[slartibartfast01]

Yes it can be done to some extent, the histogram in LV would be your best bet. There would be some need to configure your camera so that you have a better representation



First I would start with UniWB



https://dslrbodies.com/cameras/nikon-and-dslr-camera-faq/what-is-uniwb.html



Introduction to UniWB



https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram





I would also look at finding a way to view your cameras raw file, this will give you a better idea as to what is contained in the raw file



Fast raw viewer is a good place to start

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/



Some videos as to how it works



https://youtu.be/f-sCYOVPgxc



https://youtu.be/1K6gCpTgJVg



I would then look at how your camera handles baseline exposure



https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/deriving-hidden-ble-compensation



https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture



https://photographylife.com/where-are-my-mid-tones-baseline-exposure-compensation



Once you know what is happening you can apply the right corrections your raw converter









Some help with understanding how to us HDR scene without the HDR tonemapping most think of when composing hdr images

https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/04/14/hdr-zone-system-dynamic-range/

Using UniWB would you simply choose the desired WB in your RAW editor content in the knowledge that no channel is blown in the original image?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Using UniWB would you simply choose the desired WB in your RAW editor content in the knowledge that no channel is blown in the original image?

That can be easily done when you know the multipliers used to achieve 1,1,1 but the problem lies when you are trying to set your cameras WB so you have a more realistic histogram and image on your camera. Some camera's use to have a Uniwb setting, while others its a trial and error .

[pschlute]

Someone pointed out that the exposure meter in the camera was set up for JPEGs, so shooting RAW would mean ignoring it, using Highlight data instead.
How would this be done?

The meter does not differentiate between RAW and JPEG. It only gives one reading. You should be using the meter to ensure a correctly exposed capture whether shooting RAW or JPEG. Now some may have a preference to under-expose when shooting RAW and you can dial that in using Exposure Compensation. But you should generally be aiming for an image where the blacks are not crushed, and the highlights are not blown..... ie the histogram is broadly centred (depending on the tones in your subject)

I've been looking at several photos I took, when I also saved a RAW version, whilst I play with Dark Table, and everyone is right, the RAW shot, even before any processing, looks vastly better!

You need to be careful here. A RAW file is not an image file. When you open and view it in many photo viewers or editors, you are looking at the embedded JPEG, which will have had adjustments made to it dependent on your cameras JPEG settings.

To see a RAW "image" you need to open the file in software that has a RAW converter. If no default adjustments are made to the RAW data, the image will look flat, lack contrast, and lack sharpness. Most converters apply a set of defaults when you first open up the file, which you can change, which of course is the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.

As RAW seems to prefer underexposed images

Be careful drawing that conclusion. A RAW file is the best option to shoot if you want to bring out detail in an underexposed image, but to do so risks an increase in noise; colour noise; and other unwanted artefacts. You do best to get a good exposure in the first place, not an under-exposed one.

But then, if the in camera review is basically a JPEG thumbnail attached to the RAW file, then judging exposure from it may be suspect, as the JPEG thumbnail may include the JPEG detail issues (exposure / colour / detail) previously mentioned here.

So, does that mean you can't judge a RAW photo from in-camera reviewing..?

Correct, the camera image shows the embedded JPEG, and will be displayed according to the settings for JPEG you have set in camera. The histogram is a better tool for examining exposure, but it also is based on the JPEG settings. I always have my JPEG camera settings set to "natural" so that the display image and histogram are as close to neutral as can be. You will find this perfectly adequate for exposing your RAW files.

[Wheatfield]

I don't know of anyone that exports as a DNG, and typically only use it for the initial edit and export into TIFF (for further editing), or jpeg (if a final product). So not sure where you get turning DNG's into a proprietary format.

I got it from your statement that Topaz created DNG files only seemed openable by Topaz software. That is the definition of proprietary.

[Mooncatt]

I got it from your statement that Topaz created DNG files only seemed openable by Topaz software. That is the definition of proprietary.

The impression I got from them was they weren't trying to make something proprietary, but just a poorly implemented feature that that they don't seem in a hurry to fix.

[nickrey]

I thought of this post when I edited a RAW image to bring up highlights when the JPG was not particularly impressive from the camera.
This photo was taken with bright sunlight behind the duck, which meant that it was very underexposed while the water was not.
The RAW file was initially processed in Lightroom Classic and then Photoshop within LRC, which was used to select the subject and bring up the details present in the RAW image but underexposed because of the lighting. The final step was using Topaz sharpen AI on the duck itself.
I've attached the original JPG straight out of camera as well as the processed, cropped image.
Taken on K3-iii, PENTAX-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED at 115mm, f5, 1/4,000, ISO 800.
We can't always have ideal shooting conditions so RAW allows better representation of what would have been there if they were.

[DafTekno]

"You need to be careful here. A RAW file is not an image file. When you open and view it in many photo viewers or editors, you are looking at the embedded JPEG, which will have had adjustments made to it dependent on your cameras JPEG settings."

So, does Dark Table display the RAW file, or the JPEG thumbnail?

I'm a little confused by this statement.
Surely, if a photo editor can open the RAW / DNG file, then what you subsequently see as you then alter certain aspects is the RAW image, no..?

But if you're only seeing the JPEG thumbnail, how can it represent the extra detail of the RAW file?

And if I'm not seeing the RAW photo, how do you actually see it? And then how do you edit it?

I thought I was seeing the RAW photo in Dark Table.
Do I need to go via RawTherapee first? What, then save the file so Dark Table can open it?
Save it as what? TIFF?

Suddenly, it all got confusing again...

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

And if I'm not seeing the RAW photo, how do you actually see it? And then how do you edit it?

You are not looking at the raw file, what are you looking at the data that has been processed by the setting in the raw converter you have selected and also the hidden processes that raw converters apply under the hood.

This includes the baseline exposure, the color profile that produces the image (select a different profile and how the image looks can be very drastic) the color space you have selected as this can clip colors and give you a false idea with how you think the raw file is being clipped

https://photographylife.com/where-are-my-mid-tones

https://photographylife.com/where-are-my-mid-tones-baseline-exposure-compensation

---------- Post added 05-11-2022 at 09:41 PM ----------

Suddenly, it all got confusing again...

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

You could follow that tune up with this one: "Circle of confusion! That's what the world is today! Hey, hey!"

[slartibartfast01]

That can be easily done when you know the multipliers used to achieve 1,1,1 but the problem lies when you are trying to set your cameras WB so you have a more realistic histogram and image on your camera. Some camera's use to have a Uniwb setting, while others its a trial and error .

Has anyone managed to set their cameras to UniWB? I tried the quick method of taking an overexposed shot so all pixels are fully saturated and saving the resulting WB as a manual WB but that doesn't work on a K50. Neither does an all black shot.

[35mmfilmfan]

I am not sure about irfanview, but relatively sure about faststone and xnview.
And I fear you are believing something wrong here…
Xnview can open raw files in the way that it displays the jpg images embedded into the raw file.
It then also can work with those jpgs to adjust them and create a changed output.
But essentially feeding a DNG into xnview and adjusting things there is 100% the same as feeding it a jpg debeloped in the camera.
Result: I fear your approach is actually a full waste of the capabilities of the raw files.
You do need a full raw converter program such as the free darktable or raw therapee to take advantage of a raw file.

---------- Post added 10th May 2022 at 23:06 ----------



I am not sure about irfanview, but relatively sure about faststone and xnview.
And I fear you are believing something wrong here…
Xnview can open raw files in the way that it displays the jpg images embedded into the raw file.
It then also can work with those jpgs to adjust them and create a changed output.
But essentially feeding a DNG into xnview and adjusting things there is 100% the same as feeding it a jpg debeloped in the camera.
Result: I fear your approach is actually a full waste of the capabilities of the raw files.
You do need a full raw converter program such as the free darktable or raw therapee to take advantage of a raw file.

Thanks for this - I usually use FastStone, and occasionally using XnView for other editing. I was unaware that XnView only uses the JPG within the DNG file - thank you for pointing this out.

[swanlefitte]

Yesterday this thread got me wondering. If I have lens correction on in camera but shoot RAW is it implemented in the software as the default setting?

I looked in my cameras menu and found out I couldn't set lens correction on. I changed my capture to jpg to see if that was why. It wasn't. I took of the 1.4x tc and lens correction is on and not greed out. It turns out Pentax doesn't have corrections for its own tc and lenses.

That was cool and all but then I went out shooting small birds in low light and backlit to boot. No problem, I just need identifying shots. I got home only to realize I shot all in jpg. All the info I needed was lost. I only managed to get one bird identity. That bird gave me all the elements I needed for a great shot so no post needed.

If I can get all birds to sit still close to me with light over my shoulder jpg is the way to go. Until then my camera is set to RAW.

[GUB]

. I got home only to realize I shot all in jpg.

Yep that is Murphy's second law of photography.
The first being the card being geographically displaced from the camera (still in the computer)
For me it is made worse because I tend to work at base Iso and underexpose my shots. Jpgs of that are useless.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Has anyone managed to set their cameras to UniWB?

All of the camera that I now own I have made a preset UniWB for them. With Nikon there are many that post a raw file with the UniWb and all it takes is to upload that raw file into your camera and store that WB into the cameras preset.

With Pentax it can be a little bit more trouble as not many publish the UnIWB.

The way I start is by looking at the Exif data and the and line c628 as sho to Neutral this tell you the multiplier for the WB set by the camera, when they are 1,1,1 as seen below there is not WB being applied to the image
If it reads 0.55535,0.998844.1 there is a WB being applied. Make adjustments to your cameras WB until you achieve 1,1,1 and store your new UniWB setting. Now every different model of Pentax camera will have a different WB setting for Uniwb

[johneb47]

There are some great responses here. I'd just add that the old GIGO rule applies in this situation - garbage in, garbage out. What I mean is you can only work with what you've got, and with raw images you get everything that the sensor saw so that you have the best chance of getting the maximum from it. You can tell what's going on by looking at the file sizes of a photo file; for example I just checked one that I took last month. My camera is set to record raw and JPGs on different cards, and in this case the raw file was almost 30Mb and the JPG produced in camera being 11Mb at the maximum JPG quality. In other words, the raw file has almost three times as much data to work with than the JPG does. Whether in camera or in post-production, processing into JPG is a lossy process, in this case with some 63% of the original data being discarded by the camera during the creation of the JPG. This is where JPG artifacts come from; because in order to reduce the file size (which was the original design intent for JPG) then the JPG processing has to calculate what to keep and what to throw away using an algorithm. So, much of what you see in a JPG is not what the sensor put there, and in guessing what to keep and what to discard, the processing sometimes gets it wrong. Trying then to further process a JPG means that you're then potentially amplifying the errors introduced during the JPG creation process.

There's a parallel here with audio files, where raw would be equivalent to WAV, and JPG to MP3. The MP3 algorithm decides what the listener can or cannot hear, and removes sound data accordingly, so that even with the best quality MP3, you get only roughly a quarter of the original audio data. And you get processing artifacts here also, in the form of a level of dullness and 'listener fatigue' that you don't get with a WAV. If you don't think that you get listener fatigue listening to MP3s, try it with a four-hour Wagner opera! (You might get fatigue for other reasons, but that's another story!)


I would think that the majority of photos end up as JPGs (mine do), so ultimately, for me it's a question of how, but importantly when you get there. To me, the creation of a JPG is the last thing I do to an image. If I am dissatisfied and want something slightly different, I won't edit the JPG, I'll go back to my raw processor which has retained all the modifications that I made, and make another one. I look at it like this. I learned the basics of photography and enlarging and printing in the late 60s/early 70s, and printed all my own monochromes up to the 90s. To me, in-camera JPGs are the film equivalent of taking a roll of film to the chemist's shop and collecting the prints a day or so later; they are what they are. Raw files however are like producing your own prints at home - DNG after all was derived from 'digital negative'. If you're happy with the JPG output of the camera and do no further processing then that's absolutely fine; it does what you want. Further processing though would be like taking a processed photo print and re-photographing it in order to be able to process it further - but you can't replace what's not there any more. If the JPG process has removed for example the bulk of the sky information in a photo because to the processing algorithm it all looks very similar, then no amount of further processing will put it back. With a raw image, you still have that information, and good processing can bring out features that you may not have seen.

Given two JPGs then, one out of camera and the other post-processed from raw, it becomes a choice of whether you want control over your final JPG - and can create another, different one if you're unhappy with it - or whether you're happy to let the machine do it, but not be able to reproduce the original data if you have the camera set to JPG only. Neither is wrong; it's down to personal preference. It does becomes important if you're producing prints (especially big prints) since artifacts will be much more easily visible if made from a JPG. I have a number of hung prints at home, but these were generated from lossless TIFF files. If however, like me, the bulk of what you take is viewed - and edited - on a standard high-definition monitor, then we are not seeing the full quality of what our cameras are giving us in any case! A HD screen is a hair over 2 megapixels (1920x1080) in resolution whereas my K-3II provides 24 megapixels (6000x4000) of resolution. So my ultimate argument for why I prefer raw shooting and processing is that because we're only screen-viewing a fraction of what quality is available from a modern sensor, it makes sense to me to provide the HD window that I'm writing this on, with the best possible quality of source material. That's all.

Just and observation most of this discussion ignores the fact that jpeg format is a lossy format and RAW contains all the information that is recorded by the image sensor. Editing JPG files leads to a loss of information editing RAW files allows you to adjust the file to provide the best possible image.