[MrEarle]

This may have been answered before, however because vast discussion on RAW vs JPEG, finding specific answers is a needle in a haystack.
I would like to know, specifically, if the user image settings for white balance, color, tint, saturation, sharpness & filter are saved when using a RAW file format or only applied to JPEG?
Not looking for guesses here, but a knowledgeable answer.
The reason for my question is, the quality of my jpegs is quite grainy, even at low ISO, and disappointing. On a PC monitor, look crappy when enlarged.
Not sure why.
I want to experiment with RAW, but also do not want to spend hours in post processing.

[photoptimist]

The settings do not affect the image data in the RAW file but they do affect the RAW file thumbnail and may effect how your software displays a RAW file.

The important thing to remember is that you never actual get to see the RAW file itself, only some processed version of it that converts the RAW data into a usable image for display.

[Mikesul]

Put a raw file in PDCU. It should be able to read the settings from the jpg embedded in the raw.

[pschlute]

, the quality of my jpegs is quite grainy, even at low ISO, and disappointing. On a PC monitor, look crappy when enlarged.

Best bet is to post some images on here with exif intact and then we can make some suggestions.

When you say look crappy when enlarged on a monitor, the native file size of a K3 image at maximum resolution is 6000x4000 pixels. Even with a very large PC monitor you are not looking at an enlarged image, in fact the contrary.

[MrEarle]

Let me rephrase, are the settings saved in the RAW file for conversion to JPEG using Digital Camera Utility?

Examples;
Photos Posted By MrEarle - Pentax User Photo Gallery
(edited)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/58-troubleshooting-beginner-...3-ii-boom4.jpg (unedited)

[pschlute]

Let me rephrase, are the settings saved in the RAW file for conversion to JPEG using Digital Camera Utility?

Can't improve on what photoptomist said above. The raw file contains ALL the data the sensor is capable of recording. nothing is "saved" or baked-in. The image preview, and what you may see on opening the raw file in your computer will be an interpretation of the raw data based on either your camera settings or the software you are using. but it is up to you to process that raw file and create a jpeg from it using your selections.

Your pictures both look fine to me, very nice actually. You used f22 in the first one which may lead to diffraction however. I cannot see any noise in the pictures.

[MrEarle]

Thank you , but I find the explanation all rather confusing - I just want to know if the adjustments I'm making in the camera are 'baked in' to the raw file or only if using JPEG output in the camera.

And what is refraction? F22 was for maximum DOF and long exposure. It just seems really grainy when zooming in, not sure it would print large at good quality.

[pschlute]

I just want to know if the adjustments I'm making in the camera are 'baked in' to the raw file or only if using JPEG output in the camera

camera settings only affect jpegs from the camera. if you use raw, nothing is baked in.

And what is refraction? F22 was for maximum DOF and long exposure.

Diffraction...a good explanation is here Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

It just seems really grainy when zooming in, not sure it would print large at good quality.

the picture of the pier and ship is posted on this website at 1400 x 900 pixels (it may be that this website has reduced the resolution). if you view it at anything other than 100% it will look pixelated and grainy. What is the resolution of your monitor you are zooming-in on it at? What was the resolution of the picture on your computer? Can you link to a full sized version.

[BigMackCam]

Thank you , but I find the explanation all rather confusing - I just want to know if the adjustments I'm making in the camera are 'baked in' to the raw file or only if using JPEG output in the camera.

Nothing is baked into your raw files except for the results of your chosen exposure. That said, your camera settings are stored alongside the image data in that raw file, and Pentax's Digital Camera Utility software reads those settings and applies them as adjustments such that when you open the raw file in that specific software, it looks relatively close to what you'd see from the out-of-camera JPEG (which does indeed have your settings baked in).

If you were to open the raw files in different raw development tools such as Lightroom or Darktable, they would not read the camera settings. It only works with DCU.

Does that make sense?

[stevebrot]

Not looking for guesses here, but a knowledgeable answer.

OK...here you go:

• White balance is carried over in the RAW file, but only as a "hint" to the RAW processor. Lightroom, for example, will use the white balance setting, but only as a basis for its own interpretation. Not all RAW processors use this "hint".
• Color, tint, saturation, sharpness, and filters are not carried over in the RAW
• Custom image settings are carried over in the RAW, but are not rendered by tools other than the Pentax-provided DCU software
• Embedded preview JPEGs included in the RAW file will reflect all of the above. Many tools* preferentially show the embedded JPEG previews for thumbnail and image browser functionality.

The intended take-away is that when shooting RAW, one should not expect the rear LCD presentation (display of embedded JPEG) to be an indication of "starting point" for image processing. Initial RAW development will reflect the quirks and configuration of one's tool (e.g. Lightroom or whatever). Be prepared to add special sauce in from your keyboard and pretty much ignore in-camera tweaks beyond, maybe, white balance.


Steve

* Most so-called image codecs for Windows simply extract the embedded JPEG from the DNG or PEF rather than doing an actual RAW conversion.

[MrEarle]

OK, so RAW will not be the solution if I choose to use the camera settings.

I have a 1920 x 1080 monitor, and of course at 100% can only see sections of the full image at 100% - and it's grainy, not pixillated, grainy like a 35mm negative blown up over 16x20. (the fireworks shot has some really weird stripes or banding in the starburst trails...but autofocus may have been at play?)

The diffraction comment makes f22 sound bad, so without reading the book, wonder what you mean?

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 03:45 PM ----------

Dear Mike & Steve - now I am REALLY confused. :/
I guess the issue is I am not satisfied with the image quality I am seeing on a PC and not confident I can get quality prints.....yet.
I'll just have to do some A/B comps and use the DCU and see what gets to the printer...

[pschlute]

The diffraction comment makes f22 sound bad, so without reading the book, wonder what you mean?

Dont use aperture smaller than f16 in good light, and not smaller than f11 in difficult light such as your pictures.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 11:52 PM ----------

it's grainy, not pixillated, grainy like a 35mm negative blown up over 16x20. (the fireworks shot has some really weird stripes or banding in the starburst trails...but autofocus may have been at play?

Without being able to see the full size picture i would say diffraction is your problem.

[BigMackCam]

Dear Mike & Steve - now I am REALLY confused. :/
I guess the issue is I am not satisfied with the image quality I am seeing on a PC and not confident I can get quality prints.....yet.
I'll just have to do some A/B comps and use the DCU and see what gets to the printer...

OK, let's start by seeing a full-size (i.e. not resized) crop of part of your image that shows what you're unhappy with. We can work from there and figure out why you don't like it, and what might be causing that.

Also... can I ask, are you completely familiar with the difference between raw and JPEG files, as in, the difference between the two, how they're produced and what they represent? If you are, that's great - if not, then some explanation will be in order, but I don't want to go through that if you already know it in detail

[stevebrot]

I have a 1920 x 1080 monitor

That is inadequate real estate for photo editing in that it is too small to support both the editor and the photo being worked on.

Edit: I gave this a bit more thought. I have a 24" monitor running at 1920x1200. 1920x1080 is not that much smaller and is spec'd 16:9 format presentation, meaning that it is a common size. I booted my main workstation and compared working in LR both with and without the extra 120 vertical pixels. What resulted was a significant loss of both height and width with the image window set to "fit". My impression is that while 1920x1080 may be adequate, having a little more real estate is of significant benefit./Edit

at 100% can only see sections of the full image at 100% - and it's grainy, not pixillated, grainy like a 35mm negative blown up over 16x20.

Very few monitors are capable of showing an entire K-3II image at full resolution within an image editor. That is not a problem, however, since very little of your editing (almost none) is done at full resolution and most tools allow easy navigation to the areas of interest when at that setting. As for "grainy", you may be seeing noise. Even at base ISO, there is always some.

I'll just have to do some A/B comps and use the DCU and see what gets to the printer...

What is on the screen as best effort in editing and what comes out of the printer may be somewhat different...just a heads-up Most good image editors will provide a reasonable print from within the editor if printed to glossy or semi-gloss photo paper. The most common issue being that prints are often too dark. Printing to specialty papers requires some skill and special technique.


Steve

[MrEarle]

OK, let's start by seeing a full-size (i.e. not resized) crop of part of your image that shows what you're unhappy with. We can work from there and figure out why you don't like it, and what might be causing that.

Also... can I ask, are you completely familiar with the difference between raw and JPEG files, as in, the difference between the two, how they're produced and what they represent? If you are, that's great - if not, then some explanation will be in order, but I don't want to go through that if you already know it in detail

hmm, I guess whatever I upload here is going to be resized, since I haven't resized them (intentionally)

My understanding of RAW vs JPEG is sufficient for today...but not 100% clear on what I can control using RAW (besides aperture & exposure & focus)