Difference between viewfinder and photo

colton.neil

Senior Member
I'm BRAND new to photography and I am trying to figure out why the colors in my viewfinder seem to be more vivid than the colors on the raw photo, from my understanding the viewfinder shows the view from the lens and a raw file is the image directly from the sensor so I would assume that the images would be the same ( excluding things like depth of field and exposure). So I guess my question is whether or not this disparity is common or an I missing a setting somewhere? I am shooting on a D750 with a 24-85mm and 70-300mm lens, camera is on auto and the "problem" occurs regardless of flash. If you need any more information just let me know.

Posted via Topify on Android
 

colton.neil

Senior Member
Ok great, so I should expect more flat images from raw shooting since none of the post processing has been done. The good news is however, that raws are more flexible in post allowing me to improve the image manually. That's a load off my mind. Thanks for your help!

Posted via Topify on Android
 

colton.neil

Senior Member
So, secondary question. Given that I am new to photography and I'm not some lightroom whiz would you recommend shooting in RAW+JPEG so that if I don't have the chops to improve a photo I can use the JPEG version the camera made for me?
 

John Braden

Senior Member
I do shoot in RAW+Fine just for that reason. Once I figure out how to process images, I will be able to have the RAW image to do so. In the meantime, I have the large JPEG to post or play with. As long as you have enough room to spare on your card and then a portable hard-drive to move them, then I'd suggest that.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Ok great, so I should expect more flat images from raw shooting since none of the post processing has been done. The good news is however, that raws are more flexible in post allowing me to improve the image manually. That's a load off my mind. Thanks for your help!
Absolutely correct. The degree of flexibility you will have with a RAW file, as compared to a JPG will probably astound you. It's HUGE; seriously freaking huge. Once you get your feet wet processing RAW images, you will never want to give up your new powers. Allow me to demonstrate with this hypothetical situation:

ON NOOOOOOOES!! You totally screwed the pooch with this critical shot and now your wife is threatening to leaving you forever and your children are ashamed to call you their father!!! And, looking at this shot, who could blame them?? Dear gawd, what a disaster!
...
RAW Rescue #1.jpg

...
...

But wait! Luckily you were shooting RAW, like a real HE-MAN! And since you were, you were able to totally recover the shot! Now your wife wants to bed you like the stallion you always knew you were, your kids are beaming with genetic pride and the day is saved!!!
...
RAW Rescue #2.jpg



So, secondary question. Given that I am new to photography and I'm not some lightroom whiz would you recommend shooting in RAW+JPEG so that if I don't have the chops to improve a photo I can use the JPEG version the camera made for me?
That's certainly an option, yes. You'll have two files, of course, but JPG's are good for getting your feet wet in learning to post process. ....
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
So, secondary question. Given that I am new to photography and I'm not some lightroom whiz would you recommend shooting in RAW+JPEG so that if I don't have the chops to improve a photo I can use the JPEG version the camera made for me?

No need to be a Lightroom wiz, all you need to do is scroll to the very bottom of the Develop module panel to the Camera Calibration module where you'll see a Profile drop down. From there you can select the Profile you are/were using in your camera (normally that would be Standard) and you should come very close to what you're seeing in your JPEG preview. If you don't ever change that in your camera you can set up Lightroom to apply that automatically when your images are imported. Sure, you can shoot RAW+JPEG and try and match yourself, but that could make you nuts. As stated, RAW gives you the ultimate flexibility, and getting close to that JPEG preview is pretty darn easy, so I say, "Why bother if you don't need the JPEG for anything else?"

There's a discussion about it at this thread...

http://nikonites.com/education/27516-how-get-accurate-nikon-colors-lightroom.html



 

colton.neil

Senior Member
Absolutely correct. The degree of flexibility you will have with a RAW file, as compared to a JPG will probably astound you. It's HUGE; seriously freaking huge. Once you get your feet wet processing RAW images, you will never want to give up your new powers. Allow me to demonstrate with this hypothetical situation:

ON NOOOOOOOES!! You totally screwed the pooch with this critical shot and now your wife is threatening to leaving you forever and your children are ashamed to call you their father!!! And, looking at this shot, who could blame them?? Dear gawd, what a disaster!
...
View attachment 129284
...
...

But wait! Luckily you were shooting RAW, like a real HE-MAN! And since you were, you were able to totally recover the shot! Now your wife wants to bed you like the stallion you always knew you were, your kids are beaming with genetic pride and the day is saved!!!
...
View attachment 129285


That's certainly an option, yes. You'll have two files, of course, but JPG's are good for getting your feet wet in learning to post process. ....



Now that... That, is an answer.
 

mathom33

Senior Member
And here I was thinking that my wife hated the fact that I always look for a reason to pull out my camera...this entire time I've been shooting underexposed and overexposed JPG's.... I'm going to go shoot in RAW and see if I get lucky!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top