This content has been marked as final. Show 90 replies
Are you speaking of the color tones associated with the thumbnails only, or do these same color tones remain after opening them into ACR development and Photoshop?
I could be you only need to change your ACR default settings for your 10D, but it could also be a color management issue. Let us know how you're managing your color, particularly what OS you use.
It does it as thumbnails and as the large image when opening. I use Win XP. I think it has to do with the fact I shot Raw and or the color profile, because It hasn't ever done this w/ Jpeg shooting... It is wierd cause If I put the images on my laptop w/ just CS not CS2, it has the correct skin tones..
I would first compare the differences between the ACR (CS) default settings with those for your CS2 installation. That is, the color change you see right after importing is, first the JPG thumbnail within the raw files, and then the color conversion according to the ACR defaults.
I'm dealing with the same problem Katrina.
I just downloaded an engagement shoot from last night to test again. Before accessing the directory of untouched/new images in Bridge I repeated the steps everyone has listed on all similar posts.
Sure enough, once accessing the directory my images first come up unscathed and then bridge/acr starts shifting the color tonality. I can see it happen right before my eyes, I'm sure of it. I can watch it happen over and over by simply purging both caches. Here is a photo where you can clearly see the color shift.
From left to right, the first two images are the ones that ACR/Bridge has applied unwanted color shifts. The far right image (_P107) is how it actually looks off my CF card when viewing in-camera. That's the color/version of the image I'm trying to preserve. Clearly it's possible if I'm seeing the correct version in bridge (3rd image from the left/far left). Notice the skin tone and hair color shift.
What you are seeing in the first pass of thumbnails are the embedded EXIF jpg thumbnails that are determined by the camera...what you are seeing on the 2nd pass of the final HQ thumbnails are determined by Camera Raw based upon your defaults for your camera.
If you don't like the Camera Raw defaults for your camera you can chenge them in Camera Raw by adjusting the settings and then selecting "Save New Camera Raw Defaults" from the flyout menu.
Whether or not you can exactly match the camera jpgs will be determined by how well you know how to opperate the Camera Raw controls before setting them as the new Camera Raw default.
This is not only happening in raw, this is happening in jpegs too now, i thought it was just raw but I did a test w/ it on large jpeg and it turned red too,this did not happen the day prior.. Everything was in line.. Something is wrong here.
You might want to UN-check ALL options connected with auto adjustments in ACR 4.1's Prefs../Default Image Settings section
if you don't know how to make an appropriate new Default setting for your camera.
Jeff...no offense but you are honestly one of countless forum members to reply with a response such as yours. Again, no offense intended but I am completely aware of all the things you mentioned; as stated in my post in this thread I've done all the obvious changes to correct this problem. My goal is to keep the EXIF version of the shot preserved without bridge/ACR changing my files.
I'm more wondering now if this is a color management issue/conflict. Which shouldn't be the case because I'm certain my workflow from camera to display to software is perfectly calibrated and correctly set up.
How can I get ACR/Bridge to leave my preserved EXIF versions (untouched in-camera) shots alone!?
Jeff...after reading back over my last post it still seems as though I'm being too blunt. Just wanted to let you know that I meant it in the most sincere way that I do appreciate your help still, it's just hard to translate tone by way of forums :).
<a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jpW9wS6eTwnp0BpgGB6YdY56OlJk90" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1jpW9wS6eTwnp0BpgGB6YdY56OlJk90_thumb.jpg" border="0" />
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you right click on an image in bridge and select "clear settings" under the develop settings, it should bring my file back to EXIF settings (as shot in camera) while having nothing applied to it since leaving the camera/CF card.
This does not solve my issue, the color shift is still there. This makes me think it's a color management conflict.
Hi Ramon...I can definitely say that I'm 100% certain that my auto-apply is unchecked as shown in your image insert. Not sure if Katrina has done that though. This was the first thing I tried when all this started happening.
I thought I stated also I DID FOR SURE UNCHECK THAT BOX, It is not something that I have ignored since everyone has said to do that one thing... I appreciate all the help, i just hope something works eventually :( This is a wierd thing..
Even with everything cheched/unchecked correctly, when working with raw files you will see a quick thumbnail of the jpg embedded in the raw file and then a new thumbnail created from the raw file.
I don't have a camera with me today to try this, but I thought of a test that might show if this is what is happening. Does your camera have a choice of "picture styles" such as Black & White? If so, set your camera to that picture style, but also set it to record a raw file only (not raw plus jpg). When you take a photo with this setting does it appear in b/w on the camera's LCD? If so, copy the raw file to your computer and look at it in Bridge. Does it first show in black & white and then switch to color?
If so, you are first seeing the camera-rendered JPG embedded in the raw file and then Bridge is switching to it's own (or ACR-rendered) jpg. They can be quite different in appearance.
just to clarify one point:
>I am shooting in raw and at adobe rgb 1998
When you shoot RAW, the color space (color profile) is irrelevant. The RAW image will be exactly the same as far as ACR is concerned no matter what color profile you choose in your camera.
>so is this because of the change of profile
My camera does not do black and white type settings, I have a canon 10D. This is not a problem that is only in the jpg embedded, the actual pictue taken, should come out relatively similar to what you see in your lcd screen..I've been taking pictures with this camrea for many years and using photoshop CS1 as well and never had this problem, so for it to all of a sudden happen makes me believe that either I have a error in cs2, a bad copy...or a virus, i dont know..but i am switching back to cs1 cause it works fine there.. Weston you should try that and see what happens! Lightroom is doing it too, and I think thats because they made it similar to cs2 as far as picking up the color settings, I wish I would have never switched to cs2 now... I dont know what to do.. I am going to shoot some test pictures and see what I find.
" My goal is to keep the EXIF version of the shot preserved without bridge/ACR changing my files. "
The _ONLY_ way to do that is in Bridge, make sure that neither HQ nor HQ when previewed is checked and then process your raws _ONLY_ in your camera maker's software.
Just understand, the raw EXIF jpg is based upon the camera's rendering, not Camera Raw...since Camera Raw does NOT use the camera vendor's SDK, there is no way to get the camera vendor's look without adjustments in Camera Raw.
Your goal is only possible if you either 1) use only the camera maker's software or 2) change the Camera Raw defaults to match the jpgs...
You can wish for it to be different, but there's nothing that can be done for now. Learn how to match the camera jpgs if that's important to you or just get used to using the Camera Raw controls for making the image look the way you want or use the camera vendor's software....that's it.
>My goal is to keep the EXIF version of the shot preserved without bridge/ACR changing my files.
As Jeff points out, that is an impossibility.
The RAW image would not be viewable at all without the demosaicing and conversion by ACR.
You seem to be under the misconception that ACR should perform the same conversion that the software inside your camera does in order to perform the in-camera conversion to generate the the accompanying JPEG.
ACR is not designed to emulate the in-camera conversion nor the conversion provided by the camera manufacturer's software.
This has been covered ad nauseam here. Please do a forum search.
Camera manufacturers, Canon and Nikon in particular, perform in-camera RAW to JPEG conversions designed to generate the over-saturated, over-contrasty and over-sharpened images that appeal to most amateurs.
Their stand-alone RAW conversion software also performs the same conversion to your RAW images.
Noise is also hidden by compressing the shadows so you don't see much of the noise inherent in the image.
Adobe Camera Raw, ACR, on the other hand, comes with default settings designed to give you the most detail possible (even if this sometimes means revealing some of the noise hidden by the camera manufacturers in their RAW conversion software), as well as the most natural images.
That being said, you can calibrate your camera to ACR and come up with your own settings to produce exactly what you want, including the JPEG-look of the camera manufacturer, and save that as your profile.
The key is to learn how to use ACR properly and to calibrate your camera to ACR.
CLICK HERE for some essential reading.
The ACR defaults are nothing more than a suggested starting point.
The color temperature won't necessarily match either.
Jeff, Ramon...Thank you so much for the info on everything. Ramon, you mentioned that my camera is applying saturating, etc to my files. I'm aware of that if shooting in JPG mode but as far as I knew when shooting in RAW this wasn't the case. Am I right or did I read you wrong there? I definitely need clarification there because I'm shooting in RAW only, not JPG, nor RAW+JPG.
So if I were to do a camera profile with ACR, would this solve my issue or would my EXIF settings still be totally altered initially? Excuse my lack of knowledge in this area, please be patient. I'm not trying to emulate any in-camera JPG enhancements at all. I want to shoot in RAW and have that translate over to my RAW software (ACR) as shot, or as close as I can get.
Thanks for the links, I'll give it a shot.
Thinking about it more, why wouldn't Adobe make ACR able to interpret EXIF data correctly from supported cameras?
For example, why should I have to use Canon's RAW software to retain my image's color tones? Why wouldn't ACR be programmed to be compatible with each manufacturer?
Does anyone have any experience with Phase One Capture One Pro RAW software? I'm wondering if my color shift would be as horrible with this software because Canon's RAW software is pretty limited honestly as far as interface speed/workflow in comparison to ACR.
> "Why wouldn't ACR be programmed to be compatible with each manufacturer?"
Where would they get the information needed to do this? Canon (etc) don't (and won't) publish it.
Ramon...I own Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera RAW for CS2 and I'm reading page 44 on what you're referencing to.
However I don't agree with Bruce where he states that "you can get just about any look you want" despite what ACR does to alter your EXIF version of your in-camera shot.
I disagree because when your foundation is s#*$ you're spending tons of additional time just trying to get it to look normal. Or in other words, spending a bunch of time to make it look like the EXIF version (which is clearly reverse logic to have to do that in the first place).
Let's say I did do it Bruce's way and I took a single image and got it as close as I could to my EXIF version (which I've never been able to do reasonably because of the extreme color shift). So I accomplished it with a single image; then what about all my other shots? Are you saying that if I use those defaults it's going to apply to all my portrait shoots, lighting setups, weddings that are all completely different locations/lighting, etc.?
Barry...Forgive me but doesn't Adobe work with Canon and all the other manufacturers already to obtain support for every new camera they release? They have some relationship established so I don't see why it's such a stretch.
I know all these points I'm bringing up seem like I'm dreaming but am I crazy that it completely makes sense? I can't wait for the day when digital has been around long enough for all these ridiculous quirks in design and compatibility to be resolved. A photographer should be able to remain a photographer first while the software guys handle tech stuff based on our input. I think it's important to understand what's going on behind it all but I certainly shouldn't have to become a digital tech geek just to find out that the technology ultimately sucks and I'm having to once again sacrifice because of incompatibility.
"Barry...Forgive me but doesn't Adobe work with Canon and all the other manufacturers already to obtain support for every new camera they release?"
Surely you jest? Neither Nikon nor Canon give ANYTHING to Adobe. The camera makers use undocumented and proprietary files formats which Adobe has to decode for each and every camera that Camera Raw supports. Without documentation about WHAT the EXIF metadata means, there's simply nothing Adobe can do other than what they currently do which is try to decode the white balance data. And that's it...everything else is Adobe's interpretation of the raw file not Nikon nor Canon.
And if you think that situation sucks, you are right. But there's nothing Aboe can do about it as long as Nikon and Canon try to keep their file formats proprietary and they remain undocmented. That's why Adobe "default" will never match the camera jpgs...
Jeff...when you say "Adobe default will never match the camera jpgs" are you saying that the EXIF version that I'm trying to retain is actually a JPG and not a RAW file? As in, although I'm shooting in RAW that it's actually using a semi-processed JPG version of my RAW file?
Yes...the embedded jpg, called an EXIF jpg, is created in the camera...it is a thumbnail preview only-based on the camera maker's view of what the raw data should look like with their interpretation...the raw data is separate and is open to interpretation. Camera Raw applies ITS default-which will NOT match the camera default unless you change the Camera Raw default.
The embedded EXIF jpg is only a thumbnail preview of what the raw image would look like if the camera company software processes it...as such, it's meaningless for Camera Raw...
Weston, did you try my experiment of setting your camera to work in Black and White?
John, that is a good example (very drastic) regarding the validity of the embedded EXIF jpg vs what the real raw file can produce...nothing about the embedded jpg is "locked", nor does it relate to the internal raw data except for relating to the metadata settings of the camera at the time the image is shot. Your setting for the B&W embedded jpg was B&W yet the raw file is in color. Now, if Canon documented how to process the raw?B&W settings and what settings to use to match it, I suppose Camera Raw could actually match it. Canon doesn't so Adobe can't. Although with over 130 camera's raw file supported, I seriously doubt that Adobe would want to go down the road of supporting each and every camera's onboard settings...
Which basically goes to show that the embedded EXIF jpg is simply a thumbnail preview that really signifies nothing-other than how the camera software might process it. It's meaningless to Camera Raw...
BTW John, is that out your window at Adobe Seattle? Had any sea planes going overhead lately?
It is not quite the same as San Jose, but yes, dozens of planes fly overhead each day.
Hi Jeff...I didn't realize your level of expertise until I just saw your name in my Real World Camera RAW CS2 book! That makes you pretty damn cool in my book (no pun). ;)
Thank you by the way for all of this information, I'm very grateful. More than you know.
So Jeff...speaking hypothetically, what if I set my 5D to shoot RAW+JPEG for my next shoot vs how I simply was shooting in RAW mode. Would the JPEGs created then be identical to the EXIF JPEGs that it's creating for my current 5D settings of simply shooting in RAW mode? Does that make sense?
And if so, this way when I access those files in bridge, specifically the JPEGs, they will not be altered by ACR correct? (given that all auto ACR JPEG associations are turned off)
As strange as these questions may seem, I'm asking this because if my EXIF JPEGs are looking that good (in my opinion as a foundation), that I'm willing to go back to shooting JPEG for certain portrait shoots.
"what if I set my 5D to shoot RAW+JPEG for my next shoot vs how I simply was shooting in RAW mode. Would the JPEGs created then be identical to the EXIF JPEGs that it's creating for my current 5D settings of simply shooting in RAW mode?"
"that I'm willing to go back to shooting JPEG for certain portrait shoots."
That's your choice...but I would spend a little time making presets that match your jpgs and not give up on the power and flexibility of raw....I think you may regret that later.
And yes, Bruce was a good friend. I'll be updating Real World Camera Raw for Photoshop CS3 due out this Sept.
Hi Jeff...Agreed, I will go the route of making presets that match the JPEGs. I've been trying today and it's been really really tough though. There's just so many combinations with all the different color sliders in ACR 4.1 now that it's proving harder than I thought.
All this is very confusing for me, I appreciate all the help, Weston thanks for ellaborating to make the question even more in depth, that helps too! I have been shooting raw+jpeg and the image still changes..I've done test shots and nothing is staying the same except in strictly jpeg, not raw.. THis is wierd I have never had this problem when I use to shoot raw when using just CS1. So now I wonder why that is, is CS2 just more advaced to the fact it has this new changing tonal effect that CS1 doesnt'? Also, you say to setup your settings so they'll match the outcome you want. Is there some book out there teaching the proper ways to do that cause I'm not that good w/ photoshop. Is your book on CS1/CS2 helpful in this situation? What is the Name of the book if so, I just want to be able to shoot in raw but also like the outcome initially without having to do alot of post editing, minus the norm.
If you are talking about color, that's one thing. By default the Camera Raw color and the jpg color will be different unless you go through the steps to have Camera Raw render like the jpg. If you are talking about tone, that's different. In CS3 by default Camera Raw has the Auto-Tone set to on. This will always adjust the tone to be within the range Camera Raw thinks is a good starting point. You may not agree. You can simply uncheck the auto option and save a new Camera Raw default to eliminate the auto settings.
As for the book, the current one, Real World Camera Raw for Photoshop CS2 by Bruce Fraser is still available. The new updated one for Photoshop CS3 (which I'll co-author) will be out in Sept.
What I'm talking about is when I open it, its like tan skin tones, yellow rocks behind couple..then as it loads it turns reddish all over the picture.. The auto tone feature is turned off already, so is this something I have to figure out how to make the camera raw "render it correctly" like It comes up at the beginning of import,... How do I do this? Just experiment w/ the raw editor and then save it and apply to all images? I tried this and never got close enough to the first glance at the image? I just keep thinking in the back of my head if I just reinstall this then it will be fixed or maybe I have a virus, it just seems to wierd that it would change so drastically,...The other guy posting on here, his examples aren't as bad as mine..I mean you take a perfectly tan blonde girl up against a yellow rock and she looks great, you see that when the folder comes up, then as its loading the rest of the thumbnails in the bridge software..it turns red, you double click on it and the natural skin tones are like now a magenta tone... Is this the same thing what you are all saying?? If so what should I do? I know this is repetitive and I really appreicate your kindness, I am thankful for this forum!
Hi Jeff...I just ordered a GretagMacbeth 24-Patch ColorChecker and plan on doing the calibration instruction on page 95 of Real World Camera RAW for CS2. I'll also be using this colorchecker in all portrait shoots whenever changing sets/lighting, etc. I tried using the WhiBal card in the past and I was less than impressed by it's inconsistent results. It was just too difficult to eyeball with a single shade of gray.
Katrina...so are you sure you reset your ACR defaults? It sounds like your temperature slider or something is still set too high or possiblly your saturation slider.
>I'm aware of that if shooting in JPG mode but as far as I knew when shooting in RAW this wasn't the case. Am I right or did I read you wrong there?
I see Jeff and John have straightened you out on this.
What you see during the first few seconds in Bridge is the JPEG preview that is embedded in every single RAW image you shoot. That's also what you see when you review the images in the camera's LCD.