# sudden change in vibrance in previews of raws taken on canon 77d



## dtbain (May 7, 2017)

I've just upgraded from a Canon 450d to 77d and from Lr5 to Lr-CC.  I shoot raw and import raw (.cr2) images which Lr converts to DNG.  I'm used to my raw previews in Lr seeming duller than the corresponding jpegs (on the rare occasions I shoot in jpeg) *until* I edit the image (though I still prefer working with raw). BUT, with my new camera and new version of Lr, I've noticed something new ...

The previews both on the back of the camera AND in Lr are more vibrant (more like jpegs, if you like) than in the old set-up, even though I am still shooting raw, BUT the first time I click on them in Lr (whether they've been converted to DNG or are still in the .cr2 format) they lose their vibrance and end up duller again -- and stay that way.  So the DNGs look duller than the previews on the back of the camera AND duller than the previews in Lr just after import.

Question is just:  can anyone explain what is going on, and why this is new (I never noticed this under my old set-up). 

It is, I should emphasise, not a problem.  But I am interested in understanding what is going on.

One issue in the background, which might be worth mentioning, is that I've always wanted to shoot and keep raws *and yet* to be able to take a peak at what the Canon jpeg would have looked like, had I shot one, since for some routine pictures the following is true:  if the canon-jpeg-look is ok, I'd be happy to settle for that and not further edit it, and spend my editing time on other, more interesting pictures instead.  I could shoot in raw+jpeg and keep the jpegs in the cases where they're good enough and edit and keep the raw when they're not, but I find having two of each image overwhelming (even with stacking) and what I want to keep in the routine cases is not a jpeg but a jpeg-*looking* dng (since I like to know the picture remains maximally editable, even in the routine cases, in case I revisit it).

I raised this latter issue a while back on this forum (seeing from RAW what a JPEG would look like) and the message was that the best I could do would be to write my own preset (perhaps including the Canon standard setting -- though I've just noticed I can't include that in a preset) to produce the look I want, something I've not done yet but (finally!) intend to.

Anyway, any thoughts on any of this would be most welcome!

Thanks all

David


----------



## oleleclos (May 8, 2017)

Hi David. The answers to both your questions lie in the Camera Calibration panel in the Develop module.

What happens the first time you see a RAW picture in Lr is that the JPEG preview from the camera (which is built into the RAW file) is momentarily displayed in order to get something on-screen quickly. Then, as soon as Lr builds its own preview, this is shown instead.

And the way the Lr preview looks is determined by your Camera Calibration settings. If you have chosen Adobe Standard (which is the default if you haven’t done anything to it yourself), then that is what is shown, and Adobe Standard will generally be “flatter” than the camera’s JPG preview. Adobe do this on purpose, in order to give you a less processed picture to work from when you do your editing (that's one of the things I really love about Lr).

But here’s the magic - and the answer to your second question: You can make Lr apply your camera’s processing to the RAW file by choosing from the list shown in the Profile panel:






The list will be different for each camera because it will show the settings available on the camera that produced the file (this is Nikon). When you select one of these calibrations, Lr will emulate that camera setting, and voila - you have exactly what you want: the camera JPG look applied to your RAW file, and you still have the RAW file to work with, so no reason to shoot in both RAW and JPG. How good does it get?

And, as always with Lr, none of these settings are permanent. You can always access your original RAW file "underneath" all your settings


----------



## dtbain (May 8, 2017)

Thanks, that's really very helpful, and makes sense of what's happening.

(The only remaining puzzle would be that I never noticed the previews getting flatter when I clicked under my old set-up -- they seemed quite flat from the get-go -- but perhaps my old camera didn't produce jpeg previews, which would also explain why the previews on the back of the camera were flatter.) 

As for using the Canon Camera Standard profile in Lr to produce the jpeg-look, this is a good idea though, oddly, I *think* (must check this) that it doesn't quite produce the same look as the jpeg (it has rather heavier contrast).  But, even if so, it sounds like that's the closest I am going to get to the jpeg-look as a starting point, so thanks.

All best, and thanks again

David


----------



## oleleclos (May 8, 2017)

dtbain said:


> it doesn't quite produce the same look as the jpeg


Yes, the Lr camera profiles are Adobe's _interpretation_ of the camera's JPG processing, not the real thing, so it may differ a little. I've never studied this closely, as I like the Adobe Standard as a starting point, and it's also quite possible that some cameras are better matched than others.


----------



## Hoggy (May 17, 2017)

dtbain said:


> (The only remaining puzzle would be that I never noticed the previews getting flatter when I clicked under my old set-up -- they seemed quite flat from the get-go -- but perhaps my old camera didn't produce jpeg previews, which would also explain why the previews on the back of the camera were flatter.)



I think all cameras produce jpeg previews, usually even full-size ones, embedded into the raw.

One explanation for the above is that the old camera had more neutral defaults, or you changed them to be that way.  The new camera might very well have a more 'punchy' default - because that's what people often like to see.  ...  As in 'picture styles'.

Of course, keep in mind that all those color settings only affect the embedded JPG (or JPG, if that's what you have set).

Another possibility is the preview building options you chose on the import dialog may have changed...  Where you can choose between minimal, embedded, standard, etc.

And as oleleclos brings up, you may also have some "camera default" camera-calibration-panel differences going on.  I also think that settings in there are only for matching the camera-jpeg _color_..  Probably doesn't do much, or anything, for contrast, sharpening, etc.  As for me, I've long since not cared about that anymore (and partly also because they don't exist for Pentax).  Although before I first got into raw-only, I did dabble with trying to match the camera jpg - particularly because I loved the Pentax default jpg 'style'.  After a while though, it got to be a pointless exercise, because I could do 'better'.  Of course it's all very subjective at this point.


----------



## Hoggy (May 17, 2017)

dtbain said:


> One issue in the background, which might be worth mentioning, is that I've always wanted to shoot and keep raws *and yet* to be able to take a peak at what the Canon jpeg would have looked like, had I shot one, since for some routine pictures the following is true:  if the canon-jpeg-look is ok, I'd be happy to settle for that and not further edit it, and spend my editing time on other, more interesting pictures instead.  I could shoot in raw+jpeg and keep the jpegs in the cases where they're good enough and edit and keep the raw when they're not, but I find having two of each image overwhelming (even with stacking) and what I want to keep in the routine cases is not a jpeg but a jpeg-*looking* dng (since I like to know the picture remains maximally editable, even in the routine cases, in case I revisit it).



I wanted that too.  And for the longest time, I never tried to make a general-type preset to do that.  But I finally did such a thing a little while ago.  ...  Basically just adding a modest amount clarity, contrast, and vibrance, a modest amount of lowering highlights - raising shadows, and a modest amount sharpening (along with modest masking). For higher-ISO shots, I also made several ISO-dependent noise reduction (and, _I think_, sharpening) settings as camera defaults.  For 'those' shots, it's pretty much the way I leave them - so to me it's 'good enough' to approximate a 'jpg look'.

Of course another option is unchecking the preference to 'treat jpgs next to raws separately', and keep both jpg and raw - you wont see or be able to do anything with the jpg's in LR.  But that does have other implications, including that of storage space.



> I raised this latter issue a while back on this forum (seeing from RAW what a JPEG would look like) and the message was that the best I could do would be to write my own preset (perhaps including the Canon standard setting -- though I've just noticed I can't include that in a preset) to produce the look I want, something I've not done yet but (finally!) intend to.



I just double checked this..  And you _should_ be able to include that..  Using 'calibration' in the preset.  It's right on the very bottom, under 'process version'.  Another way you should be able to do it, is to set a "camera default" - which would apply it to all for that camera.


----------

