How to get Pentax colours in ACR

mand · 02-22-2012, 03:03 AM

Hi

Started to shoot in raw only and convert to jpeg using ACR and aso tried Raw Therapee.
Neither give the vibrant colours that are present in the raw image (viewed on windows 7 with fastpictureviewer raw plug in), and the in camera jpeg conversion looks better than both.
I understand the Pentax softaware would probably be the best to use, but I didn't find it easy to use and it was slow to use.

So, anybody found settings for ACR that would keep the Pentax 'colours and feel' ?

Thanks

Mand

adpo · 02-22-2012, 06:08 AM

what's your workflow? If your white balance is correctly set, exposure is correct, shadows and highlights accounted for, contrast slightly boosted, and saturation boosted a tad as well, you should get a similar look to what from the in-camera jpeg. The point of shooting raw is that you get control as to how much of these and many other elements goes into the final image.

mand · 02-22-2012, 03:29 PM

I was not doing anything to the images. Just open in software, convert to jpeg then save
All the jpegs look duller/less vibrant than the original raw unless the jpeg came from the camera.
I wonder why the acr default setting for Pentax K5 don't do the same as the camera setting do, then I would not have to make adjustments to get 'Pentax' look.
Does that make sense?

Mand

Na Horuk · 02-22-2012, 04:07 PM

I think most of these third party companies don't have Pentax camera profiles and that is why their software doesn't simulate the Pentax raw interpreting (as the camera does it when turning it into jpeg in-camera). That means you will have to 'fix it' yourself. The good thing about raw files is that they don't get damaged and you can change them in many ways. You just have to weigh the pro's and con's as to what you want. Some people also shoot in raw+jpeg mode. I guess it all depends on how much hard drive space you have and how much time you want to spend developing photos

Anvh · 02-22-2012, 07:22 PM

For colours.
Go to the camera profile menu and for the colour profile chose embeded instead of the Adobe profile.

DevKom · 02-23-2012, 01:23 PM - **1 Like**

It's really quite simple. If you like the results that the in camera processing creates, simply stay with the JPGs as they are. The point of shooting RAW is precisely that you decide every detail of what an image should look like, while maintaining access to the original unprocessed file for future interpretations. Yes unprocessed files look 'dull'. It's like looking at a film negative - it's like having the ingredients for a recipe. YOU decide how it 'print' or 'cook' it.

westmill · 02-23-2012, 01:50 PM

Its like DevKom says, the Idea of shooting RAW is to allow you to make your own pic.
If you shoot JPG the camera gives you a number of variable options for colour sharpness auto noise control etc etc etc
This would provide you with far superior images than just shooting untouched RAW.
If you take your time and learn how to process RAW files, it can be very rewarding indeed though.

mand · 02-23-2012, 03:05 PM

Thanks for your input guys.
I've spent a few hours on the web getting to grips with raw files and how different converters show images using different algorithims etc.
I now have a better understanding .I will try out a few different programs and then set up a default setting on the chosen program to get jpegs the way I like them, and the start further manipulations as needed on individual files.

Mand

westmill · 02-23-2012, 03:14 PM

They genraly all do the same job Mand. Some are easier to understand and work more seamlessly than others.
I find my CS4 works well but gives small JPG files when saved, so I convert to TIFF images and then convert the tiff to JPG in Capture NX 2.
CS4 produces files of around 5mb while Capture NX2 is giving me JPGS of around 14mb.
Learning how to batch process saves an awful lot of work and time.

Anvh · 02-24-2012, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by westmill

They genraly all do the same job Mand. Some are easier to understand and work more seamlessly than others.
I find my CS4 works well but gives small JPG files when saved, so I convert to TIFF images and then convert the tiff to JPG in Capture NX 2.
CS4 produces files of around 5mb while Capture NX2 is giving me JPGS of around 14mb.
Learning how to batch process saves an awful lot of work and time.

you know you can change the compression right?

westmill · 02-25-2012, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

you know you can change the compression right?

Well Ive set all the parimeters I can find to High but it doesnt seem to make any differance.

Anvh · 02-25-2012, 11:11 PM

Why do you need that kind of jpg?

westmill · 02-26-2012, 12:40 PM

That kind of jpg ? Do you meen that size jpg ?

robgo2 · 02-26-2012, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by mand

I was not doing anything to the images. Just open in software, convert to jpeg then save
All the jpegs look duller/less vibrant than the original raw unless the jpeg came from the camera.
I wonder why the acr default setting for Pentax K5 don't do the same as the camera setting do, then I would not have to make adjustments to get 'Pentax' look.
Does that make sense?

Mand

With all due respect, perhaps you do not understand the concept of raw capture. When shooting in raw, the camera simply delivers the unadulterated image data to your raw converter. When shooting in jpeg, the camera's on-board computer makes adjustments to brightness, contrast, color saturation etc in a pre-programmed attempt to deliver a pleasing picture requiring little, if any, further adjustment. It is true that most commercially available raw convertors apply some default adjustments, but still, it is generally expected that the user will want to fine tune the image to his/her own taste. The advantage to shooting raw is that all of the original image data is preserved throughout the raw editing process. In contrast, the in-camera jpeg is produced at the expense of discarding much of that data.

In summary, you should not expect out of the camera raw images to look quite as good as jpegs, but the potential for optimizing them is much greater, because of the wider latitude for digital adjustments. It also helps if your raw convertor has a decent color profile for the camera you are using.

Rob

mand · 02-26-2012, 03:22 PM

I now realise that the K5 shows a jpeg on its screen after a photo is taken even if set to shoot in raw, or at least I think it does.
Also windows 7 live photo gallery with the fastpicture viewer codec for raw image also seems to show the embedded jpeg. I thought it was showing me the actual raw image.
I had the K5 set to portrait with added saturation and set to shoot raw, so initially I was very surprised how different the 'jpeg from raw via acr' looked compared to the in camera jpeg and what I thought was the raw image viewed on live photo gallery - now I know why.

The learning curve continues.

Mand

02-22-2012, 03:03 AM	#1
mand New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: North East England Posts: 20	How to get Pentax colours in ACR Hi Started to shoot in raw only and convert to jpeg using ACR and aso tried Raw Therapee. Neither give the vibrant colours that are present in the raw image (viewed on windows 7 with fastpictureviewer raw plug in), and the in camera jpeg conversion looks better than both. I understand the Pentax softaware would probably be the best to use, but I didn't find it easy to use and it was slow to use. So, anybody found settings for ACR that would keep the Pentax 'colours and feel' ? Thanks Mand

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why no Pentax lenses in ACR lens profiles when processing .JPG files?	rrodgers	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	06-08-2011 04:53 AM
ACR 6.x and Pentax RAW	jimr-pdx	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	09-12-2010 06:39 PM
Batch converting camera dng to acr dng using acr	Maynerd	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	01-17-2009 02:22 PM
colours of Pentax	bsierens	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	12-07-2008 11:42 PM
ACR 3.7 v. Silkypix v. Pentax Photolab	Richard Day	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	02-22-2007 08:48 AM

02-22-2012, 06:08 AM	#2
adpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 888	what's your workflow? If your white balance is correctly set, exposure is correct, shadows and highlights accounted for, contrast slightly boosted, and saturation boosted a tad as well, you should get a similar look to what from the in-camera jpeg. The point of shooting raw is that you get control as to how much of these and many other elements goes into the final image.

02-22-2012, 03:29 PM	#3
mand New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: North East England Posts: 20 Original Poster	I was not doing anything to the images. Just open in software, convert to jpeg then save All the jpegs look duller/less vibrant than the original raw unless the jpeg came from the camera. I wonder why the acr default setting for Pentax K5 don't do the same as the camera setting do, then I would not have to make adjustments to get 'Pentax' look. Does that make sense? Mand

02-22-2012, 04:07 PM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I think most of these third party companies don't have Pentax camera profiles and that is why their software doesn't simulate the Pentax raw interpreting (as the camera does it when turning it into jpeg in-camera). That means you will have to 'fix it' yourself. The good thing about raw files is that they don't get damaged and you can change them in many ways. You just have to weigh the pro's and con's as to what you want. Some people also shoot in raw+jpeg mode. I guess it all depends on how much hard drive space you have and how much time you want to spend developing photos

02-22-2012, 07:22 PM	#5
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	For colours. Go to the camera profile menu and for the colour profile chose embeded instead of the Adobe profile.

02-23-2012, 01:23 PM - 1 Like	#6
DevKom Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Essen, NRW Photos: Gallery Posts: 47	It's really quite simple. If you like the results that the in camera processing creates, simply stay with the JPGs as they are. The point of shooting RAW is precisely that you decide every detail of what an image should look like, while maintaining access to the original unprocessed file for future interpretations. Yes unprocessed files look 'dull'. It's like looking at a film negative - it's like having the ingredients for a recipe. YOU decide how it 'print' or 'cook' it.

02-23-2012, 01:50 PM	#7
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Its like DevKom says, the Idea of shooting RAW is to allow you to make your own pic. If you shoot JPG the camera gives you a number of variable options for colour sharpness auto noise control etc etc etc This would provide you with far superior images than just shooting untouched RAW. If you take your time and learn how to process RAW files, it can be very rewarding indeed though.

02-23-2012, 03:05 PM	#8
mand New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: North East England Posts: 20 Original Poster	Thanks for your input guys. I've spent a few hours on the web getting to grips with raw files and how different converters show images using different algorithims etc. I now have a better understanding .I will try out a few different programs and then set up a default setting on the chosen program to get jpegs the way I like them, and the start further manipulations as needed on individual files. Mand

02-23-2012, 03:14 PM	#9
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	They genraly all do the same job Mand. Some are easier to understand and work more seamlessly than others. I find my CS4 works well but gives small JPG files when saved, so I convert to TIFF images and then convert the tiff to JPG in Capture NX 2. CS4 produces files of around 5mb while Capture NX2 is giving me JPGS of around 14mb. Learning how to batch process saves an awful lot of work and time.

02-24-2012, 08:51 PM	#10
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by westmill They genraly all do the same job Mand. Some are easier to understand and work more seamlessly than others. I find my CS4 works well but gives small JPG files when saved, so I convert to TIFF images and then convert the tiff to JPG in Capture NX 2. CS4 produces files of around 5mb while Capture NX2 is giving me JPGS of around 14mb. Learning how to batch process saves an awful lot of work and time. you know you can change the compression right?

02-25-2012, 01:57 PM	#11
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by Anvh you know you can change the compression right? Well Ive set all the parimeters I can find to High but it doesnt seem to make any differance.

02-25-2012, 11:11 PM	#12
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Why do you need that kind of jpg?

02-26-2012, 12:40 PM	#13
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	That kind of jpg ? Do you meen that size jpg ?

02-26-2012, 01:59 PM	#14
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by mand I was not doing anything to the images. Just open in software, convert to jpeg then save All the jpegs look duller/less vibrant than the original raw unless the jpeg came from the camera. I wonder why the acr default setting for Pentax K5 don't do the same as the camera setting do, then I would not have to make adjustments to get 'Pentax' look. Does that make sense? Mand With all due respect, perhaps you do not understand the concept of raw capture. When shooting in raw, the camera simply delivers the unadulterated image data to your raw converter. When shooting in jpeg, the camera's on-board computer makes adjustments to brightness, contrast, color saturation etc in a pre-programmed attempt to deliver a pleasing picture requiring little, if any, further adjustment. It is true that most commercially available raw convertors apply some default adjustments, but still, it is generally expected that the user will want to fine tune the image to his/her own taste. The advantage to shooting raw is that all of the original image data is preserved throughout the raw editing process. In contrast, the in-camera jpeg is produced at the expense of discarding much of that data. In summary, you should not expect out of the camera raw images to look quite as good as jpegs, but the potential for optimizing them is much greater, because of the wider latitude for digital adjustments. It also helps if your raw convertor has a decent color profile for the camera you are using. Rob

02-26-2012, 03:22 PM	#15
mand New Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: North East England Posts: 20 Original Poster	I now realise that the K5 shows a jpeg on its screen after a photo is taken even if set to shoot in raw, or at least I think it does. Also windows 7 live photo gallery with the fastpicture viewer codec for raw image also seems to show the embedded jpeg. I thought it was showing me the actual raw image. I had the K5 set to portrait with added saturation and set to shoot raw, so initially I was very surprised how different the 'jpeg from raw via acr' looked compared to the in camera jpeg and what I thought was the raw image viewed on live photo gallery - now I know why. The learning curve continues. Mand