Camera Raw adjustments

[Lucky23]

Hi guys,

After having a read of the raw processing tutorial that Rick had posted, i thought i'd give it a go. The main problem i had was that i was't too sure where to start making the adjustments. Is there a step by step process to making adjustment ie: an order to adjusting the sliders, or does it not matter too much?

As this was my first time doing any post processsing i made the mistake of not noting the changes each slider made to my image and was unable to back track to figure out what i had actually done. :rolleyes: Silly me. I also accidentally saved my pp image over my original raw file so i couldn't start fresh... which i've been kicking myself for.

Original jpeg from the camera:
http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv323/Lucky2386/Photography/IMG_00442.jpg

Attempted pp:
http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv323/Lucky2386/Photography/IMG_0044.jpg

Was hoping someone would be able to explain a couple things for me:
- which slider adjustments made sections of the trunk and leaves gain a purpley tinge?
- is the noisey grass area due to cropping or something i had done with the processing?

I've seen some amazing pp work on here and have no idea how to go about it myself unfortunately :scrtch: Any help would be greatly appreciated! :th3:

Thanks guys,

[Analog6]

I you want to see the original settings and how much you changed it go back to Adobe Bridge and go File / Open with Camera Raw (Command R Mac or Ctrl R PC) and the altered settings will be there. Up at the top of the sliders menu you'll see the little drop down arrow (below)

77600

Press that and you get this drop down menu, go to the setting as shown below and it goes back to bog standard.

77601

[Mark L]

G'day Lucky.
Your first photo says "Original jpeg from the camera:". So your not making raw adjustments. Your changing jpeg.
If you capture your photo in raw (not jpeg) you'll always be able to go back to the original raw file and "re-change" things. Does that make sense?

[Lucky23]

Odille - Thanks for the concise instructions! Phew, I'm glad there's a way to get the camera raw default setting back.

Mark - When i took the photo i had my camera set at Raw + jpeg. So i made the adjustments with the raw file then saved over the original by accident. The jpeg that i posted up was the jpeg copy that the camera saved too.

I'll definitely have another go at making adjustment from the default raw image.

Thanks again

[ricktas]

The purple tinging is caused generally by a white balance that is incorrect. Saturating a photo (as you final version is - more colour saturated) will bring out these colours more. There are several ways to get WB correct. If you are serious about improving your post processing, I would suggest having a look out for Scott Kelby's book on the version of PS you are using. It is called "Adobe Photoshop (vers #) for digital photographers", and if you work through that book you will be quite a competent editor by the time you get about half way through it.

AP can be good for specific things, but nothing beats a good book for learning PS, its a huge program and it would be almost impossible to cover it all here on the forums, as concisely and well as Scott Kelby does.

[Lucky23]

Thanks Rick! I've been looking at a couple different books to help me with PS, but wasn't sure which one to get. I'll definitely have a look at the Scott Kelby one. PS is a pretty expensive program so i'd like to get the most out of it.

Thanks again guys for the help. Much appreciated.

[Analog6]

Thanks Rick! I've been looking at a couple different books to help me with PS, but wasn't sure which one to get. I'll definitely have a look at the Scott Kelby one. PS is a pretty expensive program so i'd like to get the most out of it.

Thanks again guys for the help. Much appreciated.

It is a very steep learning curve, don't beat yourself up over it. And they keep adding new stuff to keep us on our toes.

[arthurking83]

..... I also accidentally saved my pp image over my original raw file so i couldn't start fresh... which i've been kicking myself for.

.....

Yep! you can. When you edit a raw file, in the vast majority of instances, you don't actually save any edits over the original file.
(I'm not 100% sure on how Adobe works) But from what I have worked with, Adobe software will write the edits on the raw file into a separate file, and automatically link this new file to the raw file for it's own purposes.
If you find this small Adobe generated file(should be an xml file type) and delete it, your Adobe software will no longer see the raw file as it once did, and everything is reset back to square one!
This is the extreme and tedious way to do it, and there should be a reset, undo or revert function, where you de-apply any or all edit steps to the raw file.

Another thing to note about how this Adobe software does it's work, and that is that using any other raw file viewing software(of which there are many), the raw file edits you make with Adobe software will not be recognised by these other software. That is, because the raw file edits are held in a separate file(that no other software can read), the raw file itself is still untouched.
Manufacturer software(whether Nikon Canon Pentax.. etc) all seem to write the edits to the raw file into a dedicated data area within the raw file itself.
Many (stupidly) believe that this is dangerous to the raw file itself, in that it's affecting the original raw file, where the reality is that there is no harm done to the raw file, and the original capture is still as is.
The ONLY difference between the Adobe method, and the manufacturers method is that with the manufacturers method you don't have to worry about keeping track of all those xml files. The xml file data is within the raw file itself(with the manufacturer based edit system).
I prefer the manufacturer system, for both the simplicity of the system(in file tracking) and that many other (well written)software can read the edits made with the manufacturer software and hence display the raw file as edited.(but also with the option not too, if you prefer).

Once you understand this all, then you know where you stand. Unless you have manually altered the raw file itself .... ie. not the edits via ACR, I mean manually made any other changes to the raw file, the raw file is as captured by the camera.
Open the raw file via your manufacturer's software and see for yourself: ie. you have a Canon, so use DPP to view the raw file.
For testing purposes, download FSViewer and also open the raw file, and see that it is as captured in camera with the application of whatever in camera edits you've set!!
Note that last part can be vital with some software.

FSViewer has settings to view the raw file as the raw file data itself(not recommended, unless you have a seriously fast PC and lots of RAM, if you have many images in a single folder!), and also the ability to view the raw file via the embeded jpg file(within the raw file itself, not the one generated by the camera).
I always tell people that setting the camera to raw + jpg is a waste. The raw file already has a perfectly good jpg file(in fact two!) that is the same as the one written to card by the camera. So the end result is that, for 99.9% of situations, using raw + jpg in a non urgent environment, is a waste(of card space at least).
If you want a jpg file to play with, you have a few simple options to extract the embedded jpg file from the raw file. (if you want more info just ask).
So what happens, if you use some software like FSViewer is that when you set the software to use the embedded jpg file to view the raw file, because your ACR edits are separated, it views only the fiel as captured in camera. The raw file contains a set of 'instructions' to display the file, and FSViewer is true to those instruction bits.
(at least with Nikon, that I've tried) if you make an edit to the raw file, the edits are written to the raw file, and hence the instructions are written to the area that affects the raw file display.
That is, FSViewer reads the edits made by the manufacturers software, because they're written to the correct area in the raw file.

What I find annoying about the Adobe way of doing things, is that they assume that everyone is using Adobe software.
I don't use Apple products so I have info as to this operating system, but if you want to quickly view your raw files on the PC using the native file viewer, Windows will not see the raw file, as edited in this example.
The problem arises if you want to view the raw files on someone else's PC, or send them to another person to view. They'll need to have Adobe software to vie the raw files as you've edited them.
Not that this is important, because raw files are not generally used for exchange or review purposes anyhow, but this is still a limitation to be aware of.

So: stop kicking yourself, you've done nothing wrong. All my raw files have been, and will always be, edited via my manufacturer based software, and I only really keep a copy of the raw file as the final version. No need for tiffs or tracking of millions of xml files, and more importantly I'm not locked into a single software system. I only create a jpg version for sharing/uploading, and it's dispensable. That is, if I delete it or lose it, there is no loss, as the edited raw file is kept safe(and backed up to multiple destinations).

Hope this helps too.

[Lucky23]

Yeah i had my camera set to raw + jpeg, but soon realised that it was of no great use to me. So how can you extract the jpg image from the raw file? Could be handy to know.

Thanks,

[Analog6]

Yeah i had my camera set to raw + jpeg, but soon realised that it was of no great use to me. So how can you extract the jpg image from the raw file? Could be handy to know.

Thanks,

When you bring it up in your viewing program, Lightroom, Adobe Bridge, etc, you should see 2 images of each frame, one will be RAW and tother JPG. I can't show you because I ditched all my jpgs to save space on my drives.

[arthurking83]

two easy ways., but I bet there are many more.

A program called ExifTool (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) but I recommend to get the graphical addon for it too .. ExifToolGUI.htm (http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm).

You don't install these programs, you simply place them into a folder of your own making and run them from where they are.. easy as!

The other way(easiest way) is to use IJFR (http://mtapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/) which is Instant JPEG From Raw. A small context menu addon that when you right click a raw file, creates a IJFR option in the right click menu. You preset the destination for the jpg.

Note that when you use this option to extract the jpg from your raw file, the jpg will have the in camera settings applied to it, so if the image is flat with a neutral contrast, that's the way it's rendered.. and so on.

Note that the speed of this process is close to immediate, as there is no conversion or rendering process. It simply makes a copy of the embedded jpg file. It's only available if you have a PC of some kind to work with too, so if you are on a location, and a PC is not an option and jpg images are required .. pronto!.. by the powers that be, this option is not very helpful.

FWIW, I have both the software options I listed up there, and they're basically the same. I've never noticed any difference in the quality of the jpg file extracted, and if my memory serves me well, the time taken to extract a series of say a few hundred jpgs was measured in seconds.. something like a minute or so maybe less .. not minutes or hours.
Just did a quick test with IJFR, and it did 82 jpgs in 4 seconds, at full size(you can right click a folder full of raws and extract them into jpgs either within that folder itself, or into a subfolder(which is my option) and you can also change the file size).

This is the reason why I can't understand why people shoot in raw + jpg. Raw I can understand. JPG?? .. well I guess if there is the need, then all well and good, but raw + jpg? :confused013 ... when it takes a few seconds to create a series of jpgs from the raw files themselves the jpg file is really redundant, except in a few specialised situations.

I reckon, unless you want a fully feature exif tool reading outfit, use IJFR. ExifTool, as the name implies, is great for reading and modifying exif data in the files themselves. I have it for times of need, but hardly use it.

[arthurking83]

It's interesting that Odille mentions Lightroom. I couldn't find any setting in there to have this program use the embedded jpg of the raw file as the thumbnail, or the baseline for editing.

That it uses a jpg file for thumbnail viewing is of little interest, as the jpg file it uses is an Adobe created file, not the one within the raw file itself!
That is, during the slow cataloguing process it does in the background, it creates a series of jpg thumbnails for it's own internal needs and requirements.

As far as I could figure out, itr doesn't use the embedded jpg file that is already within the raw file.

Actually I want to quantify this even more, because there are actually two jog files(or maybe even more) as there is also a smaller version for the purpose of display on the rear review screen(I think?) Thsi may be the file you see when you quickly scroll through images on the review screen. As you zoom into the image deeper for more detail, it obviously then switches to the full res image to render the fine detail you are looking for.
I'm not 100% sure of the inner workings other than for the fact that there are actually two jpg files in the raw file. The reaosn that I haven't mentioned this before is that the only one that gets extracted in the extraction processes I mentioned is that they don't get extracted! Only the full res version does.
IJFR completely disregards the fact that there are two jpgs and only works with the hi res file. ExifTool sees both, but knows that you really only want the hi res version. It still sees the other file and I think uses it for thumbnail display purposes(ie. for speed).

What Analog describes above is relevant only for Adobe software purposes. the extracted(or in reality converted) jpg file will not be 100% true to the camera settings, as the extracted file in the other two software will be.

[Longshots]

Yep! you can. When you edit a raw file, in the vast majority of instances, you don't actually save any edits over the original file.
(I'm not 100% sure on how Adobe works) But from what I have worked with, Adobe software will write the edits on the raw file into a separate file, and automatically link this new file to the raw file for it's own purposes.
If you find this small Adobe generated file(should be an xml file type) and delete it, your Adobe software will no longer see the raw file as it once did, and everything is reset back to square one!
This is the extreme and tedious way to do it, and there should be a reset, undo or revert function, where you de-apply any or all edit steps to the raw file.

All excellent advice - A simpler option if you're editing your RAW file and want to return the RAW to what the original setting was in camera capture is to select the "Camera Raw Defaults" - that option is on the right hand side - in the drop down menu - to the right of the word "basic".


That "adjustment file" is correctly called an XMP file - its whats also referred to as a sidecar file

A

[Longshots]

The other way(easiest way) is to use IJFR (http://mtapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/) which is Instant JPEG From Raw. A small context menu addon that when you right click a raw file, creates a IJFR option in the right click menu. You preset the destination for the jpg.

Thanks - thats quite sensational :)