Saturation Setting: The Shocking Truth Revealed!!

[Horoscope Fish]

Okay, so maybe the results are not exactly shocking. Or even particularly interesting for that matter. But because I wanted to see for myself, and share my results, I took the following test shots. Each shot was taken within a second or two of the other and all shots were taken using a Nikon 18-105mm at f11, 1/750, ISO 100 under full sun using Aperture Priority mode on my D5100. "Set Picture Control" = Standard, JPG = Fine. Differences between settings (+1, -2, etc.) appear the same when shooting RAW instead of JPG. Pic order is (Saturation set to) +1, +2, +3, 0, -1, -2, -3. You've always been curious... Now you know!

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

RAW is not supposed to show any difference. That is the point. It shows just what the sensor sees. JPEG will show the difference. It is not clear what you shot these on. You talk about saturation, did you mean exposure? -2 stops, -1 stop etc? You will see the difference in RAW when you do that. When I see saturation I think more about color saturation. There is a difference in the exposure of all these shots

 

[capitaltpt]

The real question is which of these looks closest to the real-life colors?

 

[vindex1963]

RAW is not supposed to show any difference. That is the point. It shows just what the sensor sees. JPEG will show the difference. It is not clear what you shot these on. You talk about saturation, did you mean exposure? -2 stops, -1 stop etc? You will see the difference in RAW when you do that. When I see saturation I think more about color saturation. There is a difference in the exposure of all these shots

That's what like about Nikon Capture NX2 is it applies the in camera settings when converting a RAW image to a Jpeg.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

RAW is not supposed to show any difference. That is the point. It shows just what the sensor sees. JPEG will show the difference. It is not clear what you shot these on.

When I said "JPG = Fine" in my previous post, that meant .jpg format, Fine resolution was selected in the D5100 menu:
Shooting Menu, Image Quality, JPEG Fine.

You talk about saturation, did you mean exposure? -2 stops, -1 stop etc? You will see the difference in RAW when you do that. When I see saturation I think more about color saturation. There is a difference in the exposure of all these shots

No, I meant Saturation, as in the "Saturation" setting in the D5100 menu: Shooting Menu, Set Picture Control, Standard (or Neutral or Vivid or whatever), Saturation

There is no significant difference in exposure in the above shots. Again, those were all shot at the same f-stop, same shutter speed, same conditions only a few seconds apart.

Now, here's the interesting part. I just did same test but this time all shots were taken in RAW FORMAT. Those RAW files were then re-sized and converted to JPG -- with NO POST PROCESSING -- and posted here since the up-loader does not support RAW/.NEF files. Surprisingly the Saturation setting DOES affect the image even when shooting RAW. I urge you to try this yourself. You can clearly see the difference in the RAW photos, I just can't upload them without converting them.

All of seven these photos were shot at f5.6 at 1/45 using ISO 100 on a Nikon 18-105mm zoom set at 48mm. The ONLY difference between all of these shots is the Saturation level was changed in the menu by ONE click for each shot. Hovering your cursor on the thumbnail will show you the Saturation setting used:

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

When I said "JPG = Fine" in my previous post, that meant .jpg format, Fine resolution was selected in the D5100 menu:
Shooting Menu, Image Quality, JPEG Fine.



No, I meant Saturation, as in the "Saturation" setting in the D5100 menu: Shooting Menu, Set Picture Control, Standard (or Neutral or Vivid or whatever), Saturation

There is no significant difference in exposure in the above shots. Again, those were all shot at the same f-stop, same shutter speed, same conditions only a few seconds apart.

Now, here's the interesting part. I just did same test but this time all shots were taken in RAW FORMAT. Those RAW files were then re-sized and converted to JPG -- with NO POST PROCESSING -- and posted here since the up-loader does not support RAW/.NEF files. Surprisingly the Saturation setting DOES affect the image even when shooting RAW. I urge you to try this yourself. You can clearly see the difference in the RAW photos, I just can't upload them without converting them.

All of seven these photos were shot at f5.6 at 1/45 using ISO 100 on a Nikon 18-105mm zoom set at 48mm. The ONLY difference between all of these shots is the Saturation level was changed in the menu by ONE click for each shot. Hovering your cursor on the thumbnail will show you the Saturation setting used:

View attachment 30139View attachment 30140View attachment 30141View attachment 30142View attachment 30143View attachment 30144View attachment 30145

What program sis you use to convert these to JPEG?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

What program sis you use to convert these to JPEG?

An app called: IRFanView; but the exact same difference in saturation can be seen in the RAW images themselves even before conversion.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

An app called: IRFanView; but the exact same difference in saturation can be seen in the RAW images themselves even before conversion.

There is a great free program that came with your D5100. You can download it here Nikon Imaging | Global Site | ViewNX 2™*Download

Would be interesting to see what the results would be using this,.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

There is a great free program that came with your D5100. You can download it here Nikon Imaging | Global Site | ViewNX 2™*Download Would be interesting to see what the results would be using this,.

I have it, I just don't use it... I'll give it a try though and post the results.

Edit... I've attached two files. Both were RAW, one with a Saturation setting of (+3) and the other Saturation setting (-3). Both were opened and then converted to the attached .JPG files using ViewNX (v2.7.2) using the highest quality setting available. No other processing was performed.

Saturation setting (+3) picture is on the left, Saturation setting (-3) is on the right.

 

[WhiteLight]

Just like how your camera chooses the optimum setting for converting to JPG, even the software you use would use it's 'mind' to decipher how each image must be converted - which bits of info to take & which bits to throw out.

In this process the program notices that the saturation settings are different for each shot, so the numbers used in the processing algorithm would be minutely different which results in a slightly different output.
A JPG is always a processed image.. either processed by the camera's mind, or your software's mind or your mind while you post process

If you'd really like to see if there is a difference in the images captured, you should be looking at or posting the RAW images.
Which i am certain would be identical.

 

[vindex1963]

View NX is a good program and has some good basic features.

 

[Rexer John]

If you'd really like to see if there is a difference in the images captured, you should be looking at or posting the RAW images.
Which i am certain would be identical.

A JPEG is an image file.

A Raw file is not a picture, it's an information file with way more information than can be shown in a single image.
The Raw file will be displayed as per settings on a Raw viewer which will default to the settings the camera shot at, it is not a picture until the chosen information is picked out for display.
A Raw viewer NEVER displays a Raw image because there isn't such a thing as a Raw image, it's a Raw file.

 

[WhiteLight]

A JPEG is an image file.

A Raw file is not a picture, it's an information file with way more information than can be shown in a single image.
The Raw file will be displayed as per settings on a Raw viewer which will default to the settings the camera shot at, it is not a picture until the chosen information is picked out for display.
A Raw viewer NEVER displays a Raw image because there isn't such a thing as a Raw image, it's a Raw file.

Interesting... So am probably talking about the RAW part of the information set which is in between a total raw information file with no recognition and a fully recognized image prior to any external changes

 

[Rexer John]

Those RAW files were then re-sized and converted to JPG -- with NO POST PROCESSING -- and posted here since the up-loader does not support RAW/.NEF files. Surprisingly the Saturation setting DOES affect the image even when shooting RAW.

You post processed them!
When you saved to Jpeg you took the information and settings you wanted (or the software set for you).
That is post processing my friend.
Your RAW file is still there with all the information your sensor saw, the sensor and Raw file is not affected by your saturation settings. But it does show on your screen according to the saturation settings in your software.

 

[Rexer John]

Whitelight, you are ten times the photographer that I am, you obviously know all that you need to know. Your photos speak up for you.

Let me put it this way, a racing driver doesn't need to know how the engine works.
A mechanic doesn't need to be able to drive.

You are the racing driver with a good mechanical understanding.
I'm a decent but not expert mechanic with a little driving skill.

I get a lot more from the site than I can return so it's nice to give a little when I can.

EDIT: Oh, the racing driver analogy was about RAW files, not cameras in more general terms.

 

[WhiteLight]

I have absolutely no response to that analogy
I'm just thrilled that you like my photography!

 

[Horoscope Fish]

You post processed them!
When you saved to Jpeg you took the information and settings you wanted (or the software set for you).
That is post processing my friend.
Your RAW file is still there with all the information your sensor saw, the sensor and Raw file is not affected by your saturation settings. But it does show on your screen according to the saturation settings in your software.

By George I think I'm getting it. Thank you! While I've understood that RAW is a "container" file and a JPG a displayable image file, the rectal-cranial inversion occurred when not realizing my computer would opt to use the displayable image file settings by default. Of course when someone points it out it seems perfectly logical if not painfully obvious. Okay, so now I've gone from mildly confused to mildly annoyed... Not by anyone here but by the fact that the in-camera settings show up on thumbnail "pics" of my RAW files when using, say, Internet Explorer. I don't like that. I don't like that one bit... One you Wizardly types Please change that!! It's okay, I'll wait...