[sanjeevdas]

Here are two images a picture taken with my K5.

The first one is RAW and processed in Aperture 3. The second is the embedded jpeg (screen captured from Aperture preview)
.
Notice how the colors on the embedded jpeg are so much better? Especially the color on the clothes of the frist person? In the embedded jpeg, the color is very even. In the RAW processed one it looks like the highlights are getting clipped. Nothing I do in Aperture (or LR3) seems to make it like the embedded jpeg. Any tips on how to fix this?

[panoguy]

"Vibrance" slider... all the way up.

[usmcxm35]

I think the first one is sharper!

[jac]

I think the first one is sharper!

I agree. But you indicate that you processed in Aperture AND Lightroom. Can we see the original? (new from original button in Aperture)

[Na Horuk]

In Lightroom you have the option "Camera Calibration" where you can change the profile. Try using "embedded." I notice a huge difference between embedded and "Adobe standard," particularly with vibrant colours (sunsets, flowers, the shirt you mentioned)
Of course, the idea of shooting raw is that you can make the image look the way you want to, the way you remember the scene. If you prefer the jpeg rendering, just shoot in jpeg

[Marc Sabatella]

Just to emphasize the subjective nature of this, I prefer the first overall. But if I needed to adjust it to look like the second, the first step would be understanding what *specifically* I thought the relevant differences were. Just saying you like one better isn't helpful - figure out *what* you like better. Then you will be on your to making it happen.

[jac]

Also, in raw you are getting a much greater gamut of original information on the shot, including where the folds in the pink material was more reflective and therefore more highlights. If you you want it all the same tone in Aperture, go to colours, use the sample dropper on the tone/shade you want and brush it onto the other shades. But like Na Horuk noted, why bother. You like the jpeg, go with the jpeg :-).

[sanjeevdas]

Original from Aperture (resized to 2500px)
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bfC5g2W/0/O/i-bfC5g2W.jpg

Aperture processed:
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-n9ZmcPd/0/O/i-n9ZmcPd.jpg

Embedded jpeg:
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MGs9sqP/0/O/i-MGs9sqP.png

@panoguy I wasn't referring to the saturation levels.
@jac. See original from Aperture (resized)
@Marc Sabatella I think jac understood what I meant. For me, the color of the shirt seems much brighter with lots of highlights in the folds while the jpeg version has a much more even tone.

I don't want to shoot jpeg for other advantages in shooting RAW.

Do you guys really think the RAW version is better? Maybe I should have asked for a blind test first :-)

[maxfield_photo]

I would disagree with the fundamental assessment, I think the colors in the first shot are considerably better. Notice in the second shot how the vivid blues and magentas clip? The child's life jacket for instance, in the first shot there's at least some gradation to it implying 3-dimensionality, in the second shot it looks completely flat. There's also the sky, in the original it has a nice pure blue tone, but in the second it has a strong magenta cast. Now if you like vivid colors, that's fine. As someone suggested you can always turn up the saturation or vibrance sliders, but you don't want it to look that way straight out of the camera, you won't ever be able to get that detail back.

Two things I would do to improve color accuracy are create a custom white balance from a quality gray target, and use a color checker passport to create an ICC profile for the camera/lens combo.

[edit: I am going to strike my earlier comments, I looked at the photos this morning on my laptop's LCD and I realized that you can see gradation in the blue life vest. Normally I trust the calibrated CRT on my desktop, but I realized that when I made my original post, I was playing a game that has its own gamma adjustment. This brings up another point though, make sure your monitor is calibrated and profiled.]

[jac]

FWIW, I've looked at the original raw on both my iPad and calibrated iMac and IMO it still beats the jpeg for colour range. In MY opinion. But it's your memory of what you shot that you're trying to reproduce. What I often do when I'm torn between the two concepts, memory of the scene vs. reality, is to flag it and set it aside for awhile. In a day or two, come back and ask yourself the question Marc proposes - what do you want to achieve. (And when did you last calibrate your monitor? Maybe we are seeing, literally, something you're not.)

As one more hint however, play with the definition slider in Aperture a bit, take care with saturation, play with the 'shadow slider' just a touch and, while you're there, open it's advanced features and play with the micro-contrast. Both of the latter need a bit of caution, especially if you move 'shadows' too far.

[Na Horuk]

Also, keep in mind that the original raw is also turned into jpeg when you upload it here. To really see a difference you would need to edit your raw in software, have it saved as a lossless format and then print both it and the in-camera jpeg. Print them onto a large piece of paper, and make sure the printer (or print store clerk) doesn't fudge with the colours. And even then it would ultimately be a subjective thing, but the raw would win in terms of total dynamic range, details captured, and lack of digital artefacts.

[Marc Sabatella]

@Marc Sabatella I think jac understood what I meant. For me, the color of the shirt seems much brighter with lots of highlights in the folds while the jpeg version has a much more even tone.

it has nothing to do with "understanding" what you ment. It's a simple matter of personal preference.

Do you guys really think the RAW version is better? Maybe I should have asked for a blind test first :-)

i never said it is better - that's meaningless. Preference in such matters is subjective. I simply said *I* liked it better. And others have said they like it better. Probably if you did the blind test, you'd get about 50/50 - the images are really way more similar than different, and the subtle differences that exist are, again, subjective in nature. If you like the JPEg better, fine - just figure out why, then apply the necessary processing to the RAW to duplicate that.

[sanjeevdas]

But if I needed to adjust it to look like the second, the first step would be understanding what *specifically* I thought the relevant differences were

I was replying to this quote of yours. I do understand why I liked one more than the other, although I didn't make that very clear in the original post.

[Schraubstock]

If you like the JPEg better, fine - just figure out why, then apply the necessary processing to the RAW to duplicate that.

Marc, you are right on the money.

Grreetings

[MarcoBorghesi]

One of the reason for the difference color accuracy could be the different way to export from aperture. For example if your camera jpg preview use the adobe rub ... Be sure you use it for aperture to the same color range.
Then absolutely as others said, white balance a bit of contrast and work on vibrancy.