[Bui]

Hello everyone,

After 1 full year from the day of getting my first DSLR, a Pentax Kx, now I decide to try shooting with Raw files, because I have been playing with Lightroom since summer, and I realize the potential of improving a Raw photo.

The thing is I don't know how to convert those Raw files into a good-looking set of JPEG. Yesterday I took some, import to Lightroom, and export them to JPEG, but they look ugly: color is poorer, contrast is lower, and more noise (for those taken with high ISO). I tried with ACDSee Pro, the output looks a bit different, but still uglier than the original RAW files. Meanwhile I think the reverse should happen, a good JPG should be more pleasing to the eyes than its original Raw.

So I assume there should be some technique, or profiles, or presets, to convert those Raw, and I would like to ask you if its true, or what I did wrong. I'm using a Pentax K-s2 with some DA Limited lenses :-)

Thank you in advance for your great advices.

[RMabo]

When you look at the original RAW-file you actually see the embedded JPEG image in the RAW-file, and this JPEG-image is done with the camera's built in image processing algorithms. If you want a similar look to this, then do the conversion of RAW to JPEG in Pentax Digital Camera Utility - this software has the same presets and image profiles as the built in JPEG-processing in the camera. If you use Lightroom or other RAW-image software, you need to tweak the image, work with it.... That's the thing with RAW files, they are like the film negative and it needs to be developed to look good. So play around with the settings in Lightroom. I don't use it so I can't give advice on it. I use Apple Photos, Pixelmator and Affinity Photos.

[Kiwipixter]

The trick with RAW processing apps is you need to spend a bit of time to learn how to use it. Google is your best friend for these tutorials. When I had my K-r and K-50, i used Pentax Digital Camera utility software with good results, you can still download this for free. This is Pentax's bundled software for their DSLR range. I now use RawTherapee, free to download, its easy to use but you still need to devote some learning time to get the best out of your RAW files.

[SpecialK]

Hello everyone,

esterday I took some, import to Lightroom, and export them to JPEG, but they look ugly: color is poorer, contrast is lower, and more noise (for those taken with high ISO). I tried with ACDSee Pro, the output looks a bit different, but still uglier than the original RAW files. Meanwhile I think the reverse should happen, a good JPG should be more pleasing to the eyes than its original Raw.

Post some examples of your conversions. People make better guesses when they have something to start from :-)

I have no experience with Lightroom, but many members do, so they can help with the program.

Generally you should be able to move sliders for particular settings, such as contrast, saturation, and exposure, to get the look you like. If your images are consistent, you can probably use the same setting on all the similar images, making individual adjustments as needed from time to time.

[Bui]

Hello,

Thank you for some very quick feedback. I know that I can alter a lot of parameters with a specific image, but my question is more in batch, where I have like 200 images from a trip, and I want to quickly make all of them into a set of good looking JPGs. Some specific ones will received more treatments.

I will post some of my very bad results when I get back from work :-)

[TonyW]

You may want to try the Adobe camera specific presets first to see if that gets you closer to your requirements. Not sure about the Pentax specifics but know from Nikon experience they mimic the camera JPEG settings quite closely.

Using Lightroom camera profiles (and why Adobe Standard is a liability) | Howgreenisyourgarden

[GUB]

Yesterday I took some, import to Lightroom, and export them to JPEG, but they look ugly: color is poorer, contrast is lower, and more noise (for those taken with high ISO). I tried with ACDSee Pro, the output looks a bit different, but still uglier than the original RAW files. Meanwhile I think the reverse should happen, a good JPG should be more pleasing to the eyes than its original Raw.

Yes just remember that that incamera jpg has been developed from a raw form by the camera itself and that raw would have been equally drab as the ones you are working with. On the whole the camera does a good job of this so your initial challenge is to equal the camera jpg. Do some Raw + jpg shots to give yourself a comparison to start with.

[HoutHans]

Hi Bui,

I can safely say that you can get better JPEGs when you develop them yourself in something like Lightroom (which I use), but there's a learning curve to it. My approach was to take a number of RAWs and really develop them in different ways en then decide what works best. You can then turn that into a preset that will allow for a first quick improvement of all of your photos that you can then fine-tune. There are tons of tutorials on this, so spend some time on youtube to actually see what other photographers do to develop their images and what it does to an image and enjoy.

all the best,
Hans

[clackers]

Bui, PP isn't something that you learn overnight, and some people may never have any aptitude for it.

But you can do worse strategies than begin adjusting with what's at the top right of the Develop module in LR and work through the sections down to the bottom. Get a feel by going too far on a slider, then bring it back until it feels right.

[Alex645]

I don't know how to convert those Raw files into a good-looking set of JPEG.

Post process image editing takes skill and discipline (and tools) and for 95%+ of my own images, they are greatly improved if I patiently work on my RAW files instead of just using jpegs out of the camera.

If I have hundreds or dozens of images to process, then I find Lightroom as the most effective and efficient application. However, if I want the best results and I'm willing to put time into it, then I use Adobe Bridge to organize my RAW or DNG files and then Photoshop CS6 or CC for post processing.

For hardware, I use a Mac with a retina display and a Wacom stylus and tablet. It took me a frustrating initial 48 hours to get used to using a stylus, but once I got the muscle memory, for certain tools like selection, dodging and burning, etc, even an entry level Wacom stylus really helps.

There is no substitute for trial and error and experience. To some degree, all photographers are self-taught, but it really helps to get a tutor or take a class somewhere in Photoshop to get started before then taking that competence and on your own begin to master it. I've been doing photography since I was 13 working B&W and then color film exclusively until the dawn of digital processing. I've been to the NAPP (National Association of Photographic Professionals) convention and attended presentations and workshops by some of the best like Scott Kelby and Jack Davis. I'm now 58 and still learning, improving, and refining my work.

The main areas that I've found are key to improving most of my RAW files include:
Adjusting exposure, highlights and shadows, Cropping, Levels or Curves, Dodging and Burning, Adjustment of vibrance or hue saturation, and just the right amount of sharpening (either with unsharp mask or making a high pass overlay layer).

The key with Photoshop is learning how to use layers so that your process is NOT linear and destructive, but rather non-linear.

With that said, most of us are into photography because of our passion for shooting or need to make money, and there is more than 10x more $$$ in shooting than editing. But once I opened 'Pandora's box' and learned the power of editing, I regret if I only shot jpegs.

When done editing, I usually save the original as a PSD with all my layers and then "save as" a jpeg at the highest quality possible.

---------- Post added 09-07-17 at 05:34 AM ----------

my question is more in batch, where I have like 200 images from a trip, and I want to quickly make all of them into a set of good looking JPGs. Some specific ones will received more treatments.

What you put into it, is what you'll get out of it. If you don't have the time to properly PP your RAW files, your jpegs out of camera will be better overall than a rush job on Lightroom. In your case, I would suggest shooting both RAW+ jpeg and then with the "specific ones" that deserve more treatment, use the RAW files.

With the jpegs, I really enjoy using Google's free Nik Collection to improve them. But beware that anything fast or easy for a lot of images is going to compromise most of your images unless all of your shots are extremely similar.

[Na Horuk]

Raw process:
a) You to select pef or dng format in-camera. Dng is probably better for compatibility with more software, but both contain the same information. And in the option between raw and jpeg should be raw.
b) Raw is not yet an image and its not great-looking. It looks grey, washed out and less sharp than in-camera jpegs
c) You have to open this dng or import it into a software like Lightroom, FastStone, RawTherapee, etc. Lots of options, with many little differences between them
d) You have to Post process the photos. Most software allows individual and also batch processing
e) You can usually set up AUTO, so the software does what it thinks is best. Each software has its own idea of what "best" is, and it is different from the one in-camera. If you want to get results like in-camera, the software that came with camera is best choice. Other than Auto you also have options for Presets. But you usually get best results once you learn how to do individual options yourself. You can set up most software so that it does some things automatically upon import, and then you can do individual touchups
f) Raw photos usually, with most software, keep all their original data. This way you can always "reset" the image and do different PP.
g) Don't be shy. Try playing with the sliders and options. Check how the photo looks like lots of added contrast, or just a little added contrast. You will learn when its not enough and when its too much. You develop your own style
h) You can export the image for whatever your intended usage is. On Export you choose things like image dimensions (no need to use 16 or 20 or 24 MP for email or online usage) and image format. Usually you want jpeg. Choose a sensible compression, between 70 and 90. You might have other options, like colour space (usually sRGB, also set the same option in-camera), compression, size, and similar. When you export an image, that photo file is separate from the raw and you can delete it after you are done with it. You can keep the raw files in the archive. The exported image should look almost exactly as the Post-processed raw photo looks in the software

One thing you have to be careful about is that raw files contain a preview thumbnail, which is in-camera processed. If you are using codecs, those often only show the preview and not the actual raw data. This can cause some confusion, so i never use preview codecs. Only look at the raw files in software, which should give you the correct picture after two seconds or so. Most software has some tutorials and help videos online, on blogs and youtube and forums

For further help, you should upload a sample photo and tell us what the problem is or what you want to achieve

[Dave133]

I shoot raw from day 1 I got my dslr since in my case, the raw looks cleaner than the jpeg(older days jpeg..).

Anyway for noise, I usually applying the noise reduction myself in lightroom, like the other say, move the slider until it feels/looks right.

As Clackers said, PP is a lot of work, but the result is satisfying! (I myself are still learning)

If you are aware of proper white balance and exposure and don't overly sharpen your jpgs you may not get much out of shooting in raw. A lot depends on your workflow: are you really going to spend the time to work every image to perfection? Then raw is for you. Do you have other things to do with your time? Maybe jpgs are good enough. Do you occasionally have difficult lighting situations? Most Pentax cameras allow you to save the last image shot as jpg+raw. Even though storage is cheap nowadays, just how many hard drive arrays do you want to maintain? Raw files are about an order of magnitude bigger than jpgs. Even if you maintain a complete duplicate set of your jpgs (a good idea) you won't need nearly as much storage space as raw. If you do decide to use jpgs, always have an unprocessed file in reserve-never make your edits on a previously edited file. Look at a lot of jpg vs raw comparisons on the internet. Unless the original was horribly over or underexposed, or the white balance was way off, there usually isn't much difference between them in cameras made in the last 7 or 8 years.

Pentax does a pretty good job with their jpgs, as long as you don't oversharpen them in camera, you can always sharpen them later, but you can't "unsharpen" them without degrading the image.

[NS_Sailor]

Hello,

Thank you for some very quick feedback. I know that I can alter a lot of parameters with a specific image, but my question is more in batch, where I have like 200 images from a trip, and I want to quickly make all of them into a set of good looking JPGs. Some specific ones will received more treatments.

I will post some of my very bad results when I get back from work :-)

If you want to do a "Batch" conversion on all your raw files at one time I suggest using the free app Faststone Image Viewer. The program will do Batch conversions of both PEF & DNG Raw files and allows you choose between different JPG color profiles such as S-RGB or Adobe RGB as well as maximize both the quality and size of the JPG file.
What I would do is use Faststone Image Viewer to direct convert a few single raw files with no other manipulation (Color, lighting etc.) to JPG with different profile and quality setting to see which works the best and use the same settings on all your files when doing the "Batch" conversion

[Bui]

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for the huge number of great responses. Before I thought that by simply importing all images into Lightroom, and then just exporting it in batch to JPEG, I will have a set of at-least-as-good-as-in-camera set of final photos. Turn out that I need to do adjustment before, or trying to work out a good presets for it.

I already play with Lightroom, for individual images for some times, and occasionally I made some photos much betters, but I'm still learning to know the limit, as your said. Some images when reviewing after a certain time are too over-sharpened, saturated or contrasted. This I hope to improve over time.

For now I don't intend to spend too much time with Lightroom, my wife already complains about spending too much time with the camera and testing photos, lol, not to mention I'm also a crazy football fan. So I think I will apply your great advice: either to extract all by Pentax Utility (I tried it last night and it seems good enough for my eyes), or to shoot Raw+JPEG, and only edit the Raws that needed.

Again, many thanks, and bon weekend ;-)