[derekkite]

I copied files using Windows file explorer, so no importing through software.



This should be illegal



Tick.



How to do that? Any tips, or programs that can do that? By the way, this is complete nonsense. If I shoot RAW I want to see my RAW file, not some fake processing fakely applied by the camera to fool me. Absurd. First the camera tricks me by displaying the "JPEG`d" file on its screen, then the software is reading DNG as JPEG... Man, the world is not a simple place to live...



Tick. I double-checked myself: those files are RAW files, with .DNG at the of the file name.

I think you misunderstanding what raw means. It is simply a list of numbers representing the count of light photons in each sensor well. On the sensor there are color filters, see Bayer pattern, meaning that the numbers represent the photon count of the colors.

To show you anything at all, processing has to be done. Lots of terms show up here, demosaicing, some sharpening. What colors? The white balance setting essentially gives a starting point from which each pixel color is calculated.

The raw file contains lots of information including the camera white balance, sometimes color adjustment curves, and a jpeg of the image produced by the camera. For quick viewing usually the jpeg is shown; doing all the calculations to render an image takes lots of processing power and is slow.

Depending on the software, when you open in raw it does limited processing, usually a default setting. Some sharpening, maybe a color curve applied. From there it is up to you.

This is a complicated subject, to do anything except basic cropping and minor editing, some understanding of what the sliders and switches are doing at the image level is really helpful.

There are lots of resources explaining how it all works. Here is one link.
http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htmhtm

Look up white balance as well. You will see references to color temperatures, describing the different colors you would get from cooler and hotter light sources, and how you can adjust it within your processing software. This is the reason to use raw, it is trivial to correct it in raw, quite challenging with a developed jpeg.

Also look up tone curves or color curves. Each manufacturer has a curve that they like and apply to the jpeg output. The raw developer will either have their own, allow you to choose one (that is what the camera does in bright mode). Or you can build one from scratch.

From there you can correct exposure, make colors brighter or more subdued, etc.

The raw file with nothing except demosaicing will look dull and uninteresting.

---

Last edited by derekkite; 09-07-2015 at 05:40 PM.

[Steve.Ledger]

Well, even if they are dimensionally the same, they aren't highest quality, right? (Compressed more with lossy compression.) I've seen comparisons between "highest quality" out of the camera jpegs vs the extracted embedded RAWs -- they embedded ones aren't necessarily bad, but they are not full quality...

They are at whatever JPG quality you set in the camera.
Try it yourself.
Set the camera to RAW only.
Shoot two identical shots changing the JPG IQ from one star to three stars. The DNG size will be larger when shot with JPG setting at 3 stars.

I have no problems shooting RAW and using the embedded JPG for many purposes. Often it's so good that it's plenty good enough. But I still shoot RAW in case I want to mess with it in Lightroom as my SD cards are large enough and I have plenty of HDDs.

Bottom line: fast stone, although very useful, only edits jpegs. Good luck!

Untrue. it also edits RAW. (As I mentioned above, open the DNG in FS and it will first display the JPG, to load the RAW press 'A')

Adobe Camera Raw can. But the only reason you'd do this is to leverage the better noise reduction algorithms and moire removal brush compared to what's in photoshop, for instance.

That really does my head in. ACR is loading the JPG, as does LR. All the tools of LR are available in the Develop module, but you only have JPEG compression bitmap data to work with, not RAW.

[BrianR]

They are at whatever JPG quality you set in the camera.
Try it yourself.
Set the camera to RAW only.
Shoot two identical shots changing the JPG IQ from one star to three stars. The DNG size will be larger when shot with JPG setting at 3 stars.

This isn't what happens with my k5iis. Set to one star or four stars the jpeg previews extracted from DNG (using Instant Jpeg from Raw) show the same compression* and size in MB. The preview also shows more compression* and a smaller file size than a 1-star jpeg developed in camera from either of these DNGs (previews just over 1MB, developed 1-star jpeg is 1.8MB).

On what camera have you observed this behavior?



* I'm judging the compression from the quantization tables in JPEGsnoop.

[Nick Siebers]

Untrue. it also edits RAW. (As I mentioned above, open the DNG in FS and it will first display the JPG, to load the RAW press 'A'.

Learn something new everyday! Maybe they added that when I wasn't paying attention. Thanks!

[IchabodCrane]

This isn't what happens with my k5iis. Set to one star or four stars the jpeg previews extracted from DNG (using Instant Jpeg from Raw) show the same compression* and size in MB. The preview also shows more compression* and a smaller file size than a 1-star jpeg developed in camera from either of these DNGs (previews just over 1MB, developed 1-star jpeg is 1.8MB).

On what camera have you observed this behavior?



* I'm judging the compression from the quantization tables in JPEGsnoop.

This is exactly what I've found on my K-3. JPEG setting has no influence on size of the embedded JPEG in the DNG/RAW file. I'll admit I haven't tested with PEF files, though.

[Kay350]

As I mentioned above, open the DNG in FS and it will first display the JPG, to load the RAW press 'A'

Are you sure? All it says in the program about pressing "A" is 100% enlargement. Quote from the manual: "Press A or / key to display the image in actual size".

I get what you`re all trying to say- that the image I see in camera or on computer is just a preview, a baseline to work with. And that`s fine, I understand that and that`s how I always perceived RAW files. Bur what troubles me is why do those files even can be changed through color schemes inside camrea while shooting. For me it is troubling and misleading. If I were to shoot i JPEG- fine, I can see the final product straight away. Anyways, this is just a theoretical problem.

Another thing I cannot wrap my head around is this: How far can I push my images with different colour settings. Here`s a beautiful graph to illustrate:


I know that in theory I still develop a given RAW image which shouldn`t be changed by the camera. But I develop my photos based on what I can see. I don`t believe any of you do this process in ASCII or anything text-based. So I change what I see and I see different images. So the question is: will the image with "natural" setting be any different to the one with "bright" setting when pushed to let`s say +100 in colour? Well, yes, to me it will be. My eyes can see the difference. So despite those 2 files being essentially the same RAW file, they were shot with different settings and they can give different results in PP. So how can I trul;y develop a RAW file if I can see only it`s mutated, ill-deformed JPEG child?



My head hurts

[Steve.Ledger]

Yes I'm sure.

Here's an example.
First to load is the embedded JPG which is displayed as process by the camera, including the aspect ratio I set for JPG and @72dpi.

Pressing 'A' loads the unprocessed RAW (and yes, full size, which means the sensor aspect ratio, no cropping) showing the processed colours and at 300dpi.

Attached Images

   

[Kay350]

Thanks- this helped a lot. Now I can confirm that Faststone opens initially this JPEG file (any chance to set it so it will open original right away without pressing A and then Shift+W to fit it to screen?) and DxO opens first this JPEG and then comes back to the original. Which is a little bit painful, because there is no easy way to return to this "preview look".

BTW, any idea where I can find a preset for DxO 10 which matches bleach baypass of K-3?

[Na Horuk]

Lightroom also loads the jpeg for a second or two, but then it automatically shows its interpretation of the raw. And when you push sliders of saturation, sharpness, and so on, you can see the changes in real time. I like Lightroom because it has its own cataloging system, its fairly fast, simple enough, but also powerful in many aspects.
Just to add to the confusion, most raw software will edit the raw files non-destructively. This means they don't actually edit the raw data itself, only add instructions on how to interpret it. But some software is not like that and will actually change the data in the file. FastStone, Lightroom/Camera Raw, Aftershot pro and other popular ones are non-destructive. Just letting you know.
The main thing with PP is that.. there is no correct way of doing it. You can just follow one of many principles:
1) Try to make the photo as similar to what you remember seeing
2) Try to make the photo evoke similar emotions to what you felt when you were taking the photo (not always the same as what you saw)
3) Try to make a photo that is neutral and non-agressive, which doesn't use any visuals to draw in the audience (kind of pointless)
4) Try to make the photo as beautiful as possible, regardless of what you have seen or felt yourself. This can include one of several styles, cropping, and so on. Usually the line between "photo" and "digital painting" is between doing only global changes (with sliders that affect the whole image) and actually painting things on, removing certain parts, pasting things from other images,..

Now, if you want to use the in-camera things, like film reversal and bleach bypass, then you might get the best results just shooting jpeg. And you can add the other things, like lens profiles, as well. You can even customize the jpeg mode, raise or lower the NR.. Or you can use the Software that came with the camera. Its a Pentax version of Silky Pix (Silky Pix apparently comes in many different versions with different camera brands), which includes the in-camera developing styles. I do not use DxO, so I don't know where to find presets for it, but there are usually websites and blogs that have many, many presets - none that are exactly what you want, but some that come close, and many that are quite decent, even if different.
Thing is, the raw is what the camera actually "saw", but its bland and boring, too grey, not sharp enough, has too much noise. And its just data, its not yet an image. So the camera turns it into jpeg, it develops the raw into an image. As it does this, it makes it more pretty and stuff. You can decide that you will shoot raw and do this yourself. But it has to be done eventually.

[BrianR]

Thanks- this helped a lot. Now I can confirm that Faststone opens initially this JPEG file (any chance to set it so it will open original right away without pressing A and then Shift+W to fit it to screen?)...?

Yes, go to Settings > RAW > "View Raw Files In" > Actual Size (Slow)

It will then generate a full sized image using the raw file when you click on the image, for me it opens and fits the screen. You can also generate half-sized files from the raws, where the pixel dimensions on each size are half of the original.

On the same settings page, there is also the option to "Use camera white balance, if possible".

---------- Post added 09-08-15 at 08:16 AM ----------

This is exactly what I've found on my K-3. JPEG setting has no influence on size of the embedded JPEG in the DNG/RAW file. I'll admit I haven't tested with PEF files, though.

Good thought about the PEF's... I just tried it and the JPEG star rating has no influence on the embedded preview here either (k5iis).