I have been using Lightroom for a little over a year now. I have been shooting Raw for about a year. I normally try to get things as close as possible (exposure, white balance, etc.) so that I have a minimum of post-processing to do. My question is, do all Raw photos require at least some post-processing (ie. preset profile, landscape, sharpening, etc)?? I really like many of my unprocessed photo's but would they always be better processed in some way?? Sometimes I get the feeling when I read things that Raw photo's are made to be processed not just left alone, am I off base and reading this incorrectly??
Lightroom and Raw
- Thread starter Revet
- Start date
Correct, Raw is Raw, no camera processing. At minimum, they need White Balance. Also the camera applies some contrast and vividness to JPGs that does not happen to Raw. You can do it though, the idea is that you can see the Raw first, and KNOW what it needs, and you do it then instead of guessing before you see it.
ACR tries to apply the camera White Balance (the As Shot value), but it is not exact, and of course, the camera value was only guessing anyway, before it even saw the light. You can see it in Raw, and maybe use a white card, and make it precisely correct. You can of course tweak exposure as necessary too. See the Curves tab in ACR, and you probably like the Medium Contrast preset there (a S-curve similar to what the camera does, but did not do for Raw). That can be set to be default.
You can even set the Auto button to be default, on any Raw file you open. But then of course, you don't see your mistakes, you may not even know you screwed it up.
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
If you're happy with your RAW files as they are I guess that pretty much answers the question for you, but generally speaking RAW files need (I use that word in the broadest sense) post processing. The colors look flat and lack saturation. White balance, typically can be improved upon, contrast is typically dull and lacks "pop" and of course RAW files have not been sharpened to any degree. Those are the basic corrections I think everyone can pretty much agree on. Post processing also allows you to apply lens profiles to correct for distortion and chromatic aberration; things you might not even notice until you see them removed.
This is also when you get to exercise the amazing degree of creative control over a shot you don't have when working with a JPG.
...
This is also when you get to exercise the amazing degree of creative control over a shot you don't have when working with a JPG.
...
Browncoat
Senior Member
Look at it this way, because honestly, there's really no other way to look at the ever-raging RAW vs JPEG debate...
A digital image is going to get processed in one of two ways: either by your camera's firmware (JPEG) or by external software (RAW). Your PC and the software used to process a RAW file have far more power and options than your camera does. There are SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) zealots who subscribe to the incorrect premise that JPEG files are untouched by processing, and are somehow more "real" or "pure" than edited RAW images. In fact, they've merely delegated that task to the camera instead of doing it themselves. To answer your questions more directly:
No, you do not need to edit in post with RAW.
Are RAW photos made to be processed? Yes. As already mentioned, you would be better served to exercise some creative freedom with your photos, which is the biggest advantage of shooting RAW.
A digital image is going to get processed in one of two ways: either by your camera's firmware (JPEG) or by external software (RAW). Your PC and the software used to process a RAW file have far more power and options than your camera does. There are SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) zealots who subscribe to the incorrect premise that JPEG files are untouched by processing, and are somehow more "real" or "pure" than edited RAW images. In fact, they've merely delegated that task to the camera instead of doing it themselves. To answer your questions more directly:
No, you do not need to edit in post with RAW.
Are RAW photos made to be processed? Yes. As already mentioned, you would be better served to exercise some creative freedom with your photos, which is the biggest advantage of shooting RAW.
Browncoat
Senior Member
Thanks all for your replies. After reading this, I guess I realize that I bump up contrast, clarity and saturation pretty much on every shot. Time to start using pre-sets or copying the settings of one and pasting the remainder for larger shoots. Does anyone know if the lens correction can be put into a pre-set to be applied during import?? That would be so much easier than copying and pasting in the Develop module after imported.
It is good to realize that Adobe Raw often offers different ways to do similar things, and these tool choices are not necessarily the same effect.
For example, the Contrast slider on the Basic tab appears to be a simplest Contrast tool, like in any photo editor, which simply moves the white point and black point both inward toward each other, for whiter whites and blacker blacks, but this is done by clipping both ends equally. This is my Opinion of what it does, but it sure does look that way in the histogram. Clearly seems obvious. It is expected, because it is how generic Contrast sliders work in most programs, and this is another one. And it is also true in Photoshop.
Whereas, the Curve Tool tab offers a S curve, also whiter whites and blacker blacks (which is more contrast), but leaves the actual end points unchanged, no clipping. This is much better, much more sophisticated. Its standard choices (Medium and Strong contrast) are good, or Custom allows grabbing the curve to move it as you wish.
The first thing we learned back in the day was to NOT use the simple Contrast and Brightness sliders (they are too dumb), but to instead use the Levels sliders directly (not necessarily equally, but to see and judge clipping, etc), or to use the Curve Tool.
If you want the end points moved, Exposure and Blacks does that. These two are just the White Point and Black Point in Levels (except they are bidirectional, combining Input and Output sliders in Levels).
For example, to make an image brighter...
One way is Exposure, which is simply the White Point in Levels. Works well when it needs exposure, but if done a bit too much to be brighter, it clips the highlights.
Another (old standard classic way) is to raise the mid point of the curve tool (this is also the center slider in Levels). This makes middle and dark areas brighter (basically it is the gamma curve), but it does not clip the end points.
Anyway, there are different ways, not all the same.
Saturation...
The camera JPGs have Picture Controls (for example Vivid), and some models have the auto Scene modes (for example, Landscape, which also does Vivid). Novices coming from Vivid JPG to flat Raw are not always impressed. We do tend to like Vivid at first, until it gets old (fast). Neutral has a lot to be said for it too.
Raw does not include that Vivid setting from the camera. We get a flat unprocessed image in Raw. But the Adobe Raw Camera Calibration tab offers various profiles, Adobe Standard, or Camera Standard, or Camera Vivid, etc. Raw can do all the same things, but we have the advantage of seeing it first, to see the need, and compare the result, and to refuse it if we prefer, individually. This is in contrast with setting it in the camera last month, and hoping for the best. Saying, Raw is sort of for those who actually care.
We possibly might want Curve Medium Contrast as default, maybe, but profiles like Camera Standard will do a bit of contrast too. Remember though, our pictures are very varied, landscapes one day, portraits next day, etc. One size may not fit all, and its good to see it first (before and after, to judge it). Same with Vivid, hard to imagine it as Default. Seems good to see it first. I think the same for Lens Profile (distortion and vignetting), in that we can see when we need it, which is not very often. Just one opinion.
For multiple images, it is easy to apply the setting to all images in the batch with the same one click, without always having it in every picture we ever take.
For example, the Contrast slider on the Basic tab appears to be a simplest Contrast tool, like in any photo editor, which simply moves the white point and black point both inward toward each other, for whiter whites and blacker blacks, but this is done by clipping both ends equally. This is my Opinion of what it does, but it sure does look that way in the histogram. Clearly seems obvious. It is expected, because it is how generic Contrast sliders work in most programs, and this is another one. And it is also true in Photoshop.
Whereas, the Curve Tool tab offers a S curve, also whiter whites and blacker blacks (which is more contrast), but leaves the actual end points unchanged, no clipping. This is much better, much more sophisticated. Its standard choices (Medium and Strong contrast) are good, or Custom allows grabbing the curve to move it as you wish.
The first thing we learned back in the day was to NOT use the simple Contrast and Brightness sliders (they are too dumb), but to instead use the Levels sliders directly (not necessarily equally, but to see and judge clipping, etc), or to use the Curve Tool.
If you want the end points moved, Exposure and Blacks does that. These two are just the White Point and Black Point in Levels (except they are bidirectional, combining Input and Output sliders in Levels).
For example, to make an image brighter...
One way is Exposure, which is simply the White Point in Levels. Works well when it needs exposure, but if done a bit too much to be brighter, it clips the highlights.
Another (old standard classic way) is to raise the mid point of the curve tool (this is also the center slider in Levels). This makes middle and dark areas brighter (basically it is the gamma curve), but it does not clip the end points.
Anyway, there are different ways, not all the same.
Saturation...
The camera JPGs have Picture Controls (for example Vivid), and some models have the auto Scene modes (for example, Landscape, which also does Vivid). Novices coming from Vivid JPG to flat Raw are not always impressed.
We do tend to like Vivid at first, until it gets old (fast). Neutral has a lot to be said for it too. Raw does not include that Vivid setting from the camera. We get a flat unprocessed image in Raw. But the Adobe Raw Camera Calibration tab offers various profiles, Adobe Standard, or Camera Standard, or Camera Vivid, etc. Raw can do all the same things, but we have the advantage of seeing it first, to see the need, and compare the result, and to refuse it if we prefer, individually. This is in contrast with setting it in the camera last month, and hoping for the best. Saying, Raw is sort of for those who actually care.
We possibly might want Curve Medium Contrast as default, maybe, but profiles like Camera Standard will do a bit of contrast too. Remember though, our pictures are very varied, landscapes one day, portraits next day, etc. One size may not fit all, and its good to see it first (before and after, to judge it). Same with Vivid, hard to imagine it as Default. Seems good to see it first. I think the same for Lens Profile (distortion and vignetting), in that we can see when we need it, which is not very often. Just one opinion.
For multiple images, it is easy to apply the setting to all images in the batch with the same one click, without always having it in every picture we ever take.
Last edited:
Thanks, Well put!! Thus far, If a had a shoot with let say 100 photos, I import them into Lightroom in DNG format. I do add keywords to simplify that process but have done very little on the presets because I usually have varied pictures (indoor, outdoor, portraits, landscape). I then do a quick survey of all the photos and took the better ones and worked on them in Develop mode. I think now I will create a preset that I like using the tone curve and apply them to all the photos and then take them to the Develop module from there. Sounds like it will be fun playing around with this (I use my second copy of Lightroom for just this purpose so I never worry about clicking away. Although Lightroom is non-destructive, I have done things that screwed things up that took some time to fix.)
I have just ordered a comprehensive tutorial on Lightroom and I do see they spend a lot of time on pre-sets, the tone curve, and sharpening. I have watched most of Julieanne Kost's Adobe videos awhile back but at that time I wasn't ready for the split toning, sharpening, etc.. Now I am. Wish me luck!!
I have just ordered a comprehensive tutorial on Lightroom and I do see they spend a lot of time on pre-sets, the tone curve, and sharpening. I have watched most of Julieanne Kost's Adobe videos awhile back but at that time I wasn't ready for the split toning, sharpening, etc.. Now I am. Wish me luck!!
Last edited:
Changing subject I guess, but I'm always disappointed no one ever asks or comments on the Curve tool. It is a powerful tool. It does the same jobs as Levels does, and more too, and with more finesse. Levels might be "easier", but Curves is much more powerful - a very important tool.
I have a comparison of how to use the two tools (Levels and Curves) to do the same jobs, to compare them. It is not about the jobs, it is about adjusting the tools. It may make the false premise that most already understand Levels. But then it shows how the Curve tool does the same thing.
Photo Editor Curve Tool
Now this is not a tutorial about how to edit your pictures. It is comparing the tool adjustments, to show the way they do the same jobs. No tutorials ever mention any of this, but to me, knowing this makes it easy to use. It is the basic concepts of adjusting the tools. If it were explaining screwdrivers, it is about putting the tool in the slot and turning. It is not about the fancy chair you may be building.
I have a comparison of how to use the two tools (Levels and Curves) to do the same jobs, to compare them. It is not about the jobs, it is about adjusting the tools. It may make the false premise that most already understand Levels.
But then it shows how the Curve tool does the same thing.Photo Editor Curve Tool
Now this is not a tutorial about how to edit your pictures. It is comparing the tool adjustments, to show the way they do the same jobs. No tutorials ever mention any of this, but to me, knowing this makes it easy to use. It is the basic concepts of adjusting the tools. If it were explaining screwdrivers, it is about putting the tool in the slot and turning. It is not about the fancy chair you may be building.
Last edited:
Great presentation on the tone curve, histograms, and gamma!! Thanks Wayne! I think it is interesting that back in the day of the CRT, all data was gamma coded so the individual TV sets didn't have to do it but now, all LCD TV's have to decode the Gamma coded data with a chip!! My only question is, why did you not foresee this coming and design that decoding chip yourself!!!!! Imagine the camera equipment you could buy if you did that!!! Thanks again for simplifying the tone curve, something I knew nothing about.
Yes, all RGB image data does include gamma, even if LCD monitors are linear and don't need it (they just discard that encoding, but it still has to meet standards, so that they get the right decoded answer). The reason for this continued gamma presence is to make all old RGB data in the world still compatible, even on LCD monitors. Nothing has to change, and no harm done. And chips are cheap.
Ink printers still need gamma. Not as 2.2 gamma, they have a little different needs (due to dot gain, etc), but they need most of it, and the 2.2 gamma is a usable starting point for them, their drivers have learned to adapt. So they do expect sRGB gamma 2.2.
The early Apple Mac also made laser printers, called Laser Writers (1985, 30 years ago). Apple RGB image files adopted gamma 1.8 for the printer (grayscale, same gamma), and then the Mac video added more hardware gamma boost to achieve 2.2 for the CRT (Macs had a tiny builtin monitor, but could use the same monitors as Microsoft). So image files were incompatible between Apple (1.8) and Microsoft (2.2), but it was not important that the two companies did it in opposite ways. We did not show many images on PC video in those days - most PC had no graphics ability yet (computers showed text). There were a few simple file formats, but the date of the first JPG, TIF and GIF file format specifications came a couple of years later. Then image popularity began slowly in early 1990s, and internet then really was a major boost. And today, Apple has of course adopted the modern world standards, sRGB, etc (there were none before).
One significance to us about gamma being in our data, is that gamma is in our data. Our histograms show gamma data because our data has gamma encoding in it. Therefore, the histogram data midpoint is NOT the 128 center we imagine, but instead gamma 2.2 raises it to 187, about 3/4 scale. This is trivial to confirm... Adjust some image exposure so brightest tone is right at 255 at the end. Then intentionally underexpose the next one by exactly one stop. One stop is half, right? Should move it back to midpoint at 128. And it would be half, in the linear raw data, but in our gamma RGB, it only moves back to about 3/4 scale. This is never precise, because the camera is also tampering with white balance, and contrast, and vivid saturation, etc, which shifts tones around. But it will be ball park of 3/4 scale, and far from half scale (because we see gamma RGB data in our histograms). And is not actually important to us anyway, we are only watching for clipping anyway - unless we get some dumb notions about midpoint.
But gamma is certainly the only reason we imagine 18% cards should come out 50% in a histogram. Gamma puts it at 46%, not a big error, but for an entirely different reason, not because of science of midpoints, and certainly not because 18% is 50% of anything.
Last edited: