RAW files look duller?

[rendition]

Oh, however, if you're shooting to Canon and use the DPP programme for RAW processing, you'll see that the preview image has Picture Style settings applied.

 

[Snapperholic]

Thanks TS for the "lending" the thread.

i have a photo which i pp.....

Will try to change the colour space as advised by the gurus here and let u guys know asap.

Thank you for those whom helped.

 

[Snapperholic]

Oh by the way, do you guys work with 8 bit/ 16bit / 32 bit processing?

Asking because while changing the colour space, noticed that this is one of the tweaks available to me. Any generic bit?

 

[bigbird17]

YES

 

[Snapperholic]

hey bro, what you mean yes?

 

[bigbird17]

hey bro, what you mean yes?

haha means yes it will appear slightly more dull. adobeRGB has more tones while sRGB has lesser so it wil look duller plus RAW files are nt processed by the camera so, it will be flat!! and yes its every photo like tat. thats why i shoot jpeg. img shooting wedding in RAW. i know some pros do

 

[Snapperholic]

hahaha anyway i got the color issue settled~
Plus some modifications:

Thank you everyone~ i am uber happy~ finally~

 

[Evilmerlin]

Edit: Nevermind!

 

[canturn]

if you use Nikon Capture NX or the software provided by Canon to convert the RAW files then you will not have these problems, your RAW will look exactly the same as your jpeg, since their softwares are doing the same as the camera does.

However if you use a third party software such as Aperture, CS3 or Lightroom then you will find that the software renders the RAW different from the jpeg. The reason for this is that the programmers do not have access to Nikon/Canon raw conversion methods.
LR2 with the beta version of has some profiles that come much closer to Nikon/Canon conversion....

The custom camera profiles that are still in Beta phase are a big improvement over the native ACR 4.6 profile. If you're using canon cameras, the native ACR 4.6 profile will tend give you reds that is off, and blues that is over saturated.

However, nothing beats calibrating your camera to a color patch chart like the Gretagmacbeth if you want the colors rendition to be as accurate as possible. Right now, I just have to make sure I WB properly b4 I shoot (expodisc or even the color chart in the light that I shoot), I basically don't need to do much after that with colors, maybe just tweak the hues for skin tones slightly.

Yes, color chart is going to cost, but now that Adobe has developed the DNG profile software, which effectively cut the tedious process of manually adjusting the saturation/ hue slides (or script that takes about 30-40 minutes to run in Photoshop), profiling your camera is worth it.

As suggested already, create a custom preset for your general "look" - contrast, brightness, black point, clarity, vibrance, saturation (if you profile the camera properly, you should get funky greenish/orangy cast when you push saturation). And all I have to do is select all files in LR2 and apply the preset.

 

[theRBK]

then you use CMYK for color and laser printer.

actually, desktop printers or even office laser printers are RGB devices... that is, they accept RGB colours rather than CMYK colours... yes, they use CMYK inks (plus whatever other inks) to print, but the imput colour is more likely than not RGB...

Oh by the way, do you guys work with 8 bit/ 16bit / 32 bit processing?

Asking because while changing the colour space, noticed that this is one of the tweaks available to me. Any generic bit?

if you are not adjusting the colours alot in an image, 8bit should do... for more serious adjustments, convert your RAW images to 16bit images to work on them, but note that 16bit files will be bigger than 8bit ones... don't bother with 32bit unless working with an HDR image... but when you finally save a jpg for web, it would be as 8bit...

haha means yes it will appear slightly more dull. adobeRGB has more tones while sRGB has lesser so it wil look duller

actually, the problem for Snapperholic, as Michael hinted, was probably that the file was not saved as sRGB (possibly as Adobe RGB) but displayed in a non-colour-aware program... the image was vibrant in Photoshop and Lightroom, both colour-aware, but in Flickr, I assume using a non-colour aware browser, the browser assumes it is sRGB and thus reads it as an sRGB image, resulting in a duller looking image... which was why some have asserted that sRGB is the "default" and web images should be saved as sRGB images...

However, nothing beats calibrating your camera to a color patch chart like the Gretagmacbeth if you want the colors rendition to be as accurate as possible.

gotta go dig out my GMB mini chart...