RAW looks great, JPEG has colour issues - advice welcome!

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

Hello helpful people,

I am new into digital photography (was into film 43 years ago!). I need some help understanding Raw/JPEG/processing.

I shoot RAW and FINE with the FujiFilm X-T3. The photos in RAW look great. I pass them through Iridient X-Transformer on my PC and conduct Post in Raw Therapee. But the Jpegs from the camera and also once processed (Raw -> JPEG) through Raw Therapee have these colour issues as you can see below (bottom right orange couch, the "yellow" running up my child's right side of arm, and just below his sideburn). I see this in many photos that I process.

Does anyone have advice as to how I can process this out, or maintain the goodness that I see on my monitor in Raw?

Any help greatly appreciated!

Barry

JPEG Fuji X-T3, low light/tripod, XF 50-140 mm F2.8, taken at f/2.8, 1.0 s, ISO500, 140.0 mm

SoCalWill · Feb 14, 2019

It's two different processes; the sensor shoots a pile of data, then presents you with that pile in a RAW file, then also processes it into a final image presented as a JPG picture. When you open the RAW file, it is interpreted into an image based on whatever the default settings of the program are. So you need to bring the camera JPG settings more in line with the settings on your RAW viewing program.

Colors where you don't want them is usually over-saturation, start by dropping that setting on the camera. Be aware that white balance is baked into the JPG, whereas it's just an invariant number value in the RAW file; that means if the camera's white balance setting is too far off when you take the shot, you may not be able to fully rectify the color issues in the JPG later.

--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

SoCalWill said:
It's two different processes; the sensor shoots a pile of data, then presents you with that pile in a RAW file, then also processes it into a final image presented as a JPG picture. When you open the RAW file, it is interpreted into an image based on whatever the default settings of the program are. So you need to bring the camera JPG settings more in line with the settings on your RAW viewing program.

Colors where you don't want them is usually over-saturation, start by dropping that setting on the camera. Be aware that white balance is baked into the JPG, whereas it's just an invariant number value in the RAW file; that means if the camera's white balance setting is too far off when you take the shot, you may not be able to fully rectify the color issues in the JPG later.

Thanks for taking the time to answer and guide me, SoCalWill!

I am trying to follow along (I am a processing newb).

With regards to over-saturation, I have the histograms below from the Raw. to me it doesn't look over-exposed, but I may not be on point. Please let me know if I am wandering.

To your first point, wouldn't it be better to set the software to the camera's JPEG settings? Either way, I am not sure how to do this.... any direction would be awesome.

Cheers, Barry

SoCalWill · Feb 14, 2019

In-camera JPG processing usually defaults to a little more saturation, contrast, and sharpness over neutral, because everyone expects the camera to take a "good looking" picture; the post-processing photographer will prefer a neutral/"what I saw" picture to build on [which is the point of the RAW format,] which will require altering the default floor-demo settings. You'll need to get familiar with the JPG settings on your camera (which allow you to alter color, sharpness, etc.) and tinker with them to produce something more in line with what you prefer.

Your issue is color where you don't want it, which won't be shown in any meaningful way on a histogram. Begin by dialing down the color/saturation setting on the camera a couple of steps and doing some test shooting.

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

SoCalWill said:
In-camera JPG processing usually defaults to a little more saturation, contrast, and sharpness over neutral, because everyone expects the camera to take a "good looking" picture; the post-processing photographer will prefer a neutral/"what I saw" picture to build on [which is the point of the RAW format,] which will require altering the default floor-demo settings. You'll need to get familiar with the JPG settings on your camera (which allow you to alter color, sharpness, etc.) and tinker with them to produce something more in line with what you prefer.

Your issue is color where you don't want it, which won't be shown in any meaningful way on a histogram. Begin by dialing down the color/saturation setting on the camera a couple of steps and doing some test shooting.

Thanks again! I will try what you suggest.

For the images that I have and where the Raw looks good, is there some control in the processing software that I can try to modify that may make the conversion to JPEG look better e.g. Luminescence, colour, vibrance? I am just trying to learn all these different controls and their effects on the data.

SoCalWill · Feb 14, 2019

Bazzza said:
For the images that I have and where the Raw looks good, is there some control in the processing software that I can try to modify that may make the conversion to JPEG look better e.g. Luminescence, colour, vibrance? I am just trying to learn all these different controls and their effects on the data.

The only reason to shoot RAW is specifically to process the picture yourself, that is, modifying the values/picture to get it to where you want; your processing program will have defaults and/or presets that allow you to "one click" to make an array of changes, but you'll generally find that each picture will need its own unique tailoring to get the most out of it. Post-processing is its own art and science like photography, and it requires as much time and effort to learn as well.

Be aware that the range of changes you can make to a RAW are significantly greater than is possible with a JPG; that means a photo that's so underexposed that it'd be direct-to-trash as a JPG can be completely recovered and saved as a good picture after working with the RAW.

If this sounds like more complication than you're willing to get into now, you should still shoot RAW+JPG now, so that one day in the future when you do decide to get into it you will still have all the RAWs from your photos in the past to work with.

If it sounds like something you want to learn more about, search Youtube for instructional videos regarding the software you are using, you can watch and learn along with pros.

A default JPG image; exposure is correctly set to preserve highlight detail, this is about as good as the camera will get it without using extra processing features and/or making significant changes to the JPG settings.

The same image, my processed RAW; because I can separately process individual areas of the picture and am not limited to what the camera wrote in the compressed JPG, much more data/detail can be recovered and used.

--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

SoCalWill said:
Bazzza said:

For the images that I have and where the Raw looks good, is there some control in the processing software that I can try to modify that may make the conversion to JPEG look better e.g. Luminescence, colour, vibrance? I am just trying to learn all these different controls and their effects on the data.

Click to expand...

The only reason to shoot RAW is specifically to process the picture yourself, that is, modifying the values/picture to get it to where you want; your processing program will have defaults and/or presets that allow you to "one click" to make an array of changes, but you'll generally find that each picture will need its own unique tailoring to get the most out of it. Post-processing is its own art and science like photography, and it requires as much time and effort to learn as well.

Be aware that the range of changes you can make to a RAW are significantly greater than is possible with a JPG; that means a photo that's so underexposed that it'd be direct-to-trash as a JPG can be completely recovered and saved as a good picture after working with the RAW.

If this sounds like more complication than you're willing to get into now, you should still shoot RAW+JPG now, so that one day in the future when you do decide to get into it you will still have all the RAWs from your photos in the past to work with.

If it sounds like something you want to learn more about, search Youtube for instructional videos regarding the software you are using, you can watch and learn along with pros.

A default JPG image; exposure is correctly set to preserve highlight detail, this is about as good as the camera will get it without using extra processing features and/or making significant changes to the JPG settings.

The same image, my processed RAW; because I can separately process individual areas of the picture and am not limited to what the camera wrote in the compressed JPG, much more data/detail can be recovered and used.

That's awesome. Yes, I have been reading a lot and watching videos. I completely understand that post-processing is both an additional skillset and also not trivial and will take a lot of time to learn. I am on the path, albeit at the beginning. I am saving all RAF files from the Fuji. (I am a cell biologist and it reminds me of working with the organisms and the subsequent fluorescent microscopy. Most of us are good at the former and have to spend a lot of time learning the latter. It's fun!

I will keep banging away at the various parameters for the camera, Iridient X Transformer, and Raw Therapee. I am experimenting as we speak. Since the Raw looks great, I am trying to figure how to get better JPEG quality from the Raw. I would prefer to work in post compared to just taking the JPEGs given to me by the camera. It's the scientist in me...

SoCalWill · Feb 14, 2019

The camera settings are just for the JPG file; unless you're using manufacturer software to open the RAW, most third-party software will ignore the extra settings data written to the RAW and just give you its own interpretation. So that means you want to focus on learning your post-processing software, which is definitely the realm of Youtube.

One of the things I like about Adobe Lightroom is the amount of instructional material available for it, since it's the most commonly used pro software. But that's if the $10/mo is right for you.

--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

Mark S Abeln · Feb 14, 2019

Bazzza said:
I shoot RAW and FINE with the FujiFilm X-T3. The photos in RAW look great. I pass them through Iridient X-Transformer on my PC and conduct Post in Raw Therapee.

How are you viewing these RAW files? Do you mean the image as viewed on the back monitor of the camera?

If so, understand that it is nearly impossible to match the colors from that tiny display, as no one but the manufacturer knows the properties of that screen. Some cameras do allow for tweaking that display, by adjusting its brightness and maybe its overall color cast. I would not recommend taking the colors of the camera back monitor too literally if there is any doubt.

Bazzza said:
But the Jpegs from the camera and also once processed (Raw -> JPEG) through Raw Therapee have these colour issues as you can see below (bottom right orange couch, the "yellow" running up my child's right side of arm, and just below his sideburn). I see this in many photos that I process.

Does anyone have advice as to how I can process this out, or maintain the goodness that I see on my monitor in Raw?

Raw files don't have any intrinsic 'look', as they capture visually ambiguous and typically incomplete and unprocessed image data, but they do include one or more JPEGs embedded inside of them which take advantage of whatever camera settings you used when you took the photo. This embedded JPEG is what you see when you view an image on the back camera monitor, and it should exactly match a regular JPEG image taken with the camera. The difference, of course, will be the difference between how the camera monitor and your computer monitor render images. This is one reason why some photographers choose to calibrate their computer monitors, in order to get a more objective viewing and editing environment.

When you use a third-party raw processor, such as RawTherapee, understand that you will not get a color match between the camera JPEG and the raw processor output. There is just too much artistic, scientific, and engineering judgement and opinion that goes into making a raw processor. Also, there will typically be several camera profiles included in the software, which are used for creative effect. Finally, most of the camera settings, including saturation, contrast, and sharpness, are proprietary adjustments in the camera and raw file and are ignored by third party software.

If you want a close match, use the software that was provided by the camera maker: this is typically a free download from the camera maker's website. Even better, learn how to use to the software to get whatever effect you want.

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

Ya, it's $10 USD or like $80 Canadian with the exchange and taxes!!!

Bazzza · Feb 14, 2019

Mark Scott Abeln said:
Bazzza said:

I shoot RAW and FINE with the FujiFilm X-T3. The photos in RAW look great. I pass them through Iridient X-Transformer on my PC and conduct Post in Raw Therapee.

Click to expand...

How are you viewing these RAW files? Do you mean the image as viewed on the back monitor of the camera?

If so, understand that it is nearly impossible to match the colors from that tiny display, as no one but the manufacturer knows the properties of that screen. Some cameras do allow for tweaking that display, by adjusting its brightness and maybe its overall color cast. I would not recommend taking the colors of the camera back monitor too literally if there is any doubt.

Mark S Abeln said:

But the Jpegs from the camera and also once processed (Raw -> JPEG) through Raw Therapee have these colour issues as you can see below (bottom right orange couch, the "yellow" running up my child's right side of arm, and just below his sideburn). I see this in many photos that I process.

Does anyone have advice as to how I can process this out, or maintain the goodness that I see on my monitor in Raw?

Click to expand...

Raw files don't have any intrinsic 'look', as they capture visually ambiguous and typically incomplete and unprocessed image data, but they do include one or more JPEGs embedded inside of them which take advantage of whatever camera settings you used when you took the photo. This embedded JPEG is what you see when you view an image on the back camera monitor, and it should exactly match a regular JPEG image taken with the camera. The difference, of course, will be the difference between how the camera monitor and your computer monitor render images. This is one reason why some photographers choose to calibrate their computer monitors, in order to get a more objective viewing and editing environment.

When you use a third-party raw processor, such as RawTherapee, understand that you will not get a color match between the camera JPEG and the raw processor output. There is just too much artistic, scientific, and engineering judgement and opinion that goes into making a raw processor. Also, there will typically be several camera profiles included in the software, which are used for creative effect. Finally, most of the camera settings, including saturation, contrast, and sharpness, are proprietary adjustments in the camera and raw file and are ignored by third party software.

If you want a close match, use the software that was provided by the camera maker: this is typically a free download from the camera maker's website. Even better, learn how to use to the software to get whatever effect you want.

Hi Mark and thanks for your post. To clarify, I don't use the camera to view JPEG. What I do is the following: I take the Raw (RAF) from the camera (Fuji) and pass it through Iridient X-Transformer since it apparently is best for converting the X-Trans Raws from Fuji into DNGs. These DNGs are then put into Raw Therapee. From here I simply convert to JPEG. It is this JPEG that looks very similar to the camera JPEG (that I capture with the Raw - I shoot Raw/FINE). The issue is that the Raw in Raw Therapee looks great (!), but the two JPEG (camera and post) have this "chromatic abberation" that you can view above. I simply want the JPEG to look like the Raw, but I can't get it to do that.

Is my issue at the point where I pass it through Iridient X-Trans, or at Raw Therapee - I don't know.

Barry

SoCalWill · Feb 14, 2019

Bazzza said:
Ya, it's $10 USD or like $80 Canadian with the exchange and taxes!!!

It's a recurring monthly charge, so it'd be whatever the exchange rate for $10 is, currently ~$13.

Bazzza said:
Is my issue at the point where I pass it through Iridient X-Trans, or at Raw Therapee - I don't know.

Check to make sure the color space is set identically on all your programs.

skyglider · Feb 14, 2019

Bazzza said:
Hello helpful people,

I am new into digital photography (was into film 43 years ago!). I need some help understanding Raw/JPEG/processing.

I shoot RAW and FINE with the FujiFilm X-T3. The photos in RAW look great. I pass them through Iridient X-Transformer on my PC and conduct Post in Raw Therapee. But the Jpegs from the camera and also once processed (Raw -> JPEG) through Raw Therapee have these colour issues as you can see below (bottom right orange couch, the "yellow" running up my child's right side of arm, and just below his sideburn). I see this in many photos that I process.

I don't see any yellow where you described. Looks normal on my sRGB monitor.

Sky

Mark S Abeln · Feb 14, 2019

I don’t see the problem with the yellow streak. Could you provide a *screenshot* of the image on your monitor?

Bazzza · Feb 15, 2019

Mark Scott Abeln said:
I don’t see the problem with the yellow streak. Could you provide a *screenshot* of the image on your monitor?

Okay, helpful people, I figured it out and partially understand thanks to your comments (I am learning!).

In Raw Therapee all looked great for JPEGs and Raw but when I saved the Raw to JPEG and viewed it, not in Raw Therapee, but in Windows 10 Photo Gallery, I saw the yellow tint (that I see above, but you may not due to proper colour management). Turns out that this really helped solve the problem. It was my BenQ profile that I was using. https://optimwise.com/fix-windows-photo-viewer-yellow-tint-background/

Also, although "Photo Gallery" showed the JPEGs with the "chromatic ", other Windows programs e.g. Paint, "Photos" did not. When I took the advice of the link above and changed the profile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 the JPEGS now opened in Photo Gallery with the proper colour. (I put parentheses around Photo and Photo Gallery. Not sure why both come with Windows and what the purpose of each is - or which is better.)

A question: Which photoviewer (if any) do you use to quickly scan JPEGS outside of your processing software e.g. Lightroom, Raw Therapee, etc?

Again, really appreciate your help!

Ignorance is bliss, but tackling a problem and figuring it out is even better!

skyglider · Feb 15, 2019

Bazzza said:
A question: Which photoviewer (if any) do you use to quickly scan JPEGS outside of your processing software e.g. Lightroom, Raw Therapee, etc?

The free Faststone Image Viewer. I use it to view all of my shots.

I also use Faststone to cull my shots using its "tag" method. (tag or don't tag) I don't use other software that use the rating method as I either want to keep or delete images. The rating system is too involved and time consuming for me.

Sky

Bazzza · Feb 15, 2019

skyglider said:
Bazzza said:

A question: Which photoviewer (if any) do you use to quickly scan JPEGS outside of your processing software e.g. Lightroom, Raw Therapee, etc?

Click to expand...

The free Faststone Image Viewer. I use it to view all of my shots.

I also use Faststone to cull my shots using its "tag" method. (tag or don't tag) I don't use other software that use the rating method as I either want to keep or delete images. The rating system is too involved and time consuming for me.

Sky

Thanks Skyglider, I will give it a try. My workflow is developing along the lines of shooting Raw/JPEG, scanning the JPEGs in something like Faststone and moving into Raw Therapee just the Raws for which I liked the JPEGs and I want to massage.

Cheers!

skyglider · Feb 15, 2019

Bazzza said:
skyglider said:

Bazzza said:

A question: Which photoviewer (if any) do you use to quickly scan JPEGS outside of your processing software e.g. Lightroom, Raw Therapee, etc?

Click to expand...

The free Faststone Image Viewer. I use it to view all of my shots.

I also use Faststone to cull my shots using its "tag" method. (tag or don't tag) I don't use other software that use the rating method as I either want to keep or delete images. The rating system is too involved and time consuming for me.

Sky

Click to expand...

Thanks Skyglider, I will give it a try. My workflow is developing along the lines of shooting Raw/JPEG, scanning the JPEGs in something like Faststone and moving into Raw Therapee just the Raws for which I liked the JPEGs and I want to massage.

Cheers!

Welcome. If you try Faststone to cull your images:

In the menu click "Tag" and then select "Allow file tagging".
Open the first image full screen.
Use the right/left arrow keys to move forward/backward through your images.
Press the "Q" or "\" keys to tag images you want to delete. A small red square will appear in the upper right corner for each image. The image is not deleted at this point, only tagged so not to worry.
After you go through all of your images, return to thumbnail view.
Click Tag > Select tagged files only. Blue boxes will appear around all tagged images. (the ones you want to delete)
Right click a tagged image and select delete to delete all of the tagged images.

The first time you try this, maybe make a copy of the folder holding all of the images you will be culling and do the procedure in that copied folder. Then if anything goes wrong, you will still have the original folder of images. .... (Or per good procedure, make a backup of the images on another drive before doing anything.)

If you don't want to "delete" the tagged images, you can right click and do a cut, and then paste them into another folder. Then the original folder will only have the images you want to keep and the second folder will contain all of the tagged images "just in case".

Sky

Bazzza · Feb 15, 2019

skyglider said:
Bazzza said:

skyglider said:

Bazzza said:

A question: Which photoviewer (if any) do you use to quickly scan JPEGS outside of your processing software e.g. Lightroom, Raw Therapee, etc?

Click to expand...

The free Faststone Image Viewer. I use it to view all of my shots.

I also use Faststone to cull my shots using its "tag" method. (tag or don't tag) I don't use other software that use the rating method as I either want to keep or delete images. The rating system is too involved and time consuming for me.

Sky

Click to expand...

Thanks Skyglider, I will give it a try. My workflow is developing along the lines of shooting Raw/JPEG, scanning the JPEGs in something like Faststone and moving into Raw Therapee just the Raws for which I liked the JPEGs and I want to massage.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Welcome. If you try Faststone to cull your images:

In the menu click "Tag" and then select "Allow file tagging".

Open the first image full screen.

Use the right/left arrow keys to move forward/backward through your images.

Press the "Q" or "\" keys to tag images you want to delete. A small red square will appear in the upper right corner for each image. The image is not deleted at this point, only tagged so not to worry.

After you go through all of your images, return to thumbnail view.

Click Tag > Select tagged files only. Blue boxes will appear around all tagged images. (the ones you want to delete)

Right click a tagged image and select delete to delete all of the tagged images.

The first time you try this, maybe make a copy of the folder holding all of the images you will be culling and do the procedure in that copied folder. Then if anything goes wrong, you will still have the original folder of images. .... (Or per good procedure, make a backup of the images on another drive before doing anything.)

If you don't want to "delete" the tagged images, you can right click and do a cut, and then paste them into another folder. Then the original folder will only have the images you want to keep and the second folder will contain all of the tagged images "just in case".

Sky

Thanks, Sky. Much appreciate your time to help out! Have a great weekend.

jthomas39 · Feb 16, 2019

Quick Culling

I like FastRawViewer. https://www.fastrawviewer.com/ free 30 day trial.

It is fast to open and start viewing.

I have these settings:

Keyboard shortcuts:

Del -- move file to _rejected subfolder (and it creates the subfolder if needed.)

Preferences:

Warn when files are moved to rejected: No.

Confirm file move: No.

So I can scan through the raws (or it works for jpgs too) and just hit Delete. The file gets moved to the rejected folder instantly, then I go on to the next one. Ctrl-z (undo) to move the latest one back from rejected if I change my mind. And, of course, they aren't deleted.

This is way faster to get rid of rejected than my old methods.

~~~~~

Evaluating an image:

I use the scroll wheel to zoom the current photo. Or hit Z to zoom to 200%, centered where the mouse pointer is located on the photo, then Z to zoom back out again.

I check the color histogram, and the "percent over/under exposed" chart is useful.

I use these command buttons for the current photo:

OE, UE: Colors the overexposed or underexposed areas

D: show in focus detail edges. somewhat helpful, but not really accurate.

S: boost the shadows to see what detail is hidden in the darkest areas.

H: reduce the highlights to see what detail is hidden in brightest areas.

Right click the thumbnail to pop up a menu. I use:

Show in Windows explorer

Run my selected photo editor with this image loaded (occasional use to decide if I'm keeping a badly exposed image.)

RAW looks great, JPEG has colour issues - advice welcome!

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts