colour saturation and Raw v JPEG issues

[Hair Bear]

I normally shoot RAW and convert through bridge to P shop

Today I took some shots RAW + JPEG and was shocked at how vivid the JPEG image is next to the raw

Is this colour space? or a setting I have missed on the camera?

Or should I be boosting the colour in the conversion or in PS?

Update
Playing with the file I can saturate the image at +15-20 but this seems yet another step in processing.

 

[darich]

the reason the jpeg is more vivid is down to the camera processing the shot in accordance with the parameters selected. These may be user defined or automatic.

RAW images capture what the camera sees and have no processing applied to them. It's normal for RAW images to look flatter than the jpeg for the above reason.
Sure you can increase the colour in the RAW image - it'll give you something similar to the jpeg but it's a manual method. You can manually select how much or how little saturation to apply. The same applies to contrast, brightness sharpness etc. Jpeg reduces these options for you by making the adjustments when saving the image and deleting the info that's not required.

As for colour space - not sure about that. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will give some answers to that one.

 

[Hair Bear]

Makes sense, so I should be adding a saturation boost in PS in line with want I want from the image then

 

[darich]

if that's what you need from your image then yes.
:thumbup:

 

[skieur]

Makes sense, so I should be adding a saturation boost in PS in line with want I want from the image then

The problem is that adding saturation most often adds that irritating picture noise or grain, so it is best to use other approaches to improving colour such as the Channel Mixer, software filters or even changing the colour temperature.

skieur

 

[EOS_JD]

Amend the colour in the RAW converter itself - not within Ps although can further add saturation there.

The RAW imnage should be edited to look its best within the raw converter.

 

[SeriouslyC]

Adding saturation in a RAW converter shouldn't degrade the image. If it starts blocking pixels (making the pixels just solid colours) then the saturation being applied is too strong.

 

[Riggaberto]

Makes sense, so I should be adding a saturation boost in PS in line with want I want from the image then

If that's what you want. The beauty of photography is there isn't a single right answer for anything. There are no rules, there's just convention. I'm currently exploring photoshop too.

 

[THORHAMMER]

the entire raw vs jpg concept is being missed here.

If I had the time I would write about it... someone can provide a synoptis or a link ?

 

[Don Simon]

the entire raw vs jpg concept is being missed here.

Good 'Raw vs Jpeg' is a topic like 'Film vs Digital' or 'Which Brand'... go down that route and you'll get a thread of at least 5 pages, about 5 posts of which constitute an actual debate. Sorry if I sound a bit pessimistic

 

[darich]

the entire raw vs jpg concept is being missed here.

If I had the time I would write about it... someone can provide a synoptis or a link ?

The original post wasn't a raw v jpeg question - more a question about why a jpeg was more vivid than the raw image.

 

[RVsForFun]

That *was* the original question. And the answer was that the poster was looking at a processed image vs. an unprocessed (or incorrectly processed) one. I suspect the OP didn't have his RAW parms set correctly as (even though I'm a 99% JPEG shooter) you should always be able to meet or exceed an in-camera JPEG iimage using a RAW one.

The original post wasn't a raw v jpeg question - more a question about why a jpeg was more vivid than the raw image.

 

[Alex_B]

RAW = invisible.

you really never see RAW images, you always see the conversion from RAW data into something displayable. Even in the RAW-converter preview this is done (using some arbitrary parameters the software engineer thought nice).

play with the conversion settings so you like the outcome.

best really do this in the RAW-JPG conversion process, and do not try to get that contrast or saturation or whatever you want by using an already dull and flat jpg for a start.

if you go from RAW to TIFF, this is less crucial since TIFF has a decent coulour depth (16 bit per RGB-channel), which JPG has not (8 bit per RGB channel).


Flat colours can also be due to colour management gone wrong (wrong profile (e.g. sRGB) assigned to an image with a larger colour space (e.g. AdobeRGB)).

 

[RVsForFun]

Correct in all counts, Alex! You can't even display a 16-bit colorspace on your monitor; it's approximated.

RAW = invisible.

you really never see RAW images, you always see the conversion from RAW data into something displayable. Even in the RAW-converter preview this is done (using some arbitrary parameters the software engineer thought nice).

play with the conversion settings so you like the outcome.

best really do this in the RAW-JPG conversion process, and do not try to get that contrast or saturation or whatever you want by using an already dull and flat jpg for a start.

if you go from RAW to TIFF, this is less crucial since TIFF has a decent coulour depth (16 bit per RGB-channel), which JPG has not (8 bit per RGB channel).


Flat colours can also be due to colour management gone wrong (wrong profile (e.g. sRGB) assigned to an image with a larger colour space (e.g. AdobeRGB)).

 

[EOS_JD]

That *was* the original question. And the answer was that the poster was looking at a processed image vs. an unprocessed (or incorrectly processed) one. I suspect the OP didn't have his RAW parms set correctly as (even though I'm a 99% JPEG shooter) you should always be able to meet or exceed an in-camera JPEG iimage using a RAW one.

The OP asked regards two images direct from his camera. A RAW and a jpg. THe RAW unprocessed file looks flat and a little soft. The parameters in-camera mean nothing to a RAW file. THe RAW will look the same no matter the parameters that are used. You have to edit in the RAW converter to get the file to look good. The jpg image has already been edited with the camera's parameter settings.