Color vibrant... then 2 seconds later turns dark

[Moab Man]

Need a bit of help. I took some pictures in jpeg and NEF. The jpeg pictures when opened in Photo Gallery, Picasa, and CS3 are vibrant and correct in color. When I open the same picture from NEF in Picasa (other two won't open this file format) the photo starts out vibrant and then one second later goes darker. This happens on two different computers, one on Vista and the other Win 7. Any ideas?

Attached are a couple of screen grabs to show you what happens from one second to the next.


Any ideas?

 

[Dave_W]

When you open a RAW file in any program, it has to convert the data into an image file so that you can view it on your computer. To do this it uses predetermined set of instructions on how to render that photo into a JPEG and make it view able on a computer screen. Same thing when you "take" a JPEG inside your camera, the file starts off as a RAW file and then it follows the camera manufacturers set of instructions to render it a view able JPEG. Similar to what Picasa is doing only under a slightly different set of instructions. The reason people take RAW photos is because they do not agree with the pre-set instructions provided by the camera or by Picasa and instead prefer to render the image the in a way that more closely matched their artistic intent. RAW based photographs can be rendered with any number of programs, from Lightroom to the free ViewNX program provided by Nikon. Give one of them a try and see if you can't make your images more to what you had in mind than can what the camera thinks you had in mind.

 

[Moab Man]

So would the ViewNX program keep that initial vibrant color I see? Or are you saying it's opening it under jpeg instructions and the turning dark is Picasa realizing "Oh, I'm supposed to show this as a raw picture."

Mostly understanding. Trying to wrap my brain around this.

 

[Dave_W]

No, not really. What I'm saying is that when you shoot a RAW image you're being handed a great deal of information that will allow you to make minor adjustments in both color and tone so that the final image will have the exact qualities you are looking for. That's not to say you can't do the exact same thing to a JPEG file, rather there is a great deal more information in a RAW file compared to a JPEG file that allows you to make more substantive changes in the look and feel of your image than you can with a JPEG image.

So try this, take this very same RAW image and play with it in a program that allows you to make changes in a RAW file, like ViewNX or Lightroom and see at the end of the day whether you like your altered image better than the predefined, in-camera JPEG image. If not, then perhaps you do not need to shoot RAW, if so, then maybe you should stop shooting JPEG and only shoot RAW.

 

[sailtastic]

Moab man,

Your .jpeg files will have been adjusted by the in-built software on your camera for what it thinks will give the best image. The saturation, white balance and other settings will all be corrected for if the software deems that they were not correct. The RAW file will simply record the image as the sensor on the camera saw it. You can then modify the RAW image using ViewNX or Lightroom etc. to correct the image to look the way you want it. RAW files enable you to adjust far more than if you start from the already modified (albeit by the processor in the camera) .jpeg files, and in some cases allow you to produce the image you saw rather than a computer algorithms output.
I suspect your software initially shows the image with default correction settings before dialling back to the data in the RAW image. One of the big adjustable factors with RAW images is whitebalance. Play around and see what you get. If you don't like having to adjust your pics, then change the settings on your camera and only shoot .jpeg.

 

[Moab Man]

What I'm not understanding is why the program would present it one way and then one second later (literally one sec) it changes it. I would like it to open and then leave it alone. Instead I'm having to adjust to get it back to where it was when it first opened.

 

[stmv]

every try bibble ? think it is a free raw editor. typically when I open my RAW file (I use CS 6), the image portrays as my camera sensor took it, and then like the others state, make the adjustment and open as JPEG.

So,, maybe try another editor.

 

[Moab Man]

Update: I loaded the included Nikon software to view and edit my photos. Wow! They look bad in that program. Then I messed around with some converters to change the photos to tiff or dng files. Eventually I tried Lightroom 4.

My observations...

1. No two of these programs displays the raw files the same.
2. Lightroom 4 does a nice job but seems like lightweight software with limited adjustability. Admittedly, I have 10 minutes of limited understanding and use so I don't want to pass judgement on what could entirely be the user and not the software.
3. I won't touch the Nikon software again.

My question...

Is Lightroom 4 serious software? Or, would I be better to stick with converting NEF to tiff or dng files and stay with my CS3?

Thanks everyone. The previous explanations from everyone, along with some mental digesting of the comments, really helped me to wrap my brain around this.

 

[Dave_W]

Lightroom is very powerful and preferred by most digital photographers. Try opening up the sliders by clicking the little arrow to the left. It will open up the fine tuning of each mode. There is also pre-sets that can be handy if you're not up to speed on all the options.
Also, Adobe offers some great video tutorials for Lightroom. Watch a couple of them and I think you'll begin to appreciate the depth of this program.

 

[Just-Clayton]

To make this sound easier. A jpeg when loaded into your computer is already cooked. Spiced up and most of the time ready to print other then a few adjustments. As for a RAW picture, It 's raw like a piece.of meat. Until you cook it and add your spices it's just a dull, bland piece of meat.(no offense to my vegetarian friends)

 

[Moab Man]

A jpeg when loaded into your computer is already cooked. Spiced up and most of the time ready to print other then a few adjustments.

So what I'm suspecting is that initially the programs are displaying the picture as a JPEG (spiced up and cooked) and one second later the sudden flattening of the image colors is the program is undoing its spicing and cooking.

Strange thing is the colors in the display in NEF are vibrant and not flat.

 

[nikonpup]

moab man,

your .jpeg files will have been adjusted by the in-built software on your camera for what it thinks will give the best image. The saturation, white balance and other settings will all be corrected for if the software deems that they were not correct. The raw file will simply record the image as the sensor on the camera saw it. You can then modify the raw image using viewnx or lightroom etc. To correct the image to look the way you want it. Raw files enable you to adjust far more than if you start from the already modified (albeit by the processor in the camera) .jpeg files, and in some cases allow you to produce the image you saw rather than a computer algorithms output.
I suspect your software initially shows the image with default correction settings before dialling back to the data in the raw image. One of the big adjustable factors with raw images is whitebalance. Play around and see what you get. If you don't like having to adjust your pics, then change the settings on your camera and only shoot .jpeg.

i have seen this when looking at raw files using picasa, the raw files look "off". I did not work with the raw files since the jpeg's where fine with me.

 

[Eduard]

What I'm not understanding is why the program would present it one way and then one second later (literally one sec) it changes it. I would like it to open and then leave it alone. Instead I'm having to adjust to get it back to where it was when it first opened.

Please don't take this wrong, but you really need to read the manual. Most programs first display the embedded jpeg as a preview while rendering the actual raw file. The raw file is neutral until you process.

 

[Moab Man]

Please don't take this wrong, but you really need to read the manual. Most programs first display the embedded jpeg as a preview while rendering the actual raw file. The raw file is neutral until you process.

I wouldn't take it wrong. I have read and reread because I learn knew things each time I read it. Mostly because with each read I understand more than the previous time that caused a glazed over look in my eyes.

What your saying is interesting. I shot the first in jpeg before realizing I had meant to shoot raw. I made the change to just raw no additional jpeg. Is there still a jpeg embedded? I ask out of curiosity and think I will purchase Lightroom 4 as it seems to work well.

 

[Eduard]

I wouldn't take it wrong. I have read and reread because I learn knew things each time I read it. Mostly because with each read I understand more than the previous time that caused a glazed over look in my eyes.

What your saying is interesting. I shot the first in jpeg before realizing I had meant to shoot raw. I made the change to just raw no additional jpeg. Is there still a jpeg embedded? I ask out of curiosity and think I will purchase Lightroom 4 as it seems to work well.

Every RAW file has an embedded jpg file. It is used in camera for preview and by many applications, system codecs, etc. for previews and thumbnails. There is little need to shoot RAW+JPEG when you can use utilities like IJFR to extract them when needed.

 

[§am]

What quality is the embedded jpg file at though?
I mean if you were to extract it then is it going to be some basic poorly rendered image, or something a lot more qualitative?

Also, why do that when you use something like ViewNX2 to just view the picture, and if needs be 'extract' a jpg by just creating a jpg using ViewNX2