In-camera RAW: the Photoshop alternative under your nose
If you shoot RAW files you’ll have noticed by now that the colours and tonal renditions you get from third-party RAW converters like Adobe Camera Raw, DxO Optics Pro or Capture One do not quite match those of the in-camera JPEGs.
That’s because the camera has its own internal RAW converter. Whether you shoot RAW or JPEG, the image is initially captured as RAW data. If you shoot RAW, the RAW files are saved out as-is to the memory card. If you shoot JPEGs, the RAW data is converted on the fly into JPEGs, which are then saved on the card.
The thing is that all RAW converters are different. Third-party RAW converters don’t use the same RAW conversion process as the camera (or the camera maker’s own RAW conversion software). Instead, they use their own. It’s like swapping from a film maker’s own developer in the old days, to a different formulation from an independent company.
Now you may often prefer the look that Capture One gives to your Nikon NEFs, or you may like what DxO Optics Pro does with your Pentax PEFs, but it can work the other way too. Sometimes you have to do quite a bit of work on your RAW files to get them back to the visual appeal of the in-camera JPEGs.
So that’s why I want to point out a feature in many current D-SLRs and CSCs that’s often overlooked – in-camera RAW conversion. Increasingly, camera makers are adding the ability to process RAW files already saved on the memory card. You can change things like white balance, exposure compensation, picture style (‘landscape’, ‘black and white’ etc) and then save out a new, processed JPEG alongside the RAW original.
You don’t get the same depth of control as RAW converters on a computer, but you do get quick access to the most commonly-used tweaks AND you get exactly the colour and tonal reproduction the camera maker intended.
This was really brought home to me when I started shooting with a Fuji XA-1. Fujifilm cameras deliver their own particular ‘look’, and the only way to get it is by shooting JPEGs. I haven’t yet found any RAW converter that can deliver the same results, and I’m including the one that comes with the camera. This is SilkyPix, a low-cost generic RAW converter also used by Panasonic. SilkyPix isn’t just complex and messy (don’t get me started!), it doesn’t even reproduce the Fujifilm ‘look’.
That’s why I love the fact camera has in-built RAW conversion tools. I can shoot RAW files I can tweak where I need to and save out images that look as Fujifilm intended.
I set this site up to talk about Photoshop alternatives, so I don’t want to overlook the one inside the camera…
In my naivety, can you explain why the fujifilm look can’t just be achieved manually in an editing program and then saved as a preset/used in a Lift & Stamp way?
Does it require more than just adjusting default sliders in a typical editing program? I’m interested to know.
I suspect other photographers may disagree with me, but I think it is more complex than that. There are subtle differences in colour reproduction, tonal gradations, saturation levels and other characteristics that you can’t easily overcome. You can get a lot closer to the particular camera’s ‘look’ with manual controls, but I don’t think you ever match them precisely.
Imagine an artists palette with dozens of different colours of paint. Adobe Camera Raw or some other third-party software will never make all the colours match up exactly with those the camera produces. You can get quite close, and you may even prefer your version to the camera’s, but there are always some differences. If you make an overall change using levels or curves or hue adjustments, you might get some colours closer and move others further away.
I usually shoot RAW+JPEG and the differences are pretty plain to me.
Very interesting. I’m definitely a novice when it comes to photo editing, and as much as I like the recoverability and extra detail that can be revealed by RAW (compared to JPG), I find that I spend a lot of time ‘correcting’ the raw RAW file.
I always have a backlog of projects to go through. If I was quicker at editing or if I didn’t have to do “RAW editing” on my poorer/less important photos then I’d be a lot more productive.
We’re far from a Photoshop alternative here. A skateboard is not, and will never be a Tesla. This is too bad that so called digital photography development is now contaminated by the mobile computing paradigm. Windows 8 is a total disaster, because Microsoft denies the fact that there are still people out there doing word processing with mice and keyboards, all over the place. To them, tactile lilliputian monitors are useless.
Admittedly, a serious photographer cannot get acceptable results from a screen the size of a post stamp. I use 2 well calibrated 24 in. monitors, and I could find use for a third one.
We have been made to believe that a JPEG produced with an iPhone is good photography. Same thing for music. Lots of people are convinced that an heavily compressed MP3 listened on an iPod, with 25$ earbuds is the summum of sound quality. One must take time to listen a well recorded vinyl on a quality hi-fi sound system to realize that it is not true.
Mobile computing is convenient for lots of things, but it will never replace a quality camera, big monitors and a comfortable seat, when come the time to do serious work.
I should have said Adobe Camera Raw alternative. I do think that cameras can sometimes do the best RAW conversions of all.
Okay. I am pretty well versed in most of the popular software and some no so well known software such as Iridient deveoper, and Photoninja.
Here is a point of confusion. In camera, (Fuji XT1) files. I shoot both Raw and Jpeg and I do agree about the Jpeg reditions being excellent. So am I converting the in camera raw file to a new raw file, or to a new Jpeg file. I am a bit uncertain of this having read the article.
You’re converting the RAW file into a new JPEG but keeping the original RAW file. I hope that helps.
I would like Fujifilm to create a piece of hardware, an external device, a Raw Converter, based on the algorithms and electronics found inside the X cameras, with maybe some more features, if possible, which can be also an external back-up storage drive, with a LCD, bigger than what we have on an X camera (at least 4″). With SD reader, USB, wi-fi to communicate with the camera, or a smart phone. Why?
1. Because it is cool and it is doable. Everything is based on existing technology. There is nothing new here, excepting the concept of putting all those pieces together. 2. This would end the problems when converting Fuji Raw file, using different softwares for post-processing, like Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. 3. Would be great to leave the laptop at home and travel really light, according to “Mirrorless Philosophy” as we use to do since adopting a Fujifilm mirrorless system, while making no compromise in IQ, using Raw files wherever you are.
Until then I rely on In Camera RAW Converter, even if I must admit since switching to Fuji X, I shoot a lot on JPEG. My RAW files cannot be processed with my ver. of Photoshop Camera Raw, I don’t like SilkyPix and convert to DNG is killing RAW quality (I better stay on JPG).
Can I get the image on a bigger screen? Using some cable to feed the image to an external LCD? Processing RAW inside the camera on that 3″ screen is quite painful – I need to see the alterations on each image, in each parameter.
Thanks!