After hearing all the wonderful things about RAW, I used it for about a hundred photos of an important event. I was never so disappointed in photography. The colors were all drab, almost like pastels (a bit of an exaggeration there). Skin tones appeared pasty. I tried my best to correct the images but, post-processing simply isn't my forte.

Initially I blamed the camera itself but, shortly thereafter, I took some shots with both RAW and JPG formats and there is a definite difference. The JPGs were vibrant while the RAWs were bland (all throwaways).

Now that I know what happened, I'd like to go back to the original RAW shots and, with some degree of luck, make them look as well as the JPGs would have looked. Are there some steps that you can recommend? I have a Mac with the latest version of iPhoto and PSE-V4. I did put all of the original files in a separate folder so, thankfully, I'll be starting from scratch.

1) never try anything unproven on an important event, disaster will strike.
2) what software did you use for this "post processing" of the RAW files.
3) since you admit are not skilled at PP, perhaps you should stay more with .jpgs.
4) there are volumes of very good post here and in the software forum. I would HIGHLY recommend searching and reading a LOT of them to get an idea what you might think is in your scope of skill.

Take Care,
Min

Some people say the read quite a bit, but unfortunately they comprehend very little.

>1) never try anything unproven on an important event, disaster will strike.
Yes, I should have known better. I asked for help to make up for my error.

>2) what software did you use for this "post processing" of the RAW files.
PhotoShop Elements and iPhoto at home and PhotoShop at work. I also downloaded CaptureNX and tried it because of a suggestion in this thread. I learned that PS is easier to use.

>3) since you admit are not skilled at PP, perhaps you should stay more with .jpgs.
I stated that at the beginning. All I want to do is fix fifty pictures. Period! Can anyone tell me how to make the photos look as good as they would have looked if the camera was set to jpg? If nothing else, the lack of any assistance is making me realize how difficult RAW is to work with.

>4) there are volumes of very good post here and in the software forum. I would HIGHLY recommend searching and reading a LOT of them to get an idea what you might think is in your scope of skill.
I already stated that I have no interest in post-processing. I didn't do it with film (especially since my preferred film was Kodachrome) and I don't want to do it with pixels.

What setting did you have your camera on?? i use both .Jpeg and .RAW format and i cant say i have ever had drab .RAW files. I use the flash if need be and i change between manual/apeture priority/shutter priority and i am starting with P mode. However i am experienced at post processing( well to a point anyways )

I did a photoshoot the other day and shot both formats and my RAW files were definitely better. Hope you get it sorted!

>i use both .Jpeg and .RAW format and i cant say i have ever had >drab .RAW files.
>I did a photoshoot the other day and shot both formats and my
>RAW files were definitely better. Hope you get it sorted!

You must be the only one whose RAW files are better than JPEGs straight out of the camera. Could you explain how this is possible? Does anybody else's RAW files look better than JPEGs?

Thanks,
Chris

Chris

_________________________________
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.
Ernst Haas, 1985

Runfola Photography Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Keep in mind that when you shoot jpegs, you're not getting all the information available. I shoot all my client & personal work on RAW, and do my PP work in Adobe Camera Raw, with great success. Also, you have much more dynamic range with RAW, and you can recover 'bad' shots much more easily with RAW.

Do as others have said and learn RAW. You will have far more control over your images.

Jim

In my experience, if you compare an un-postprocessed RAW and an un-postprocessed .jpg, the .jpg usually (almost always) looks better. That's really not the point of RAW. The point is that you can get better edits using RAW than you can using .jpg. Now, for some, it may not be worth the effort and .jpg is the way to go, while for others RAW is definitely worth the effort. Your choice. As others have said, experiment, read, learn.

Paige
Nikon D80, 18-200 VR, 50mm f/1.4
"It's nothing until I call it" -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire and native Rochesterian

The raw conversion software is very important in this process. I use BIBBLE and am very pleased with the results I get. You can test it for free and it DOES run on OSX.

Karl Zemlin - www.sonicartistry.net
I couldn't pick a pocket in a pile of dirty clothes - Chris Smither

Drab RAW files is normal. JPEGs turn out brighter and more vibrant because any in-camera settings, such as saturation, vibrance, etc., are immediately applied to the final image. These same settings are not applied to the RAW file which is why they usually (always?) look drab and blah, but they are embedded within the file info. If you open the RAW file and save it as a JPEG, the settings are automatically applied and you will have the picture you expected.

Chris

Chris

_________________________________
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.
Ernst Haas, 1985

Runfola Photography Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"If you open the RAW file and save it as a JPEG, the settings are automatically applied and you will have the picture you expected."

I did that and the colors are still drab. Obviously I missed a step and I'm trying to determine just what to do. Others have lectured me to learn how to work with RAW. Well, I'm obviously happier with jpg and all I want to do is to fix some pics that look really lousy. Please remember that I admitted in my original post that post-processing is not my forte.

Raw or NEF files have a minimal amount of processing done before being written to the in camera media unlike a Jpeg that has all in camera settings processed into the image so adjustments to the image are much less. Depending upon the product you are using to postprocess your images, the camera settings stored within the image are not processed, the Picture Project and NikonView, or Nikon Capture NX will apply these settings, so you will have apply them yourself.

You can download the Nikon software manuals and review the processing available for NEF files and how each product can save the edited image.

With Capture NX you can individually change the camera settings of Exposure Comp, Sharpening, Tone Comp, Color Mode, Saturation, Hue Adjustment, and White Balance. Also any change to the image are separately stored so one can undo any changes to the NEF this may not be possible with a JPEG image. Capture NX can also save the edited NEF file as a NEF file.

You will find more help in the Digital postprocessing & workflow

George
My Nikonian Galleries

So there's nothing that I can do with the software that I have? I don't want to invest money for software that I'll use only once.

You can download Nikon ViewNX for free Nikon Capture NX v1.3.1 - Macintosh for the full version and then Nikon Capture NX v1.3.3 Updater - Macintosh. This software will also process Jpeg images.

You may also find more support in the image and processeing forum for the software that you already have.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

You can download a 60 day free trial of CaptureNX2 and process the RAW files. Of course, you may end up likeing it so much that you will have to buy it.

Bibble is also a free trial - with the same risk.

Karl Zemlin - www.sonicartistry.net
I couldn't pick a pocket in a pile of dirty clothes - Chris Smither

>You can download a 60 day free trial of CaptureNX2... Of course,
>you may end up likeing it so much that you will have to buy it.

That's exactly what happened to me! While CaptureNX doesn't have all the bells and whistles of Photoshop, it is a very powerful program nonetheless, and very intuitive to use. Photoshop has a very steep learning curve for those new to it, but the thing I like about CaptureNX is its U-Point technology which allows you to modify sections of a photo without having to create masks, and also allows you to work with your images without the need to perform a complicated series of operations in a particular order.

I must admit, though, that I don't use it exclusively -- I still use Lightroom and CS3, but for those quick jobbies, CaptureNX is great.

Download and peruse the Nikon CaptureNX User\'s Manual and decide from there.

Chris

Chris

_________________________________
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.
Ernst Haas, 1985

Runfola Photography Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I give up.

I downloaded CaptureNX and it's more trouble than PhotoShop Elements and iPhoto. I've spent over an hour on one photo and it still looks like ####.

All I want to do is click on a button that says "make this photo look like it would have looked if the camera created a jpg file." I don't want to do anything else. I'm asking for directions to drive to Pittsburgh and everybody is telling me that I have to learn how to build a transmission.

"I'm asking for directions to drive to Pittsburgh and everybody is telling me that I have to learn how to build a transmission."

Using that analogy, basically you don't have a method of getting to Pittsburgh, so directions are useless. You a RAW file which is like the components of a car, or a bus, or your legs, basically any method you need to be able to get to Pittsburgh.

And thus, the advantage of RAW.

Adobe Photoshop Light room has some built in settings that might help you out to some degree, and they just released the newest version of it yesterday... but honestly, the point of RAW is to be able to have greater control over the image, therefore, it's left as raw sensor data so that you can apply the camera settings after you take the picture.

http://www.wlwakefield.com

>"I'm asking for directions to drive to Pittsburgh and
>everybody is telling me that I have to learn how to build a
>transmission."
>
>Using that analogy, basically you don't have a method of
>getting to Pittsburgh, so directions are useless. You a RAW
>file which is like the components of a car, or a bus, or your
>legs, basically any method you need to be able to get to
>Pittsburgh.
>
>And thus, the advantage of RAW.
>
>Adobe Photoshop Light room has some built in settings that
>might help you out to some degree, and they just released the
>newest version of it yesterday... but honestly, the point of
>RAW is to be able to have greater control over the image,
>therefore, it's left as raw sensor data so that you can apply
>the camera settings after you take the picture.

No. I can buy a car without building a transmission. If RAW is so darned wonderful why is it that no one can tell me how to take the RAW file and make it look as good as it would have been if the camera had originally produced a JPG? Clearly, RAW isn't very flexible if you can't do that.

As you say, I do want to "apply the camera settings" after I took the pictures. Can you tell me how?

Yes, that's no problem. Just adjust all of the settings to the way you want the photo to look. Any of the aforementioned products will allow you to do this.

http://www.wlwakefield.com

>All I want to do is click on a button that says "make
>this photo look like it would have looked if the camera
>created a jpg file." I don't want to do anything else.

This is somewhat a parallel to a person having a point and shoot with no adjustments wanting to be able to control DOF, exposure, and a multitude of other camera settings.

Raw files are created with out the in camera application of camera settings to give the widest possible lattitude of adjustment during post processing.
While raw isnt for everyone, there are most assuredly advaantages to it for all the reasons others have previously stated.
Simply put, if jpg works better for you, forget raw and shoot jpg.
If you want to learn about how to get the most out of your images research and learn to process raw. No one can hand it to you on a silver platter.

>>All I want to do is click on a button that says
>"make
>>this photo look like it would have looked if the camera
>>created a jpg file." I don't want to do anything
>else.
>
>This is somewhat a parallel to a person having a point and
>shoot with no adjustments wanting to be able to control DOF,
>exposure, and a multitude of other camera settings.
>
>Raw files are created with out the in camera application of
>camera settings to give the widest possible lattitude of
>adjustment during post processing.
>While raw isnt for everyone, there are most assuredly
>advaantages to it for all the reasons others have previously
>stated.
>Simply put, if jpg works better for you, forget raw and shoot
>jpg.
>If you want to learn about how to get the most out of your
>images research and learn to process raw. No one can hand it
>to you on a silver platter.

I've been shooting SLRs for nearly fifty years and I've never done any darkroom work. In fact, my favorite film was Kodachrome-25 and home darkroom work was physically impossible. It may well surprise you but I am quite able to control "DoF, exposure and a multitude of other camera settings." I did state, however, in my first post that post-process is not my forte, neither with film nor with pixels.

I have absolutely no interest in learning RAW. I asked for help in fixing some fifty pics that I had mistakenly taken in RAW before I had realized the problems associated with RAW. I want to do one thing and one thing only... I want to make fifty specific RAW pictures look as good as they would have looked if the camera was set to produce JPG files originally. I want to do absolutely nothing else.

If RAW is so darned wonderful why is it that no one can help me? Why is everyone interested in defending usage of RAW rather than answering my original question? Is it that difficult to work with RAW?

>...I've never done any darkroom work.
>...home darkroom work was physically impossible.
>...I am quite able to control "DoF, exposure and a multitude of other camera settings.
>...post-process is not my forte, neither with film nor with pixels.
>I have absolutely no interest in learning RAW.

Socrates,
I can understand your frustration at asking questions about fixing your pictures and getting (in your opinion) useless replies. While all the responses given are very informative and useful, they're just not quite the answer you're looking for.

I read your posts in the forums quite often and can tell that you're a very knowledgeable person when it comes to photography. Heck, I believe I've learned a thing or two about photography just from reading your posts! But, as you've clearly stated (see quotes above), post-processing is not your forte. That's okay, though, because a lot of people can drive cars, but not everyone can be a race car driver (getting back to that analogy about cars).

>I want to make fifty specific RAW pictures look as good as they would have looked if the camera was set to produce JPG files originally.
>I want to do absolutely nothing else.

Now, while you may not be a race car driver, you do have a pit crew in the form of Nikonians who are all participating in this thread and trying to help you succeed. That being said, I'd like to offer you my help in fixing the 50 RAW pictures to "look as good as they would have looked (if they were produced as) JPG files." I'm sure there may be other Nikonians members reading this who might like to help you as well. If you accept my offer, please click the email icon in the upper right-hand corner of this post (the first icon just under the date and time) and I'll email you back with an email address to send the pictures to.

Just seek solice in the fact that all is not lost -- we're here to help if you'll let us.

Best Regards,
Chris

Chris

_________________________________
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.
Ernst Haas, 1985

Runfola Photography Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My original post had some very specific questions. If you're able to answer them, I would be most grateful. However, if you are unable to answer them, please don't lecture me about how wonderful RAW is or how important it is that I learn how to use RAW.

At this point, it doesn't matter any more. I've already spent more time on this effort than it's worth. The pics that I screwed up will remain screwed up.

Hi

I am only a beginner with Capture NX, but I believe that if you convert RAW files to JPG's the program will apply the same settings that you had in the camera to the jpg file. You should then end up with the same result as if you had produced jpegs from the camera. The people on the Digital Post Processing forum might be more help. There are some very knowlegable and helpful people there.

Good luck

David

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There is no need to knock RAW. It gives you much more flexibility than jpeg for controlling color balance, lighting, sharpness etc.. If you don't want to get involved with all the post processing work, you can have the RAW processor reproduce the camera settings and you will have the same results as having saved the pictures as jpeg files in the camera. That's the beauty of RAW.

>There is no need to knock RAW. It gives you much more
>flexibility than jpeg for controlling color balance, lighting,
>sharpness etc.. If you don't want to get involved with all the
>post processing work, you can have the RAW processor reproduce
>the camera settings and you will have the same results as
>having saved the pictures as jpeg files in the camera. That's
>the beauty of RAW.

I certainly did not mean to offends the great gods of RAW. I was merely asking a question. Unfortunately, no one has be able to provide an answer.

I'm not interested in hearing that "RAW is wonderful." I'd prefer that someone answer my question. PLEASE tell me how to "have the RAW processor reproduce the camera settings." THAT WAS MY QUESTION! I want to do what you said but I don't know how. Exactly what should I do? What software should I use. What buttons should I press? What commands should I enter? Etc., etc., etc.

I am also new to Capture NX, but I believe Davidd is correct, if you just do a saveas as a jpg the file should match what would be produced by the camera.

Here are 3 examples. The first is the jpg produced from the camera. The second is saved from the raw (NEF) file with no changes. The third is saved from the raw file with the WB and color profile adjusted. The only other changes to these files was the relousion to be able to post them.


JPG from camera


JPG from RAW no Adjustment


JPG from RAW with adjustments


Also, I don't know about the Mac or newer versions of photoshop, but in photoshop 7 only the EV and WB are available when importing the NEF. All other settings have to be made manualy or the JPG will look flat as you say..

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)

In your second sample, please confirm that all you did was bring the RAW file into CaptureNX and then immediately save as jpg?

That's the one thing that I didn't try! I was totally convinced that I had to "do something." With some degree of luck, I'll get a chance to try it tonight. It's early morning for me right now and I'm at work.

Many use the workflow of bringing the image into Capture NX, letting Capture NX apply the camera settings, making the changes that the other editing application can not make, and then saving as a TIFF (prevents loss of data by Jpeg compression and can provide an increase in color depth) or a Jpeg and then open the new saved file in a different editing program or use the "Open with..." option in Capture NX to open the current file with modifications applied bu Capture NX in a different editing application for additional editing.

Again, you will find more help in the post processing forum where there are many very experienced users with postprocessing and they can help you develope workflow for your postprocessing of images including editing Jpegs and NEFs.

Postprocessing is very similar to darkroom processing, you can crop, lighten or darken areas of the image (dodge and burn), remove dust spots if you have made a dust reference image, and make any number of other changes to the image. Many photographers use this to correct issues with the original image or make changes needed for specialized use beyond just a print or slide. And in your analogy this is more like adding speed accessories to a car not building the car No one is asking or telling you to write a program to process the sensor data or the NEF file.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

I see below that you have already found a way that you are happy with, but to answer your question, I did nothing but open the NEF in Capture NX2 and did a saveas in JPG format.

Glad to hear you are able to save your pictures.

>I see below that you have already found a way that you are
>happy with, but to answer your question, I did nothing but
>open the NEF in Capture NX2 and did a saveas in JPG format.
>
>Glad to hear you are able to save your pictures.

That's really strange but, fortunately, it's academic at this point. Thanks for your help.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could post one or two of your RAW files for folks to look at. There's lots of talk here, but specifics are difficult without knowing what you're looking at.

I'd suggest at least one RAW file and the JPG you're getting from it. If you don't have a place where you can easily post a raw file, let me know. I can help with that.

Karl Zemlin - www.sonicartistry.net
I couldn't pick a pocket in a pile of dirty clothes - Chris Smither

Socrates,
working with RAW files is not that simple, unless you have learned - how to work with them. Best book, I've read is "The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX2". It is written by Jason P. Odell (a.k.a. DrJay32). It cost about 25 USD and distributed as PDF, but worth every penny. Suggest, that you should buy this book, learn - how to drive, and then visit Pitsburg.

Alternative - Bruce Fraser "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop". I've one for CS2, but expect that version for CS3 should be avaliable as well.

Regards,
Genn

Every time you look into a mirror, the mirror looks at you.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"Working with RAW files is not that simple, unless you have learned - how to work with them."
It ain't gonna happen. I've stated repeatedly that it's not my forte and, further, I just don't have the time.

However, others have stated that it is simple and that the only thing that I need to do is to open the RAW files in CaptureNX and then save as jpg. It's been stated that that will apply the same camera settings as would have been applied if the original was a jpg. I haven't yet had the chance to try this. Hopefully, I'll do it in a day or two. If it works, great! If it doesn't, I'll give up. The photos are not worth the time that I've already put into this effort.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Open the photos in CaptureNX.

1. Locate Picture Control (will show as "Non-Picture Control")

2. Change to "Picture Control"

3. Select "Standard"

4. Save as jpg

Actually, you can save as NEF with the selected Picture Control, which is easier for me. I did one photo, saved the settings file and then did a batch change. I'll use iPhoto to do a batch conversion to jpg.

It doesn't have the same options as my D80 but it's good enough.

Congratulations, Socrates! You can finally put all this frustration behind you. I'm so happy for you!

If you'll recall, I suggested early on that you convert the RAW files to JPEG to recover the colors, vibrance, etc. But I'm glad you figured it out on your own.

Again, congratulations!

Chris

Chris

_________________________________
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE.
Ernst Haas, 1985

Runfola Photography Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

RAW is wonderful.

Take Care,
Min

Some people say the read quite a bit, but unfortunately they comprehend very little.

>RAW is wonderful.

LOL!

In all seriousness, it is wonderful for those that choose to use it.

>Congratulations, Socrates! You can finally put all this
>frustration behind you. I'm so happy for you!
>
>If you'll recall, I
>suggested
>early on> that you convert the RAW files to JPEG to recover
>the colors, vibrance, etc. But I'm glad you figured it out on
>your own.
>
>Again, congratulations!
>
>Chris

Thanks. I think I'll have a beer!

Don't forget the "Picture Control" setting. That made the difference for my shots.

I never had an interest in learning to work with RAW either, until I tried it in Capture NX.
Now its all I use for important photos.

I pay no attention to what the RAW photo looks like when I first load it up, but it usually is rather drab, thats because various settings have not been applied to it.

It is so easy to apply very basic changes to RAW in CaptureNX. Saturation is one that will make a huge difference if your photos aren't vibrant. Saturation and white balance alone could be the only settings you change and you'll have a whole new photo.

If you're still having trouble getting a good quality photo from RAW, upload a raw image somewhere for us to download and some of us can have a go of it.

To longroad...

Thanks for the offer but I finally did resolve the issue with the 60-day version of CaptureNX.

I have no disagreement with RAW except that it's not for me. I've spent many years with Kodachrome (post-processing is physically impossible) and, now that it's obviously possible, I really don't have the time to get involved.

Thanks again.

Glad you found the solution

I was at a RAW course last night - I haven't shot RAW yet, but am planning to

The instructor made a point of noting " the RAW pics will look FLAT to you when you first start working with them"

This is because of the missing processing steps that the camera does to create the JPEG

So I will be aware of this when I start

Paul

D80
18-135 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 VR | Sigma 24-60 f2.8 - 70-200 f2.8 HSM | SB-400 SB-600
http://www.pauldunlopphotography.com

*Use this link for a discount on a new Exposure Manager account*
http://www.exposuremanager.com/aff/pauldunlopphotography

>Glad you found the solution
>
>I was at a RAW course last night - I haven't shot RAW yet, but
>am planning to
>
>The instructor made a point of noting " the RAW pics will
>look FLAT to you when you first start working with them"
>
>This is because of the missing processing steps that the
>camera does to create the JPEG
>
>So I will be aware of this when I start
>
>
I certainly learned that the hard way!

Opening the raw images in a Nikon software application most definitely should *not* look flat compared to the view of the in-camera JPEG preview.

Open a NEF in Adobe Camera Raw and POW.....it'll look flat since that converter has very neutral and low saturation defaults compared to Nikon camera setetings. One way around that with the new ACR 4.5 and LR 2 is the beta camera profiles from Adobe Labs.

Opening a NEF file in View NX or Capture NX will look just like the in-camera JPEGs since those applicaitons understand, honor, and *render* the NEF as displayed at capture time on your camera LCD (with the huge caveat that camera LCDs are awful and not color corrected)

But the implication that the OP's NEFs looked somehow substantially different from how they appeared at in-camera capture time is very difficult to reconcile with how we all know these Nikon applications work.

I like most Nikon in-camera renderings of color (maybe not tone so much) so I have chosen to use Nikon applications (View NX and Capture NX 2) for my workflow.

Raw isn't evil. Raw also isn't the cure for world peace. However, post processing absolutely is a requirement in digital image capture. But you don't have to do very much. Set black point, white point, check for color neutrality (white balance, etc.) and sharpen for output. Most images really only need those steps. You can stop there if PP work isn't your bag.

Best Regards,
Michael

"Opening the raw images in a Nikon software application most definitely should *not* look flat compared to the view of the in-camera JPEG preview."
That was never part of the issue. I rarely use my camera's monitor and, when I do, it's only for a quick check of content. I bought my D80 ten months ago and I have not yet removed the monitor cover!

"Open a NEF in Adobe Camera Raw and POW.....it'll look flat..."
Yep, that's what started my problem except it was iPhoto and PSE.

"Opening a NEF file in View NX or Capture NX will look just like the in-camera JPEGs since those applicaitons understand, honor, and *render* the NEF as displayed at capture time on your camera LCD (with the huge caveat that camera LCDs are awful and not color corrected)."
I downloaded the 60-day CaptureNX2 and tried that. The colors still looked flat until I utilized "Picture Control." That solved my problem.

"But the implication that the OP's NEFs looked somehow substantially different from how they appeared at in-camera capture time is very difficult to reconcile with how we all know these Nikon applications work."
Again, that was not my issue. My issue was that the colors appeared flat compared to what they would have looked like if the camera had produced a jpg.

"I like most Nikon in-camera renderings of color..."
So do I. That's why I will leave my camera configured for jpg from now on.

"However, post processing absolutely is a requirement in digital image capture."
I disagree vehemently and I most certainly hope that you're incorrect. If, however, you are correct, then I have to conclude that digital photography is a step backward from film.

"But you don't have to do very much. Set black point, white point, check for color neutrality (white balance, etc.) and sharpen for output."
You're putting tears in my eyes. I want my Kodachrome back.


It's interesting that "Red Eye Removal" and "Exposure Adjustment" appear to be mandatory features with pretty much every piece of PP software available on the market today. Forgive my bluntness but, if they're valid examples of the need for PP, then PP would be ideal for my wife and her Casio.

>"However, post processing absolutely is a requirement in
>digital image capture."
>I disagree vehemently and I most certainly hope that you're
>incorrect. If, however, you are correct, then I have to
>conclude that digital photography is a step backward from
>film.

Post processing, in my mind, is the digital version of what happens in the darkroom with film. Post processing happens one way or another. it's either in your camera when it turns the CCD data into a JPG based on the settings you've selected in the camera, or on your computer where you have more control over the process.

I don't like to have Walgreens develop and print my film. I don't like to have my camera make my post processing decisions for me.

I shoot raw, unless they are just shots for reference that won't be printed with any sort of quality concern.

Karl Zemlin - www.sonicartistry.net
I couldn't pick a pocket in a pile of dirty clothes - Chris Smither

"I don't like to have Walgreens develop and print my film."

Yeah, I've been told that they do a lousy job getting rid of red-eye.

The beauty of digital is the freedom it gives you in post processing. Why did you spend all that money on digital? I would have stuck with film.

>The beauty of digital is the freedom it gives you in post
>processing. Why did you spend all that money on digital? I
>would have stuck with film.

Yes, with no requirement for post-processing, film is far superior to digital. I would have stuck with film if film products and services were still available as they had been previously. Unfortunately, I really don't have that option.

>My issue was that the colors
>appeared flat compared to what they would have looked like if
>the camera had produced a jpg.

A good comparison here would be if you sent a roll of film in for processing, and the lab made poor or no corrections to prints.
Granted the "Chrome" films get much closer in color rendition than neg. film does but there will still be some differences between whats projected on a screen and what would be represented in a print.


>"However, post processing absolutely is a requirement in
>digital image capture."
>I disagree vehemently and I most certainly hope that you're
>incorrect. If, however, you are correct, then I have to
>conclude that digital photography is a step backward from
>film.

This all depends on one's definition of "post processing". PP can be nothing more than a slight crop or image resize for some specific purpose to a full blown alteration for a much different effect.
Exposure, color adjustment, and sharpening fall somewhere between these two extremes.
In some ways this is an exact parallel to film printing. With film, the lab, be it commercial or a home darkroom, has to deal with variations caused by chemical temprature, color variations in different batch's of paper, or even slight variation between different batch's of chemicals.
Exposure times and color correction filtration can and do vary even between similarly exposed films. Then to get the bes possible print, there's still dodging and burning done (in a custom print scenerio) to get the best possible print.
I think a good anology for viewing images right from the camera is jpg is comparable to the "chrome" films. Assuming the proper white balance in digital, or choosing the proper film for specific lighting, (tungsten vs daylight for example).

Neg's would compare more to raw. both need more processing to get a quality image but there are advantages also. Mainly that raw, or neg. film, depending on the venue chosen, has more exposure latitude, and in general are more forgiving.
Now i realize not everyone wants to get that deeply involved in processing be it film or digital, but for those who do choose to delve into this realm, for either medium, the end result is having complete control of the final output seen in print.
And after all, having knowledge and experience in the complete process from exposure to final print makes one a better photographer, just as having knowledge and experience in ones job, makes them more effecient at that job.


>You're putting tears in my eyes. I want my Kodachrome back.
Food for thought. I know its frustrating to not have had a simple answer available, BUT many people here took the time to post help and attempted solutions.
Rather than this and a couple other sarcastic comments made, maybe a little appreciation for the time others have taken, would be more appropriate.

>You're putting tears in my eyes. I want my Kodachrome back.
Food for thought. I know its frustrating to not have had a simple answer available, BUT many people here took the time to post help and attempted solutions.
Rather than this and a couple other sarcastic comments made, maybe a little appreciation for the time others have taken, would be more appropriate.

That comment was absolutely not sarcasm. If Kodachrome was still available, I'd still be shooting film.

Yes, I do appreciate the efforts that others have taken but, unfortunately, many posts put me on the defensive. Remember that my sole objective was to fix a single batch of photos that I had inadvertently taken in RAW. The last thing that I needed or wanted was a lecture on how much I must study in order to learn PP.