...

Janoch could you give me a tip how to set the NEF to be opened in CSR with ViewNX?

I cannot find it.

Federico Nov said:

Janoch said:

Use Nikon ViewNx, that came with your camera.

It's one of the best pre-view programs for Nikon NEFs and you can add a button to it's menu bar, like 'Open in CS3'.

If you test Nikon's new(ish) Capture NX-I (?), you may even find you prefer it's output over your CS3...

Click to expand...

Janoch could you give me a tip how to set the NEF to be opened in CSR with ViewNX?

I cannot find it.

Click to expand...

Or maybe you mean that I have to convert to TIF and skip Adobe DNG and Camera RAW and edit directly in CS3?

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Federico Nov said:

If I put Brightness and contrast in 0 the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera that i see just perfect on my camera monitor and on any monitor...

Click to expand...

Read the explanations given by other people about how Adobe software interprets the raw data differently from the way the maker's software does. And remember that by "maker's software" I mean the in-camera JPG engine as well as it raw converter - which are designed to give the same output as each other.

Click to expand...

This subject is quite interesting to me, as I have been for some weeks trying to test and catalog how the various RAW Editors render JPEGs.

I started w/ the old belief that you stated above; that only the Camera and the RAW Editors produced by the camera manufacturers "understand" the metadata in their "proprietary" RAW files and then use that to render "correct" JPEGs. I've heard this a LOT on DPR, but I never saw anybody provide objective evidence that it was true.

I am not through with this project and I'm only using one Nikon camera for testing, but with those caveats, I can state confidentially that the legend is false. There is much variability in how editors render JPEGs! And the Nikon editors are not especially better than the Adobe editors; each of them has a different JPEG "profile" per JPEGsnoop.

JPEG is a six step process

• Color space transform RGB to RGB to YCbCr
• Downsampling
• Block Splitting
• Discrete Cosine Transform
• Quantization (where the magic happens)
• Encoding (lossless compression)

At this juncture, I have found that there are groups of similar JPEGs:

• The Camera [D810] is different than ALL editors
• The Adobe Editors are all alike
• The Nikon Editors are all alike
• The "independent" editors are alike

The independents are editors like Faststone, irfanView, GIMP, DxO Optics Pro, and Corel Photo Paint [just to name a few...there are dozens!]. They all use a free, open-source library, libJPEG, from the Independent JPEG Group [IJG].

Note that the above groupings are strictly based on the structure of the Quantization Tables, which are two 8X8 tables with one-byte [integer] values that define how the luminance and chrominance are "compressed".

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

It's quite crazy that a software start with +50 brightness as default

Click to expand...

No, it isn't at all crazy. It's the sensible response to what you said above "the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera". Increasing brightness is done to stop it looking too dark.

Click to expand...

Well, there ARE some crazy programmers and they often do crazy things. The issue here is what "zero" means? Is zero a number that means no changes? In some editors, that is what it means. But there are other, crazy people who think "50" means "the middle" and that is a "neutral" setting in their minds. There are still other, crazy people who think 100 means "everything" and that implies that you get the whole enchilada, w/ no changes. See the conumdrum?

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

It looks like in this "world" you cannot rely on numbers.

Click to expand...

Yes you can. But first you must understand what the numbers mean.

Click to expand...

Very true. One issue is that every designer of an editor thinks of numbers differently, as I explained above. Another issue is that often the sliders that control the variables have no units! If you don't know what you are changing, you don't even know if up is better or down is better! Like a slider named "Exposure". "Exposure" in this context has no units. Thus, a user doesn't initially know which direction makes the image brighter! They have to grab the slider and watch the image. So that one is not a big problem, because the effect is obvious. There are some variables that produce very subtle changes and w/ these the user can't simply look at the monitor while changing the variable and tell which direction of movement does what.

Some editors have a button to "reset" everything. Occasionally that actually sets all the parameters so that NO CHANGES are made. Sadly, that happens less than it should.

Federico Nov said:

Or maybe you mean that I have to convert to TIF and skip Adobe DNG and Camera RAW and edit directly in CS3?

Click to expand...

Yes, process the image as far as you want in the Nikon software, then save it as a 16 bit TIFF file for opening in CS3.

The TIFF is going to be huge, so when I do this sort of thing, I make sure to delete it when I no longer need it.

Mark Scott Abeln said:

Federico Nov said:

Or maybe you mean that I have to convert to TIF and skip Adobe DNG and Camera RAW and edit directly in CS3?

Click to expand...

Yes, process the image as far as you want in the Nikon software, then save it as a 16 bit TIFF file for opening in CS3.

The TIFF is going to be huge, so when I do this sort of thing, I make sure to delete it when I no longer need it.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the way to do it! Thanks for saving me typing it! :-D

I do everything in ViewNx/CaptureNx and only use external editor for adding text and frames... imho Nikon software works better on NEFs than anything else.

Besides it reads the exact camera settings, which can save you some basic editings once you played a bit with Picture Control...

Federico Nov said:

So the problem is not Photoshop and the convertion to PSD but DNG converter...

Click to expand...

Not the conversion to DNG per se, but the colour transform that the converter embeds into the resulting DNG file. This colour transform (DCP profile in Adobe lingo) is respected by ACR plugin and Lr (unless they are instructed differently), and it differs from the one that Nikon are using.

Normally, you can change the colour transform in use through Camera Calibration tab, Camera Profile drop-down. Those profiles in the drop-down that start with "Camera" mimic the camera manufacturer's colour transforms closer than the default Adobe Standard.

You can also create your own DCP profiles, which many of us do.

chuxter said:

I started w/ the old belief that you stated above; that only the Camera and the RAW Editors produced by the camera manufacturers "understand" the metadata in their "proprietary" RAW files and then use that to render "correct" JPEGs.

Click to expand...

There is a reason for this belief; makernotes are not documented. Some tags that seem to be useful are ignored by raw converters, either the designers do not know the meaning of those tags, or they decided that those tags are irrelevant. May be both. Some raw formats are not supported at all.

The party to blame here is of course the camera manufacturers.

chuxter said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Federico Nov said:

If I put Brightness and contrast in 0 the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera that i see just perfect on my camera monitor and on any monitor...

Click to expand...

Read the explanations given by other people about how Adobe software interprets the raw data differently from the way the maker's software does. And remember that by "maker's software" I mean the in-camera JPG engine as well as it raw converter - which are designed to give the same output as each other.

Click to expand...

This subject is quite interesting to me, as I have been for some weeks trying to test and catalog how the various RAW Editors render JPEGs.

I started w/ the old belief that you stated above; that only the Camera and the RAW Editors produced by the camera manufacturers "understand" the metadata in their "proprietary" RAW files and then use that to render "correct" JPEGs. I've heard this a LOT on DPR, but I never saw anybody provide objective evidence that it was true.

Click to expand...

You use the reply with quote option to a post that I made. That makes the "you" underlined above refer to me but I have never subscribed to that opinion. Indeed, I have often pointed out that colour rendition is a matter of corporate taste, with the result that Canon colours are different from Nikon Colours are different from ..., and that people who say that canon colours are better are really only sharing the Canon corporate taste.

When it comes to processing raw files there's a new set of tastes - Adobe colours etc.

None of these options is ever perfect: indeed, the nature of the 3-colur split used in colour reproduction means they can never be perfect.

Note that I'm not quarrelling with what you say below; merely pointing out that the opinion that prompted it wasn't mine.

chuxter said:

I am not through with this project and I'm only using one Nikon camera for testing, but with those caveats, I can state confidentially that the legend is false. There is much variability in how editors render JPEGs! And the Nikon editors are not especially better than the Adobe editors; each of them has a different JPEG "profile" per JPEGsnoop.

JPEG is a six step process

• Color space transform RGB to RGB to YCbCr
• Downsampling
• Block Splitting
• Discrete Cosine Transform
• Quantization (where the magic happens)
• Encoding (lossless compression)

At this juncture, I have found that there are groups of similar JPEGs:

• The Camera [D810] is different than ALL editors
• The Adobe Editors are all alike
• The Nikon Editors are all alike
• The "independent" editors are alike

The independents are editors like Faststone, irfanView, GIMP, DxO Optics Pro, and Corel Photo Paint [just to name a few...there are dozens!]. They all use a free, open-source library, libJPEG, from the Independent JPEG Group [IJG].

Note that the above groupings are strictly based on the structure of the Quantization Tables, which are two 8X8 tables with one-byte [integer] values that define how the luminance and chrominance are "compressed".

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

It's quite crazy that a software start with +50 brightness as default

Click to expand...

No, it isn't at all crazy. It's the sensible response to what you said above "the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera". Increasing brightness is done to stop it looking too dark.

Click to expand...

Well, there ARE some crazy programmers and they often do crazy things. The issue here is what "zero" means? Is zero a number that means no changes? In some editors, that is what it means. But there are other, crazy people who think "50" means "the middle" and that is a "neutral" setting in their minds. There are still other, crazy people who think 100 means "everything" and that implies that you get the whole enchilada, w/ no changes. See the conumdrum?

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

It looks like in this "world" you cannot rely on numbers.

Click to expand...

Yes you can. But first you must understand what the numbers mean.

Click to expand...

Very true. One issue is that every designer of an editor thinks of numbers differently, as I explained above. Another issue is that often the sliders that control the variables have no units! If you don't know what you are changing, you don't even know if up is better or down is better! Like a slider named "Exposure". "Exposure" in this context has no units. Thus, a user doesn't initially know which direction makes the image brighter! They have to grab the slider and watch the image. So that one is not a big problem, because the effect is obvious. There are some variables that produce very subtle changes and w/ these the user can't simply look at the monitor while changing the variable and tell which direction of movement does what.

Some editors have a button to "reset" everything. Occasionally that actually sets all the parameters so that NO CHANGES are made. Sadly, that happens less than it should.

Click to expand...

chuxter said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Federico Nov said:

If I put Brightness and contrast in 0 the file look way too dark compared with the original jpg out of camera that i see just perfect on my camera monitor and on any monitor...

Click to expand...

Read the explanations given by other people about how Adobe software interprets the raw data differently from the way the maker's software does. And remember that by "maker's software" I mean the in-camera JPG engine as well as it raw converter - which are designed to give the same output as each other.

Click to expand...

This subject is quite interesting to me, as I have been for some weeks trying to test and catalog how the various RAW Editors render JPEGs.

I started w/ the old belief that you stated above; that only the Camera and the RAW Editors produced by the camera manufacturers "understand" the metadata in their "proprietary" RAW files and then use that to render "correct" JPEGs. I've heard this a LOT on DPR, but I never saw anybody provide objective evidence that it was true.

Click to expand...

I think I can help you out there at least from the Canon world.

Canon cameras have a facility to adjust some parameters of the in camera jpeg which is know as "Picture Style" (I believe there is something similar on Nikon cameras). This information is also embedded as meta data in the .CR2 raw file.

This can clearly be seen if you set the Picture Style to "Monochrome" while shooting raw only. The review image on the back of the camera is monochrome (very useful if you intend the final images to be monochrome. You know your on the right track regarding lighting etc).

Open the image in DPP (Canon's own raw converter) and it is previewed and opens as a monochrome image.




Preview in DPP is monochrome.




CR2 file opened in DPP raw converter.

You can easily change to a colour version by altering the picture style (1/3rd of the way down the tool pallet on the right)


Picture Style now set to standard.

However if you view the same .CR2 file in Adobe Bridge you get a colour preview (I suspect Canon does not release the specs for the Picture Style meta data to Adobe).




Same .CR2 file in Adobe Bridge.

Note that the thumbnails in Bridge are produced from the raw data not from the embedded jpeg. You can see this happening if you point bridge a folder with a number of raw files shot with a monochrome picture style. As Bridge scans through the files it displays a small version of the preview jpeg (monochrome images) then goes back to generate the view from the raw data which is colour. So what you see is initial monochrome thumbnails which change to colour as Bridge works it's way through the directory.


Mug .CR2 file opened in Adobe Camera Raw

Also utilities like IrfanView or Faststone don't actually interpret the raw data they merely open the embedded preview image. This is because the location of these embedded jpegs is well documented and does not change from camera to camera unlike the meta data and raw data.

I'm pretty sure that the same will hold true for .nef files.

Ian