Reading mode: Light Dark

raw, vs **RAW**... a funny thing happened

Go to last post
Phil Photo

Phil Photo

Senior Member
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
345
Location
CA, US
Background: I use the "free" unlimited photo storage from amazon prime.
The prime storage is a little different than any other storage.
Whereas pretty much everything else does some kind of autocorrection, whitebalance, etc, etc. in the preview of the image, even on raws...
amazon photo does literaly *NOTHING*.
This can lead to some kinda funky previews, so mostly I ignore what they look like, and use it as blind storage.
Yesterday, however, there was one photo, that in my opinion, looked BETTER truely raw unadjusted, than after the standard automatic adjustments.

See for yourselves...

literal straight-out-of-sensor data render
literal straight-out-of-sensor data render

The above, lightened a little, with google photo sliders
The above, lightened a little, with google photo sliders

after standard raw importer normalization. (capture one, or Imaging Edge, looks the same)
after standard raw importer normalization. (capture one, or Imaging Edge, looks the same)
 
Last edited:
So, your point is...
 
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
 
crashpc said:
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
Click to expand...
that is not universally true. Not even close.

On the viewing side:

To take the trivial example microsoft paint does zero "processing" on any image you load into it. You made a blanket statement. Even a single counterexample is enough to prove such things false, so I have proven your statement false.

To take a less simplistic example:

Many pro photo editors pay attention to embedded ICC color profiles, and adjust their display accordingly.

There are other non-pro editing programs that do not.

On top of that... some images.. dont HAVE embedded color profiles.

On the raw import side:

Capture one has its own per-camera profiles that it uses and applies to the pixels read in, if you use it to import directly from camera, or if you load in a RAW, it will apply those profiles to what it displays, and then also embed its own color profile on any image you export, by default.

The same is probably true for the other popular commercial raw importer programs

In contrast: PlayMemories Home does not do any conversion of bits if you use it to grab RAWs from the camera.
 
So, your point is...
 
Phil Photo said:
crashpc said:
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
Click to expand...
that is not universally true. Not even close.

On the viewing side:

To take the trivial example microsoft paint does zero "processing" on any image you load into it. You made a blanket statement. Even a single counterexample is enough to prove such things false, so I have proven your statement false.

To take a less simplistic example:

Many pro photo editors pay attention to embedded ICC color profiles, and adjust their display accordingly.

There are other non-pro editing programs that do not.

On top of that... some images.. dont HAVE embedded color profiles.

On the raw import side:

Capture one has its own per-camera profiles that it uses and applies to the pixels read in, if you use it to import directly from camera, or if you load in a RAW, it will apply those profiles to what it displays, and then also embed its own color profile on any image you export, by default.

The same is probably true for the other popular commercial raw importer programs

In contrast: PlayMemories Home does not do any conversion of bits if you use it to grab RAWs from the camera.
Click to expand...
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing. Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
 
dotborg said:
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing.
Click to expand...
eh okay thats fair. I think the sony importer does that

Barugon said:
Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
Click to expand...
no accounting for taste, i guess. haha :)
way, waaay too cold for my likes. I'd rather have a less sharp foreground with more overall appeal, than the other way around. But I acknowlege that other folks out there prefer the opposite.
 
Phil Photo said:
crashpc said:
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
Click to expand...
that is not universally true. Not even close.

On the viewing side:

To take the trivial example microsoft paint does zero "processing" on any image you load into it. You made a blanket statement. Even a single counterexample is enough to prove such things false, so I have proven your statement false.

To take a less simplistic example:

Many pro photo editors pay attention to embedded ICC color profiles, and adjust their display accordingly.

There are other non-pro editing programs that do not.

On top of that... some images.. dont HAVE embedded color profiles.

On the raw import side:

Capture one has its own per-camera profiles that it uses and applies to the pixels read in, if you use it to import directly from camera, or if you load in a RAW, it will apply those profiles to what it displays, and then also embed its own color profile on any image you export, by default.

The same is probably true for the other popular commercial raw importer programs

In contrast: PlayMemories Home does not do any conversion of bits if you use it to grab RAWs from the camera.
Click to expand...
This last bit about PlayMemories Home not doing any "conversion of bits" can only be true if it is relying on camera pre-processing of raw-data. Like using the previously processed low resolution jpeg embedded in the raw file to show you. Otherwise PlayMemories Home has to demosaic the raw data and render the picture according to some profile ..

If you want to view "truely raw unadjusted" raw data you can use rawdigger and/or a hex-editor. Not saying that using a "hex profile" is a pleasing way to present a picture ;)
 
Phil Photo said:
dotborg said:
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing.
Click to expand...
eh okay thats fair. I think the sony importer does that
Phil Photo said:
Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
Click to expand...
no accounting for taste, i guess. haha :)
way, waaay too cold for my likes. I'd rather have a less sharp foreground with more overall appeal, than the other way around. But I acknowlege that other folks out there prefer the opposite.
Click to expand...
Just set the color balance to cloudy or shade.
 
Phil Photo said:
texdpl said:
So, your point is...
Click to expand...
i would say the same thing about your post.
Click to expand...
Occasionally you find folks making a series of observations, but then never voicing a conclusion or stating a question.

Its like this hypothetical posting:

1. Today its Monday

2. It rained this morning

3. I got a phone call last night.

End of post>>>>

(You probably had a question or conclusion in your mind, but if you don't write it out, your readers have no idea of what it might be)
 
Phil Photo said:
dotborg said:
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing.
Click to expand...
eh okay thats fair. I think the sony importer does that
Phil Photo said:
Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
Click to expand...
no accounting for taste, i guess. haha :)
way, waaay too cold for my likes. I'd rather have a less sharp foreground with more overall appeal, than the other way around. But I acknowlege that other folks out there prefer the opposite.
Click to expand...
And that is precisely (and only) the issue here. To the extent there is an issue at all.

In any situation, any program must apply some somewhat arbitrary defaults to render the data from a RAW file. The whole point supposedly being to provide a starting point for PP, nothing more.

In general, it's the end point, not the starting point, that matters. And in fact, the amount of time it takes to bring up the warmth if that's what you prefer is milliseconds (and most programs will allow you to tweak default settings to more closely match your tastes if you want to save yourself a few of those milliseconds).

In any serious PP endeavour, those milliseconds will be utterly irrelevant, fading into insignificance in the context of minutes or even hours working up an image to the point where it is ready to present to the client (or the world, if that's your oyster). ; )

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon
 
Last edited:
Phil Photo said:
crashpc said:
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
Click to expand...
that is not universally true. Not even close.

On the viewing side:

To take the trivial example microsoft paint does zero "processing" on any image you load into it. You made a blanket statement.
Click to expand...
I do not think so. Without processing, you 1) could not see the image at all 2) it would be all green.
Phil Photo said:
Even a single counterexample is enough to prove such things false, so I have proven your statement false.
Click to expand...
How can you do that?
Phil Photo said:
To take a less simplistic example:

Many pro photo editors pay attention to embedded ICC color profiles, and adjust their display accordingly.
Click to expand...
Yee, that might be, I´m not sure about that.

Many editors just show embedded JPEG as they cannot decode the RAW properly.
Phil Photo said:
There are other non-pro editing programs that do not.

On top of that... some images.. dont HAVE embedded color profiles.
Click to expand...
sure.
Phil Photo said:
On the raw import side:

Capture one has its own per-camera profiles that it uses and applies to the pixels read in, if you use it to import directly from camera, or if you load in a RAW, it will apply those profiles to what it displays, and then also embed its own color profile on any image you export, by default.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Phil Photo said:
The same is probably true for the other popular commercial raw importer programs

In contrast: PlayMemories Home does not do any conversion of bits if you use it to grab RAWs from the camera.
Click to expand...
The truth is that I have no idea what capabilities have programs that OP uses.

If you have better interpretation, then good for all of us, we´ll all be educated and enlightened.
 
slstr said:
Home not doing any "conversion of bits" can only be true if it is relying on camera pre-processing of raw-data. Like using the previously processed low resolution jpeg embedded in the raw file to show you. Otherwise PlayMemories Home has to demosaic the raw data and render the picture according to some profile ..
Click to expand...


Um... nooooo... i dnot think so. thats not how the sony toolchain works.

Camera doesnt do squat for raw images. thats why a whole bunch of features are simply disabled if you are shooting in RAW-only mode. It says "Hey I dont do any of that processing for raw files, dont waste my time".





Normal raw processing chain goes

camera (RAW) ->playmemories home -> Imaging.Edge. Edit



Its the IE Edit that does "processing" for raw files. things like lens correction, color correction, etc, etc.

The only time camera does real processing of photo data is when it generates JPGs.

thats why the call it "RAW". "no processing".



honest question: have you even looked at the "Edit" toolbox?

This is an abbreviated selection of it:



(not shown: the whitebalance adjuster)
(not shown: the whitebalance adjuster)



ANd it ONLY lets you tweak this stuff for sony RAW images. It will let you *view* a .jpg file.. but it wont touch that stuff on jpgs, because it presumes the camera has already applied it.. IF and ONLY if, you got jpg data out of the camera.
 
dotborg said:
Phil Photo said:
dotborg said:
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing.
Click to expand...
eh okay thats fair. I think the sony importer does that
Barugon said:
Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
Click to expand...
no accounting for taste, i guess. haha :)
way, waaay too cold for my likes. I'd rather have a less sharp foreground with more overall appeal, than the other way around. But I acknowlege that other folks out there prefer the opposite.
Click to expand...
Just set the color balance to cloudy or shade.
Click to expand...


theres more to it than that. I already tried that.

closest is "shade". here's the result from IE-Edit





720f8d045a164a428826f27f9f257c96.jpg
 
Phil Photo said:
dotborg said:
Phil Photo said:
dotborg said:
Just demosaicing the image (which is necessary in order to view) is heavy processing.
Click to expand...
eh okay thats fair. I think the sony importer does that
Phil Photo said:
Also, the last image looks the best, although a bit cool.
Click to expand...
no accounting for taste, i guess. haha :)
way, waaay too cold for my likes. I'd rather have a less sharp foreground with more overall appeal, than the other way around. But I acknowlege that other folks out there prefer the opposite.
Click to expand...
Just set the color balance to cloudy or shade.
Click to expand...
theres more to it than that. I already tried that.

closest is "shade". here's the result from IE-Edit

720f8d045a164a428826f27f9f257c96.jpg
Click to expand...
Much better. A little too much green in his skin tone though.
 
Phil Photo said:
slstr said:
Home not doing any "conversion of bits" can only be true if it is relying on camera pre-processing of raw-data. Like using the previously processed low resolution jpeg embedded in the raw file to show you. Otherwise PlayMemories Home has to demosaic the raw data and render the picture according to some profile ..
Click to expand...
Um... nooooo... i dnot think so. thats not how the sony toolchain works.

Camera doesnt do squat for raw images.
Click to expand...
Sony cameras actually do pre-processing of sensor data before it is written to raw files.

Some examples are:

vignetting correction baked into RAW

compressed raw is not lossless
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2...the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw

Spatial processing baked into raw, two different examples below.
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-raw-spatial-processing/
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7ii-a7rii-high-iso-spatial-filtering/
Phil Photo said:
thats why a whole bunch of features are simply disabled if you are shooting in RAW-only mode. It says "Hey I dont do any of that processing for raw files, dont waste my time".
Click to expand...
Sony raw file contains an embedded jpg that the camera creates also when you set to "RAW-only mode"
Phil Photo said:
Normal raw processing chain goes

camera (RAW) ->playmemories home -> Imaging.Edge. Edit
Click to expand...
That might be your normal processing chain, for many others it isn't.

In your original post you have a picture with the caption "literal straight-out-of-sensor data render" .. there is no such thing as a "literal straight-out-of-sensor data render" that you can view on a screen resembling a "photo" without going through demosaic process and applying some type of "default profile".
Phil Photo said:
Its the IE Edit that does "processing" for raw files. things like lens correction, color correction, etc, etc.

The only time camera does real processing of photo data is when it generates JPGs.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably not true.
Phil Photo said:
thats why the call it "RAW". "no processing".
Click to expand...
It would be great if we could have the option to get unprocessed raw data. Currently Sony decides what pre-processing is baked into the raw file. Some users would love to be able to turn off the spatial filtering etc, just like we now have the choice to turn off the lossy compression.
Phil Photo said:
honest question: have you even looked at the "Edit" toolbox?
Click to expand...
Not relevant for this discussion.
Phil Photo said:
This is an abbreviated selection of it:

(not shown: the whitebalance adjuster)
(not shown: the whitebalance adjuster)

ANd it ONLY lets you tweak this stuff for sony RAW images. It will let you *view* a .jpg file.. but it wont touch that stuff on jpgs, because it presumes the camera has already applied it.. IF and ONLY if, you got jpg data out of the camera.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
slstr said:
are:

vignetting correction baked into RAW
Click to expand...
If thats true.. then why do we still see vignette effects in the RAW files?
I think the camera includes lens information on HOW to counter vignetting. But its up to the viewer program whether or not to apply it.

slstr said:
compressed raw is not lossless
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2...the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw
Click to expand...
thats not exactly image processing. thats just "stupid compression".

although I'll concede that it does affect the "straight out of the sensor" data path, unfortunately.

still less effect than what you see from most raw processing programs, though.
slstr said:
Sony raw file contains an embedded jpg that the camera creates also when you set to "RAW-only mode"
Click to expand...
since you wont ever be editing that thumbnail, thats quite irrelevant.
slstr said:
slstr said:
Normal raw processing chain goes

camera (RAW) ->playmemories home -> Imaging.Edge. Edit
Click to expand...
That might be your normal processing chain, for many others it isn't.
Click to expand...
i said for the sony tools, specifically.
 
Last edited:
Phil Photo said:
crashpc said:
Not sure what you mean, or if you are aware of what you see.

All these images are "heavily processed" by the program you view your image with, and the library for your camera. All is same raw, but different representation.
Click to expand...
that is not universally true. Not even close.

On the viewing side:

To take the trivial example microsoft paint does zero "processing" on any image you load into it. You made a blanket statement. Even a single counterexample is enough to prove such things false, so I have proven your statement false.

To take a less simplistic example:

Many pro photo editors pay attention to embedded ICC color profiles, and adjust their display accordingly.

There are other non-pro editing programs that do not.

On top of that... some images.. dont HAVE embedded color profiles.

On the raw import side:

Capture one has its own per-camera profiles that it uses and applies to the pixels read in, if you use it to import directly from camera, or if you load in a RAW, it will apply those profiles to what it displays, and then also embed its own color profile on any image you export, by default.

The same is probably true for the other popular commercial raw importer programs

In contrast: PlayMemories Home does not do any conversion of bits if you use it to grab RAWs from the camera.
Click to expand...
That 'unprocessed' photo is just the embedded jpg preview. It is processed according to the jpg settings in your camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top