# Raw looks nothing like Jpeg on back of camera!



## Ed Knopp

Very sorry if this issue has been raised before but I can't find the thread in the forums (I am new!)

I shoot in Raw (Nikon D750) and the Jpeg image it renders on the back of my camera looks exactly how I want it.  But then I import the raw into lightroom and the pics suck!  It takes me ages to try and edit it to look even close to what I have on the back of the camera.  Then I have hundreds more images to process - pretty frustrating.  I can spend a week editing a few hundred photos.  I have tried the camera profiles, but they don't even get me close either. 

If Lightroom imported the raw that look close to what I shoot in the display, I would have hardly any editing to do, but instead end up spending a ton of time.  Just seems crazy I have to start from scratch each time.  Makes me feel like shooting JPEG to save time, but then I lose the flexibility in editing.

Any suggestions?  I have heard some people say use the Nikon software instead, but then that defeats the object of the power of having lightroom.

Is Adobe planning to  have any better settings that automatically import the RAW closer to the JPEG image the camera renders or do I have to keep struggling?   

Alternatively any quick tips to get things looking better quickly? Thanks!


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Try a different Profile under the Camera Calibration tab. These are the ones that I see when I'm editing a D300 NEF:



 
They can bring your raw images much closer to what you see on the camera back. 
If you find one to your taste, you can make it the default.


----------



## Ed Knopp

Thanks Hal, I tried those (though a touch better) still not very close I'm afraid.  I still have to do a ton of manipulation on top.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ed Knopp said:


> Thanks Hal, I tried those (though a touch better) still not very close I'm afraid.  I still have to do a ton of manipulation on top.


In my D3, there are a lot of settings that can be applied to the RAW image, for example D-lighting.  Turn all those off or set them to "neutral."  After you do that, do you still like the back of the screen images?  If not, then the settings you turned off may be clues to how you need to edit all your RAW files.

Please post your results. This is a very common issue.
Phil


----------



## Ian.B

Edit one file about how you want it>make a preset of those edits>add the preset to the rest of the files

When making the raw adjustments think of what the camera would have done> +contrast / reduce highlights / darken shadows-blacks / add saturation although vibrance is better / sharpen / reduce noise / basic lens correction /
After you add the preset to each file you will need to make fine adjustments to each file

Yep; welcome to raw capture where many of the bells and whistles we pay for in a camera are not used or needed and we need more time to edit the raw files. Don't get me started on _all the extras_ in  new cameras that the experience never use . like bloody video; I have never used it!!

Set your camera to record raw+jpeg file. Add files to windows>separate raw and jpg into separate windows folders>import the jpg files to LR>only use raw files if you have too. There are many times a jpg file is all we _REALLY_ need and a raw file is just insurance . It all depend on your use of the files. 

Taking less photos; especially the "just in case" photos will save lots of sorting / deleting / editing time


----------



## Cerianthus

I think Ian is on it. 

you can also tweak the camera profile to get closer to the in camera jpeg, not just choose a setting. I am curious about how strong your in camera jpg settings are? Are you using an incamera preset or did you tweak individual controls?

If you shoot jpg; are they better on the computer screen as well (in a colour managed program). The screen on your camera is not calibrated; your monitor should be (are you calibrating it?)

it could be that the adobe profile for your camera is not particularly good.


----------



## NathAus

Ed Knopp said:


> Very sorry if this issue has been raised before but I can't find the thread in the forums (I am new!)
> 
> I shoot in Raw (Nikon D750) and the Jpeg image it renders on the back of my camera looks exactly how I want it.  But then I import the raw into lightroom and the pics suck!  It takes me ages to try and edit it to look even close to what I have on the back of the camera.  Then I have hundreds more images to process - pretty frustrating.  I can spend a week editing a few hundred photos.  I have tried the camera profiles, but they don't even get me close either.
> 
> If Lightroom imported the raw that look close to what I shoot in the display, I would have hardly any editing to do, but instead end up spending a ton of time.  Just seems crazy I have to start from scratch each time.  Makes me feel like shooting JPEG to save time, but then I lose the flexibility in editing.
> 
> Any suggestions?  I have heard some people say use the Nikon software instead, but then that defeats the object of the power of having lightroom.
> 
> Is Adobe planning to  have any better settings that automatically import the RAW closer to the JPEG image the camera renders or do I have to keep struggling?
> 
> Alternatively any quick tips to get things looking better quickly? Thanks!



Ed, I had the same frustration a while back when importing my NEFs into LR to edit them. I too found that they were rendered very dull and did not represent what I was seeing in camera, regardless of the LR import calibration profile options. 

I discovered that converting my NEF files to TIFFs in View NX 2 and importing the TIFFs into LR gave me much, much closer images to what I was seeing on the back of the camera. It was a much better starting point for editing and I eventually developed presets that I applied to the TIFFs to edit them in bulk. TIFF files are large and this method may not be for everyone, but thought I'd share. I recently posted a forum question about TIFF vs jpegs for editing as I'm wondering about that option.


----------



## Rob_Cullen

1)   Why they look different-
Why do I see my images change after they are imported into Lightroom?

2)   How you can select a defined Camera Profile-
How to Get Accurate Nikon Colors in Lightroom

3)   How you can Develop an image to your liking and use those settings as the 'Default' (Camera Profile) rendering for all image Imports-
Adobe Lightroom - Customising Camera Defaults

Don't waste time, energy, disk space, doing all that NEF to TIFF conversion.! It is not necessary.


----------



## NathAus

I-See-Light said:


> 1)   Why they look different-
> Why do I see my images change after they are imported into Lightroom?
> 
> 2)   How you can select a defined Camera Profile-
> How to Get Accurate Nikon Colors in Lightroom
> 
> 3)   How you can Develop an image to your liking and use those settings as the 'Default' (Camera Profile) rendering for all image Imports-
> Adobe Lightroom - Customising Camera Defaults
> 
> Don't waste time, energy, disk space, doing all that NEF to TIFF conversion.! It is not necessary.



Thanks for your reply. I understand the technical side re why the files look different upon import and have read the second link before. However, they issue remains: the LR profiles designed to "match" the in-camera settings are way off.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I think that some people place far too much emphasis on how the jpegs look out of the camera. True, a raw file isn't already cooked when it comes into Lightroom, so it needs work to get it to look great. So be it. Whether 'great' is what you saw on the back of the camera remains to be seen, by the way. Personally, I would be ashamed if I couldn't do better than that! And yes, even with those special camera profiles the raw files often still don't look like the jpegs right from the start. Big deal! It takes time to learn how the get the most out of Lightroom, so take that time to learn. This forum can help you, but in the end you have to learn by doing it and not giving up so quickly. The first photo you ever took was probably also not the best photo you ever took in your life!


----------



## Tony Jay

The OP is a bit confusing.
One cannot say on one hand that I want the raw file to like the camera-generated JPEG and then say that on the other hand that I don't want to shoot JPEG because then I lose the flexibility of editing raw files.

Raw files are not meant to look like camera-generated JPEG's.
It is as simple as that.

I don't want my images to look like the camera-generated JPEG - I want them to look better, much better!
Does this take a bit a knowledge and effort?
Sure.
Can Lightroom produce anything that I want?
Yes.
This is not free advertising for Adobe - merely a statement of fact.

The challenge for you is to learn how to use the Develop module in Lightroom to the point where processing lots of images is not necessarily time-consuming.
At least some of the time batch processing can be employed but the key is still to be able efficiently and creatively use the Develop module.

Tony Jay


----------



## Gnits

I don't want my images to look like the camera-generated JPEG - I want them to look better, much better!

I totally agree with this perspective.


----------



## Rob_Cullen

"LR profiles designed to "match" the in-camera settings"  Yes that was item 2) in my post.
But did you understand item 3) in post#8?
You can change any and all of the Develop sliders on a raw image and make that YOUR DEFAULT for images imported. That's nothing to do with Camera profiles. It is YOUR way to see your images as you want.
So, open a NEF raw image, make adjustments to WB, Contrast, Saturation, Vibrance, Tone Curve, etc.etc. then hold the ALT/OPTION key and click on the [RESET] button to "Set Default"
This Default is how your NEF images will look at Import.


----------



## rob211

Could be a monitor issue.

I dunno Nikon, but I assume the JPEG preview generated in the camera is preserved in the RAW? Not sure it uses any of the camera settings for JPEG (like say WB). So I'd use a utility to extract the JPEG preview from that NEF and look at it on your computer. Does that preview look different from what you saw on the back of your camera? Could be that the camera's screen actually has better or more accurate color than the monitor on your computer. If your monitor is as old as your system software the D750 might be better.

There are a ton of variables remaining after you eliminate monitor difference as the root of your problem. The process, different camera settings beyond the defaults listed above, maybe even other defaults in Lr could influence it. You just have to eliminate them and keep testing.


----------



## Gnits

Why not take all the guesswork out of it completely and use Colour Checker Pro.  It costs approx 100 dollars / euros. You can use Colour Checker Pro to easily (and I mean easily) create profiles for your camera in your most used lighting scenarios (eg your studio, with your lights, or a landscape at dawn)  or you can easily create a profile for a specific scenario (say complex mixed lighting in a chapel, with flash, tall windows and tungsten).

Initially, you can explore the problem you are currently trying to solve (ie difference between jpg and raw results) and you may later decide to use this tool in your workflow. 

Watch these videos .... there may be better ones out there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTlugQd3L5g  

This one from about 23 mins .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDqFU2petQ


----------



## Johan Elzenga

ColorCheckr Pro will also not make a raw look like the jpeg from the camera. The difference is simple to explain. First of all, a jpeg from the camera is already processed and the raw is not. For that reason the raw will always look duller than the jpeg. That is how it should be. But because the camera uses its own proprietary raw engine to do this processing, Lightroom will never make an exact match no matter what you try or what profile you use. You can get close, but an exact match is virtually impossible to get. But like we said, you don't want an exact match. You want something better. That is the whole idea about shooting in raw. If you can't or don't want to get a better result, why shoot in raw in the first place? Shoot in jpeg if you just want the jpeg.


----------



## Gnits

Agreed...... but ...

1. Colour checker would allow Ed to explore and analyse what is happening and
2. The possibility exists Ed may be able to fine tune a profile which would allow him to work with a raw based, more efficient, workflow.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

ColorCheckr will create a neutral profile. It's a great tool, but it won't bring you any closer to matching the in-camera jpeg. The OP simply needs to understand that shooting in raw is not about shooting to match the in-camera jpeg. It's to do better than that jpeg.


----------



## rob211

The OP was asking about RAW, not JPEGs imported into Lr. I dunno what a Nikon uses to generate the JPEG preview, but that's what he's looking at in the camera, not a JPEG later in Lr. And it's tough to know why he thinks the in camera raw preview looks better than the Lr preview; I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it might look better because the colors are truer to the scene. And using something like the colorchecker would get him to that point at least.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

The jpeg preview of a raw file is the same as the jpeg a camera creates when you shoot in jpeg. Lightroom renders its own previews however, and because these are rendered without any adjustments (apart from a camera profile and any settings you apply on import) they *DO* look flatter than the camera previews.

The reason why people conclude that the camera previews looked better is because these have been processed already, so they usually have more contrast and more color. It obviously depends on the camera settings too. If people set their camera to extra contrast and extra color saturation, then the difference will be even greater. Using a special camera profile in Lightroom like 'Camera landscape' tries to compensate for this, so the initial Lightroom previews are going to be closer to those camera previews. But Lightroom can only do so much, because the very basics (the raw engines) are different.

Using the ColorCheckr does more or less the opposite. It makes a profile that is 'Camera neutral', so it's unlikely that this profile will be a closer match than a special profile created by Adobe to try to match the camera previews. Don't get me wrong: I prefer using special camera profiles and I do own ColorCheckr myself, but I don't think that this will do much for the OP if he wants to make his raw files match what he saw on the back of the camera (on a non-calibrated, non-color managed LCD...). The chance that what he saw was a neutral image is very small.


----------



## rob211

Ah, so for NEFs the camera uses the current JPEG settings to render a preview for the RAW image? I know my Oly does that, but I wasn't sure if that's true for all cameras. My Oly also embeds a JPEG preview in RAW (at least I think it may be JPEG...maybe TIFF?).

I can't be sure, but I also think it jiggers the preview in the camera for more vivid contrasty viewing on the LCD, which would make sense. And obviously it downsamples to show the preview on that little screen, which can also affect how it looks. So it's possibly the camera settings set by the user, maybe some settings to optimize for the little camera monitor, and the camera monitor itself that all affect the view.

I know that at times using the manufacturer-supplied software on the raw at the same time as Lr sometimes gives me some comparison, at least since usually that software provides pretty similar renderings to in-camera settings (I was messing with an in camera "art" filter doing this); at least the monitor is factored out and you can just keep messing with Lr until you get the match you want.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Yes, as far as I know all cameras use the same settings for in-camera jpegs and previews of raw. And yes, the preview is always jpeg, never tiff.


----------



## rob211

Good to know. I'd assume that they'd do that for compatibility, but ya never know. BTW my Oly does both a thumbnail and a bigger JPEG preview. And I forgot to mention that a good way to view the embedded JPEG (since you can't in Lr AFAIK) is to use FastRawViewer. Would save the hassle and time of extracting it.


----------



## Replytoken

JohanElzenga said:


> Yes, as far as I know all cameras use the same settings for in-camera jpegs and previews of raw. And yes, the preview is always jpeg, never tiff.


I am not sure that all cameras use the same settings, as the embedded jpeg in my Ricoh GR is smaller than any other embedded jpeg in my Nikon, Olympus or Panasonic cameras.

--Ken


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Replytoken said:


> I am not sure that all cameras use the same settings, as the embedded jpeg in my Ricoh GR is smaller than any other embedded jpeg in my Nikon, Olympus or Panasonic cameras.



We are talking about the same settings as _what the camera uses when you shoot jpeg_. Obviously, these settings can be different for each manufacturer.


----------



## Ed Knopp

Very sorry if this issue has been raised before but I can't find the thread in the forums (I am new!)

I shoot in Raw (Nikon D750) and the Jpeg image it renders on the back of my camera looks exactly how I want it.  But then I import the raw into lightroom and the pics suck!  It takes me ages to try and edit it to look even close to what I have on the back of the camera.  Then I have hundreds more images to process - pretty frustrating.  I can spend a week editing a few hundred photos.  I have tried the camera profiles, but they don't even get me close either. 

If Lightroom imported the raw that look close to what I shoot in the display, I would have hardly any editing to do, but instead end up spending a ton of time.  Just seems crazy I have to start from scratch each time.  Makes me feel like shooting JPEG to save time, but then I lose the flexibility in editing.

Any suggestions?  I have heard some people say use the Nikon software instead, but then that defeats the object of the power of having lightroom.

Is Adobe planning to  have any better settings that automatically import the RAW closer to the JPEG image the camera renders or do I have to keep struggling?   

Alternatively any quick tips to get things looking better quickly? Thanks!


----------



## Replytoken

JohanElzenga said:


> We are talking about the same settings as _what the camera uses when you shoot jpeg_. Obviously, these settings can be different for each manufacturer.



Thank you for the clarification.  I initially read your post to mean something different.

--Ken


----------

