The K3 III in the comparison tool

flektogon wrote:

Hello KPM2 and the other RAW shooters,

I'll share what I've learned about RAW processing so far.

Before I begin, I don't use Adobe ACR, Lightroom, or Photoshop -- and I don't find DPR Studio comparison data useful for the kind of "street" and "snapshot" images I enjoy taking.  But I do shoot RAW.

Now I really don't understand why you guys shoot RAW! If you are not in a control of how your photo editor generates the JPEG file for your viewing, then how you can apply your preferable (RAW) processing parameters?

I am in control of how my RAW processors deliver a JPEG.  Lessiter is totally correct, RAW is just data which needs to be conveyed to an image editor in a "prescribed" format, i.e JPG or TIFF, whatever. But there's plenty of latitude in how they do this.

Different RAW processors do this different ways.  I use four.  None of them write anything to the original RAW file.

RawTherapee and ACDSee use their own standard interpretation as default.  Both programs allow you to make changes and save them for you to use instead of default.

Nikon NX Studio and Pentax DCU V.5 allow you to see what [jpeg] camera control settings you have used and will output those settings as is, or allow you to change them and then output according to your changes, so you have control.  Your choice.

Whenever you open such processed file (.RAW or .JPG) with another photo editor, you end up with a different result .

OK.  RAW processors are different.  This isn't so unusual.  A roll of Tri-X film developed in Microdol will look different that one developed in D-76 or Acufine.  The advantage of good RAW processors is they allow you to change many of the variables to suit your own preferences.

...  With a careful setting of the JPEG parameters I can achieve the same great results out of camera, which don't require any PP. And they will be exactly the same regardless who and which photo viewer is using .

Two things I've come to notice:

1. Nearly all of my images look OK coming out of whichever RAW software I use, but nearly all of them are improved with pixel level adjustments.  I want my images to look the way I want them -- I'm not that concerned about how the standard JPGs are presented.  i.e. perhaps a little more red saturation on that one stop sign.  But only the stop sign, not the red roses.  Lighten the shadows in a couple of dark areas, but only a couple.  Not all of them.  You get the idea.  This is much better done with a RAW file, they have much more tolerance than a JPG in my experience.

2. And none of my images look the same on all monitors,  because monitors are all over the place.  Our little group share images and they are viewed on cell phones, iPads, Laptops and a couple BenQ monsters -- and yes, they are often similar, and sometimes very different, but almost never do they look exactly the same.

All of this makes photography interesting and challenging for me, both picture taking, and picture editing parts.