Help with huge quality loss?

[JPMagyar]

So I'm playin' with my new macro lense today. I also decided to try taking pictures in RAW. My problem is I have a couple of really great shots, that is assuming I view them with Canon's Digital Photo Professional. The moment I export them to PhotoShop or save them as a .JPEG in my normal pictures album the blues go purplish and I lose clarity.

Is there a simple trick or is this something more complicated I need help with?

Thanks as always!

Joe

 

[WSI2406]

try getting a copy of light room, much better that the software provided. Open the raw file in photoshop and then save to jpeg. Watch your color temp, as this will change your color. You can save and make your own actions in PS and then just run them as the color will always be the same if you are shooting your tank. This will speed things up.

 

[Recty]

When you look at it in CDPP, you arent seeing the RAW file, you're seeing it as if it was converted to a JPG by your camera.

So when you look at it in PS, you're going to see a different result.

An easy thing to do is when you open the RAW file, set the white balance to something appropriate, that will fix your blue > purple issue. Then, depending on your version of CS, go to Filter > Sharpen > Unsharp mask... and you can move the sliders around to sharpen up the image.

Those two things should get it looking pretty much like the jpg out of the camera or how CDPP displays it.

 

[Jacob D]

Digital Photo Pro is in fact rendering the RAW file. That's its purpose - to interpret and display data from Canon's RAW format. For the most part every camera manufacturer uses their own version of the RAW format, and their own raw converter (which is what DPP is).

There are definitely differences between raw converters when opening the same file. Mainly this is due in the way that each is programmed to interpret the raw data. Depending on who you ask one converter may be better than another. Some people will argue that DPP gives the best conversion and that would make sense since Canon knows their own file format better than anyone else. The most recent Adobe converter seems to do a really good job too. The various raw converters don't talk to each other either - so if you make some changes in one, then load the file in another the changes won't be there (this could be the issue you're having, keep reading...)

If you're seeing a noticeable difference when you export photos then I'd ask if you're actually "transferring" (DPP lingo) the file from DPP to the other program or if you're "opening" the RAW files with your Adobe software (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc...). If you're comfortable using DPP as your raw converter, make your adjustments there, then transfer as a 16-bit TIF file. The TIF file should look identical to your RAW after you have made adjustments (TIF actually has more "room" for storing color information than Canon RAW currently does). (this could be the issue you're seeing, keep reading...)

If you're confident that you're doing everything above correctly and you're still ending up with funky colors in your jpeg it could be a color management issue. If your original RAW file is using a color space other than sRGB, say Adobe RGB for example, and you then save it to jpeg with a sRGB color space you're going to see differences - especially in the blues.

Lastly, when you save to jpeg you're now working with an 8-bit file. It has much less "room" for colors than a RAW file or TIF file, so you'll see some differences almost every time. If you want/need to use jpeg then you have to live with it. Otherwise keep the file in a TIF format to preserve the colors.

When you look at it in CDPP, you aren't seeing the RAW file, you're seeing it as if it was converted to a JPG by your camera.

That is wrong. DPP does not show the camera jpeg. It is a raw converter and renders an image from the raw data. Hence why your jpeg settings have no effect on the RAW files outputted by the camera.

 

[Recty]

That is wrong. DPP does not show the camera jpeg. It is a raw converter and renders an image from the raw data. Hence why your jpeg settings have no effect on the RAW files outputted by the camera.

Nah, I wasnt wrong. You're reading my statement wrong, sure. You'll notice I didnt say "it shows the camera jpeg" like you seem to indicate, instead I said it shows it "as if" it was converted to a jpeg.

Judging from his level of understanding of the process, a short, simple and to the point answer helps him understand things a lot better than a page long "technical" response. He asked for a simple trick and I gave that

 

[Jacob D]

Nah, I wasnt wrong. You're reading my statement wrong, sure. You'll notice I didnt say "it shows the camera jpeg" like you seem to indicate, instead I said it shows it "as if" it was converted to a jpeg.

Judging from his level of understanding of the process, a short, simple and to the point answer helps him understand things a lot better than a page long "technical" response. He asked for a simple trick and I gave that

I don't believe in dumbing things down and especially not posting false and misleading info in my responses.


The OP asked if it was a simple trick or something more complicated. It probably is something "more complicated". Your original response is fairly incomplete (especially assuming as you seem to that his/her understanding of the process is limited) and seems to suggest that they're experiencing a white balance (and sharpening??) issue. If their photo looks they way they want in DPP, and then suddenly different in PS or other software I gave several plausible reasons as to why that could be.

 

[Recty]

Nevermind, it isnt worth it.

For what it's worth, you're pretty rude.

 

[Jacob D]

Nevermind, it isnt worth it.

For what it's worth, you're pretty rude.

Your statement I quoted from the first post would only serve to confuse the issue. It seems that your concern is more about justifying your response rather than being correct... If you want to stick to your guns on that, then fine. But consider that I put some effort into my response and it wasn't a 'read between the lines' or 'I said this but you need to interpret it' sort of thing. Now I'm the rude person for trying to post some technically correct information, despite the fact that you berated my contribution?

I never personally attacked you; even after you arrogantly stated that your post was more useful. But I can take it, I have a thick skin. See my signature.

 

[Recty]

Sorry to get your thread hijacked, JPMagyar, that was certainly not my intent. Forum etiquette isnt what it used to be.

I do think you'll have great success with going into Photoshop, setting your white balance to get rid of the blue tone and then adding some sharpening. That would be my approach to it, I had the exact problem you do when I first started into photography a few years ago and was able to fix it through the steps I mentioned.

I hope you found at least some of this thread helpful, please ignore the bickering, I know I am. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask

 

[JPMagyar]

Thanks.

Thanks.

Thanks for the help!

In the end it all became moot when I upgraded from my 7 year old version of PS to a new PSE 9.0. I don't know why, but my old PS program just couldn't get the colors right. Even now that I have great control using PSE, I still can't get good colors on the old PS program.

Anyways, I'm lovin' my new Canon 100/f2.8 macro. I'm really getting some killer shots that I hope to share on RC soon. Still working on refining my PSE skills interms of color balance to overcome the "blue" of my Radiums, but I'm gettin' there slowly.


Thanks again,


Joe

 

[Jacob D]

Joe - Gorgeous tank you have there! I see TOTM in your future!

Glad you are having better success with your new software. The color difference is probably due to the raw converter or color profile handling of the old vs. new. It also makes every difference in the world whether or not you open a file in Photoshop vs. transfer a file from DPP to Photoshop (I don't know if the latter is avail with PSE).