# Presets that simulates the JPG production for certain cameras?



## GarfieldKlon (Sep 11, 2014)

Hi 

I'm taking photos in RAW+JPG. Logically the developed JPG looks different than the RAW. But sometimes imho they look too different, especially the colors.
I know that in the camera you can define your own process settings for the JPGs, but are there presets for cameras that simulates the default settings of a camera?

Because I only keep the RAW File if it is a good photo and I'm unhappy with the JPG. If the JPG is good enough, I remove the corresponding RAW. But it may looks a little bit strange if I have several photos from the same landscape for example, and the green colors looks different in JPG and RAW.

I have a Nikon D7000.


Mahalo
GarfieldKlon


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Sep 11, 2014)

Garfield,

Take a look at the Profile field in the Camera Calibration section, I've found them a close, but not perfect, match to what the camera will do with the similarly named style.

This is what my choices are for my D300 NEFs:


----------



## camner (Sep 12, 2014)

You might want to reconsider your current plan of discarding RAW files if you are happy with the corresponding JPG file from the camera.  When I first started with Lightroom (and for quite a while after), I felt that I might never get to the point where I could develop a RAW file to look better than the JPG from the camera.  Encouraged by folks here (and elsewhere), I persisted and before long I found that it was a rare RAW file that I couldn't turn into a better (often MUCH better) final product than the JPG from the camera.

Even if you are quite happy with the JPG now, if you keep your RAW files you can go back later (even years later!) and rework some of the images that you particularly value.  

FWIW, after gaining sufficient confidence in my ability to develop RAW files (and I still feel I have much to learn), I turned off RAW+JPG and only shoot RAW _(originally written in error as "JPG")_.  For a casual shot I just want to share out with someone I can spend 15 seconds and get a better JPG than what the camera produces.  This is particularly true if the dynamic range of the scene is large.  The camera always clips the highlights (particularly the sky) too much and what should be a blue sky is too white.  Detail is also lost in the other bright areas.


----------



## GarfieldKlon (Sep 12, 2014)

@Anderson:
Thanks, I already know this function. It comes close, yes, but there's still space for improvement.

@camner:
I guess you meant "only shoot RAW", otherwise your whole post doesn't make sense


----------



## clee01l (Sep 12, 2014)

I endorse camner's statement. LR5 represents the current state of Adobe's technology. And that in camera JPEG represents the state of the processing engine in the camera _when the camera was manufacturered._  Technology will no doubt improve.  Who is to say what LR6 or LR10 can do to your RAW image files in the future. Hang on to your RAW image files.  There will come a time when post processing can even correct the blur caused by camera movement.  So there might even be hope for those OOF images that you are tossing away today.


----------



## camner (Sep 12, 2014)

GarfieldKlon said:


> @camner:
> I guess you meant "only shoot RAW", otherwise your whole post doesn't make sense



whoops!  Thanks for understanding what I meant rather than what I said!


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Sep 12, 2014)

I started the process of moving from shooting jpeg to raw in 2004. Moved through the period of trying to match the camera jpeg output. The final straw in this process was to shoot a scene with several objects within my home. I then proceeded to compare the camera jpeg with the output from three software programs for processing raw files. The results were all different and try as I would none matched. Even though I had a neutral whibal gray target in the scene to correct in each program. In total frustration I gathered the actual objects used in the test and placed them next to the computer screen, to my surprise none of the programs matched all the objects with respect to color, tone or contrast. 
Since that day I have never compared the jpeg files from my camera with the output from any other raw processing software. None are correct to match reality in every respect, each program uses their own recipe.
My monitor is profiled monthly using a i1 Display 2.
An interesting test is to shoot a Greytag Macbeth chart use the neutral patch to correct the WB then compare the other patches to see if they match to SRGB numbers from the target? You will get different numbers from each raw processing software package. To wit none are correct.

See screen capture.


----------

