Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beginner RAW Question: Results are PERFECT in View modes, but how do I save those?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Beginner RAW Question: Results are PERFECT in View modes, but how do I save those?

    First post here, long time ACDSee user (for JPGs), but just getting into RAW development...

    I've been wrestling with this for a few days, searched the web for answers, tried 3 other RAW programs to compare, and now I'm stumped. So, I figured it was time to ask in the forums.

    I started shooting in JPG+RAW this past year to see if I could coax a bit more detail from my "keepers" captured during my travels. I finally got time this holiday to mess with the RAWs and have been struggling to get anything resembling the JPGs or the RAWs shown in Quick View / View modes.

    Web searches seem to suggest Quick View / View just displays a version of the embedded JPG, but I don't believe that to be true. In ACDSee View modes, JPGs from all my cameras are not as sharp as the RAWs. In fact, the RAWs in View mode are perfect. Exposure is spot on, and the details are incredible compared to JPGs. So, I guess my question here is how do I save what I am seeing on the screen. I want the gorgeous RAWs shown on the screen in View mode, not my slightly smudged and less detailed JPGs.

    The following currently applies to ACDSee Pro/Ultimate version 9 (and 8):
    • Quick View mode does not allow saves.
    • View mode allows saving/export, but removes all the auto corrections from the View modes, and the resulting image looks terrible (no lens correction, blurry, drab color)
    • In Develop and Edit modes I can gain some improvement, but still nothing like the RAWs in View mode

    I tried a few other RAW editors and got mixed results...
    • DXO Optics Pro 10 Elite - used "DXO Standard" mode with camera and lens profile from their DB. Color and sharpness were closer than the original JPG, but distortion was still present.
    • PhotoNinja 1.2.6 - nothing applied, same result as ACDSee View mode save/export (basically RAW with no corrections applied).
    • Adobe DNG Converter 9.3 - applies lens correction properly to the exported DNG, but no exposure, sharpness, chromatic corrections, etc. From this I can get close to the RAWs in ACDSee View mode using just about any editor, but still not as good as what I see in View mode.

    I was about to fire up the trials of Lightroom and Photoshop to see if their "auto" modes could come close... but I decided to stop and ask.

    So to sum up...
    • The ACDSee Quick View / View mode display of RAW images is perfect, better than JPG images of the same file by a noticeable amount.
    • The behavior is the same on all 3 cameras tested so far (Olympus PEN E-P5, Pentax K-01, Samsung NX2000 ...and yes, I like non-traditional cameras with character).
    • Is there a way to "auto apply" what I am seeing in the View modes to the RAW and easily save/export the file? And if so, how do I do that? I can't seem to find an auto mode in the Develop/Edit sections, and any output from those does not come close to what I see in the view modes.

    Thanks for any tips or suggestions. I'm stumped.
    Last edited by revoke; 12-30-2015, 07:39 PM.

  • #2
    Maybe your camera saves the JPGs in RAW+JPG in lower quality. My Nikon D50 does for example. If you want the RAWs as close as possible to the JPGs you have to use the camera manufacturers RAW converters as far as I know. There should be a free one delivered with the camera. But I know nothing about Olympus and Samsung. Could be different there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Web searches seem to suggest Quick View / View just displays a version of the embedded JPG, but I don't believe that to be true.
      Under Tools>Options>General what are your settings for Raw display (bottom)?

      Reckon that SCX is correct. My cameras' jpeg (when shooting raw+jpeg) is lower res than if shooting jpeg only. The following from the help file might also assist in your thinking but the main point is that which I have highlighted. Your embedded preview may (always will?) have camera-specific settings applied to the raw file

      When you zoom in on your undeveloped RAW image in View mode, if you have selected the Embedded preview option, and if you zoom past the resolution of the embedded JPEG, ACDSee Ultimate quickly develops the RAW image so that you can see the image at that zoom level. When View mode changes the display from the embedded JPEG to the decoded RAW image, you might see a change in the color, light, or detail of the image. This is due to a difference between the settings applied by your camera to the JPEG and the settings used by ACDSee Ultimate to develop the image. Since different camera models apply different color, light, and detail settings to embedded JPEGs, these settings do not always match the settings used by ACDSee. However, you can then use the ACDSee Ultimate Develop tools to process the RAW image to use your preferred settings.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by revoke View Post
        So to sum up...
        • The ACDSee Quick View / View mode display of RAW images is perfect, better than JPG images of the same file by a noticeable amount.
        • The behavior is the same on all 3 cameras tested so far (Olympus PEN E-P5, Pentax K-01, Samsung NX2000 ...and yes, I like non-traditional cameras with character).
        • Is there a way to "auto apply" what I am seeing in the View modes to the RAW and easily save/export the file? And if so, how do I do that? I can't seem to find an auto mode in the Develop/Edit sections, and any output from those does not come close to what I see in the view modes.


        Thanks for any tips or suggestions. I'm stumped.

        Yes, when you view the raw file in View mode, you are seeing the embedded jpeg.

        This will usually appear different to jpeg shot with the raw file, as different processing is applied to the embedded jpeg.

        If you want proof, you can compare the embedded vs camera jpegs by using a utility to extract the jpeg from the raw file.

        (I do this all the time, because often the CR2 embedded jpeg is superior to the camera shot jpeg.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by QuBe View Post

          Yes, when you view the raw file in View mode, you are seeing the embedded jpeg.

          This will usually appear different to jpeg shot with the raw file, as different processing is applied to the embedded jpeg.

          If you want proof, you can compare the embedded vs camera jpegs by using a utility to extract the jpeg from the raw file.

          (I do this all the time, because often the CR2 embedded jpeg is superior to the camera shot jpeg.)
          I guess I have more experimenting to do... but that does give more to go on here.

          Quick test... working with the Samsung SRW files yields the following results with RAW extractors:
          • SAM_0064.JPG - original JPG with muddy details (11.4 MB)
          • SAM_0064.RAW - original RAW file, displays perfect sharp details (24.5 MB)
          • SAM_0064_IJRF.JPG - "Instant JPEG from RAW" extracted JPG (3.91 MB) -- looks exactly like original JPG, not the RAW in View mode.
          • SAM_0064_IrfanView.JPG - IrfanView RAW extracted JPG (3.31 MB) -- also looks exactly like the original JPG, not the RAW in View mode.

          Maybe your camera saves the JPGs in RAW+JPG in lower quality. My Nikon D50 does for example. If you want the RAWs as close as possible to the JPGs you have to use the camera manufacturers RAW converters as far as I know. There should be a free one delivered with the camera. But I know nothing about Olympus and Samsung. Could be different there.
          JPGs do appear lower quality than the embedded JPG, but they sure are huge (11.4 MB versus 24.5 MB of the RAW in the case Samsung). Olympus JPGs are closer to their RAW counterparts than Samsung's (Oly Super Fine JPGs are nice), and my Pentax files have the same quality gap as the Samsung. Samsung NX cameras all shipped with Lightroom (version 4 or 5). Pentax uses a custom version of SilkyPix. Olympus has their own software as well. So, I will try these three RAW processors next.

          Under Tools>Options>General what are your settings for Raw display (bottom)?

          Reckon that SCX is correct. My cameras' jpeg (when shooting raw+jpeg) is lower res than if shooting jpeg only. The following from the help file might also assist in your thinking but the main point is that which I have highlighted. Your embedded preview may (always will?) have camera-specific settings applied to the raw file
          On the General settings screen, it's the embedded preview, and that's the frustrating part here. The embedded preview is better than the original JPG. And, now that I have tried two extraction tools and seen the results (they're basically the same as the original JPG), I'm even more confused. It's like that embedded preview from the RAW is just something you can never have. Here's this perfect picture... but you can't have it. At least, that's what it feels like here. Personally, if ACDSee can display this perfect picture... it should, in theory, be able to output it.

          So, I guess my next steps are are to try the manufacturer RAW software (Lightroom, SilkyPix, and Olympus Viewer?) and see what I get. Still frustrating, but... but I'll keeping playing/experimenting.

          Thank you all for your tips thus far which have helped eliminate and narrow down a few things.
          Last edited by revoke; 12-31-2015, 07:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe you could upload a RAW+JPG somewhere, so other users could do some tests.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by revoke View Post
              On the General settings screen, it's the embedded preview, and that's the frustrating part here. The embedded preview is better than the original JPG. And, now that I have tried two extraction tools and seen the results (they're basically the same as the original JPG), I'm even more confused. It's like that embedded preview from the RAW is just something you can never have. Here's this perfect picture... but you can't have it. At least, that's what it feels like here. Personally, if ACDSee can display this perfect picture... it should, in theory, be able to output it.

              In my experience (at least with NEFs and CR2's) the only time ACDSee doesn't display the embedded jpeg in View mode is when "Perform High Quality Decode" is selected.
              Then, it displays raws markedly different to companion jpegs...and there is also latency as ACDSee generates the image.

              Maybe there's something different in the way Samsung raws work with ACDSee....

              Perhaps upload some to Dropbox or something as SCX suggests.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by QuBe View Post
                In my experience (at least with NEFs and CR2's) the only time ACDSee doesn't display the embedded jpeg in View mode is when "Perform High Quality Decode" is selected.
                Then, it displays raws markedly different to companion jpegs...and there is also latency as ACDSee generates the image.

                Maybe there's something different in the way Samsung raws work with ACDSee....

                Perhaps upload some to Dropbox or something as SCX suggests.
                As mentioned, I have the embedded preview (exactly as you have pictured) selected. With that option turned on, all of my RAWs whether Olympus, Pentax, or Samsung look better in View Mode using that embedded JPG, than the original JPG.

                As requested, here are some test files, and since they are big, I'm linking two versions:
                1. One RAW+JPG from a Samsung NX2000: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xomybj1fa...2BJPG.zip?dl=0
                2. The original RAW+JPG, plus my various attempts to extract the embedded JPG or process the RAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpgv9o6hl7...sults.zip?dl=0 (Warning: BIG FILE)

                The second file (NX2000-RAW-Test-Results.zip) is obviously much larger, and here's the key to files within it:

                Description of Contents (by ##):

                00 - Original RAW (embedded better than file 01)
                01 - Original JPG (slight less sharp than JPG embedded in RAW)
                02 - JPG Extracted from 00 with Instant JPG From RAW (IJFR) tool.
                03 - JPG Extracted from 00 with InfraView
                04 - Direct Save from DxO Optics using nothing but the "DxO Standard" profile
                05 - Direct Save from PhotoNinja (no corrections applied)
                06 - JPG Export from RAW in ACDSee Develop Mode
                07 - JPG Save from RAW in ACDSee Develop Mode
                08 - JPG Export from RAW in ACDSee View Mode
                09 - JPG Save from RAW in ACDSee View Mode
                10 - DNG Save of 00 with Adobe DNG Converter (attempt 1)
                11 - DNG Save of 00 with Adobe DNG Converter (attempt 2)
                12 - Lightroom Save from RAW (full Auto)
                13 - Lightroom Save from RAW (boosted Sat, Clarity, Dehaze)


                Some observations with my tests: So far, I've gotten the best results from Lightroom (although file 13 might be a little too cartoon-ish). Lightroom seems to apply an auto-profile that is gets sharpness, lens corrections, and other parts correct, but the colors are slightly washed out. Bumping a few sliders makes it pop (the new Dehaze feature in particular). Save time in Lightroom is longer than ACDSee, but the starting point in Lightroom is MUCH closer to that embedded JPG in the RAW than the starting point in ACDSee. ACDSee save time is faster, but requires a lot more adjustments to reach anything descent. Perhaps I'm missing something in ACDSee. I wish it had a one-click auto for a nicer starting point (or does it?).

                Anyway, files are linked if you want to play with them. Just from the RAW+JPG file, if you toggle between them in View Mode, you'll notice the difference in the two JPG renderings immediately (just look at the Palm leaves in the photo). I'm going to conclude that the embedded JPG is unobtainable and cannot be extracted, and just work on my RAW processing skills (setting up profiles, batch processing, etc.).

                Thanks again for your tips. I'll continue to work as time allows... unfortunately, it's back to work soon.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Viewing the image fit to screen, the RAW version looks sharper then the JPG. For me, it is too sharp. You see heavy sharpening artefacts on the palm trees.

                  In 100% there are no differences. I think, since the image looses sharpening when viewed in less then 100%, ACDSee sharpens the RAW preview different then the JPG to counter that effect in view mode.
                  Strange: changing to 100% and back, the difference is much smaller.

                  If you like that sharpened look, you could use the original converter and increase the sharpening level there. Or extract the JPG and resharpen it. Better, sharpen not the whole image, spare some parts like the leaves, where the white and black borders are visible too much.

                  This image by the way is a good example, why I don't like the CA removal of ACDSee Pro. Maybe it is better with version 9 (I doubt it somehow), but I can't get rid of the CA of the RAW file in the ACDSee Pro 7 develop mode. Look at the JPG, it is possible. Why can't ACDSee Pro do the job? Or, if it is possible, please tell me how.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SCX View Post
                    Viewing the image fit to screen, the RAW version looks sharper then the JPG. For me, it is too sharp. You see heavy sharpening artefacts on the palm trees.

                    In 100% there are no differences. I think, since the image looses sharpening when viewed in less then 100%, ACDSee sharpens the RAW preview different then the JPG to counter that effect in view mode.
                    Strange: changing to 100% and back, the difference is much smaller.
                    I am able to reproduce this also, to a point. The yellow in the palms pops just a tick more at 100% (very subtle), and I would say they are pretty close at 100%. When I zoom back out to fit the screen the images look similar at first, especially in the detail on the leaves. However, if I cycle through the entire directory of 14 images, the sharpness comes right back on the embedded JPG preview. Strange indeed. I have tried two other viewers, InfraView and the built-in Windows 10 "Photos" and both display the JPG and RAW file (or the embedded JPG) exactly the same. So, this is definitely an ACDSee thing. I think we can conclude at this point, ACDSee simply displays the embedded JPGs within RAW files sharper than their JPG counterpart. Strange. But, I think the alternate viewer test definitively confirms this.

                    Originally posted by SCX View Post
                    If you like that sharpened look, you could use the original converter and increase the sharpening level there. Or extract the JPG and resharpen it. Better, sharpen not the whole image, spare some parts like the leaves, where the white and black borders are visible too much.
                    The JPG here doesn't lend itself to sharping too well. I have attempted with the original JPG and my two extracted copies of the embedded (from IJFR and InfraView) and they do not sharpen well. I have now played with Develop and Edit modes some more and can get better sharpness than the original JPG... however, you next observation comes into play.

                    Originally posted by SCX View Post
                    This image by the way is a good example, why I don't like the CA removal of ACDSee Pro. Maybe it is better with version 9 (I doubt it somehow), but I can't get rid of the CA of the RAW file in the ACDSee Pro 7 develop mode. Look at the JPG, it is possible. Why can't ACDSee Pro do the job? Or, if it is possible, please tell me how.
                    Yes, I see this too. I'm using the demo for ACDSee Ultimate 9 at the moment and CA is an issue, although it might (hopefully) just been the lens used. In Develop Mode under Develop Tools ==> Geometry ==> Lens Corrections, I manually select the camera (Samsung NX2000) and Lens (16-50 PZ) and it applies some default corrections. However, right next the "Enable Lens Profile" option is an option for "Chromatic Aberration" that is grayed out. Under Develop Tools ==> Detail ==> Chromatic Aberration I can mess with those sliders all I want, but they do not seem to do much. So far, all my RAW development attempts in ACDSee look good, except for CA, especially noticeable around the leaves on the white cloud background. My tests with Lightroom and DxO Optics removes the CA. So, it is possible. As this is my first foray into RAW development, I'm no expert... but, I was able to repeat the CA phenom.

                    After another morning of playing with RAW, all four programs are still different, but I'm better with 3 of the 4 now.
                    • Lightroom -- best auto starting point out of the shoot
                    • DxO -- best colors out of the shoot, but lens profile/geometry rendering is different (not bad per say, just different)
                    • ACDSee -- requires a manual selection of the camera/lens combo, once selected a good image is possible (CA is an issue).
                    • PhotoNinja -- I just can't get the hang of this one, so I'll probably stop messing with it (does nice with noise on ACDSee processed RAWs).

                    So, let's call this thread solved... I believe the answer to be that ACDSee just displays embedded JPG files differently. I'm going to have to learn RAW processing to get close to what ACDSee teases me with on the screen.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by revoke View Post
                      Yes, I see this too. I'm using the demo for ACDSee Ultimate 9 at the moment and CA is an issue, although it might (hopefully) just been the lens used.
                      Yes, the CAs with this lens seems to be quite distinct. But my lenses have quite annoying CAs either. Really good lenses are very expensive and/or limited in zoom range.

                      Do you have colormanagement activated? I don't know why, but it affects only the RAW image, not the JPG. With colormanagement I see the difference in 100% as well.
                      Last edited by SCX; 01-02-2016, 11:30 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by revoke View Post
                        So, let's call this thread solved... I believe the answer to be that ACDSee just displays embedded JPG files differently. I'm going to have to learn RAW processing to get close to what ACDSee teases me with on the screen.

                        I don't know what's up on your end, but the following files all display indentically here in ACDSee Pro 8 (and ACDSee 17) view mode.
                        There's no visual difference toggling between the SRW and JPG even (at 100% zoom).
                        (This is with a default and unmodified installation of Pro 8 x64)

                        SAM_0064.SRW
                        SAM_0064.JPG
                        00_SAM_0064_Original.SRW
                        00_SAM_0064_Original.JPG
                        02_SAM_0064_Embedded_Extract_IJFR.JPG
                        03_SAM_0064_Embedded_Extract_IrfanView.jpg

                        The only way I can cause the SRW to display differently than the JPG is if high quality decode is enabled.

                        The only thing I can think of is that somehow "Perform high quality decode" is enabled on your system (even if it's not showing as such).


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SCX View Post

                          Yes, the CAs with this lens seems to be quite distinct. But my lenses have quite annoying CAs either. Really good lenses are very expensive and/or limited in zoom range.

                          Do you have colormanagement activated? I don't know why, but it affects only the RAW image, not the JPG. With colormanagement I see the difference in 100% as well.
                          Nope. No Color Management on for me.... I've haven't gotten that advanced yet. As I play more, I've been getting great results exporting to DNG from Lightroom and/or DxO then doing finishing edits in ACDSee (since I'm more familiar with that interface). Still not optimal, but seems to get things closer to where I would like them. Starting with Lightroom and DxO avoids the CA issues and the images just look better once I tweak a little more in ACDSee.

                          Originally posted by QuBe View Post
                          I don't know what's up on your end, but the following files all display indentically here in ACDSee Pro 8 (and ACDSee 17) view mode.
                          There's no visual difference toggling between the SRW and JPG even (at 100% zoom).
                          (This is with a default and unmodified installation of Pro 8 x64)

                          SAM_0064.SRW
                          SAM_0064.JPG
                          00_SAM_0064_Original.SRW
                          00_SAM_0064_Original.JPG
                          02_SAM_0064_Embedded_Extract_IJFR.JPG
                          03_SAM_0064_Embedded_Extract_IrfanView.jpg

                          The only way I can cause the SRW to display differently than the JPG is if high quality decode is enabled.

                          The only thing I can think of is that somehow "Perform high quality decode" is enabled on your system (even if it's not showing as such).
                          Well, I have ACDSee Pro 8 (32-bit) on two mobiles (Win 10 netbook, Win 10 tablet) and ACDSee 8 Ulimate (64-bit) on two devices as well (Win 8.1 laptop, Win 10 Desktop). All four display a sharper image with the embedded preview turned on. On the machine I am working on now, an old laptop I popped Win 10 and quite a few photo software trials for testing, I'm running the trials of ACDSee Ultimate v9 (64-bit) with the embedded preview enabled. If I switch to "RAW decode" (v9's labeling) or "Perform high quality decode" (v8's labeling)... it shows a blurry, non-enhanced RAW that looks dramatically different. If I flip back to the embedded preview, the leaves of the palms are right back to being tack sharp with more range in the color. The original JPG smears that details and very slightly mutes the color. It's subtle, but it's there for me, and all my rigs.

                          So, the issue is repeatable for me no matter the version or the machine. That's why I originally thought it be file differences, not an ACDSee thing. But given that SCX can see the sharpness difference in Pro v7, and I'm seeing it in v8 and the v9 trial, I'm still going with my conclusion here. ACDSee just displays the embedded previews slightly different than the corresponding JPG of a RAW+JPG shoot. The fact that IrfanView and Windows Photo viewers display no difference in the SRW versus the JPG, but ACDSee does, further supports that conclusion.

                          Originally posted by QuBe View Post
                          There's no visual difference toggling between the SRW and JPG even (at 100% zoom).
                          At 100% I don't see anything noticeable either, and initially when I zoom back out I experienced what SCX saw, the embedded JPG display was less noticeably different. As soon as I cycle through the directory again, the embedded preview comes back sharper. Strange, but I think I've accepted it at this point that they are different, that there is nothing I can do to avoid that, and I should just move on and start working with the RAWs as intended (and ignore the sharper display of the embedded).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bringing up an old topic and wondering if anything has changed or if someone has found a workflow that gets the raw file closer to the embedded JPG. If there's a lens correction setting, why can't there be a setting that you can choose to load the camera's processing?

                            I know I can create a default, I'm having a hard time getting even close to the look of the embedded JPG. And even if I could, would those same settings apply to all? I doubt it.

                            Does anyone have a preset or some magic to share?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jodzeee View Post
                              Bringing up an old topic and wondering if anything has changed or if someone has found a workflow that gets the raw file closer to the embedded JPG. If there's a lens correction setting, why can't there be a setting that you can choose to load the camera's processing?

                              I know I can create a default, I'm having a hard time getting even close to the look of the embedded JPG. And even if I could, would those same settings apply to all? I doubt it.

                              Does anyone have a preset or some magic to share?
                              ​I am a Sony shooter, and Sony provides a free RAW converter (with some editing features) for their cameras. I can set the converter to apply as-shot camera settings by default, and I can retroactively change camera settings in the converter itself. Working with the converter is as simple as highlighting all of my files, and pushing the "export" button. The photos look just like they did in-camera with all settings applied--sharp, good contrast, color balanced, etc. Great way to batch process photos I don't want to edit.

                              ​I bet Cannon, Nikon & others have something similar.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X