Joanna
I know there is a embedded JPG inside the RAW , and that is for image viewer to speed up display on the screen .
normally I use BreezeBrowser or FastStone for my image viewer , the image’s brightness are all the same like I seeing in the camera’s LCD screen .
the image I posted above are all RAW file .
I use DPP and PHOTOSHOP to process RAW .
Wei-hsin Chen
Wei-Hsin Chen
If other software shows them as having the same brightness, the it has to be Photoshop that is showing them differently.
Please post an original RAW that you have issues with. Use a sharing service if the file is too big.
A digital camera has a utility containing some output settings. You can adjust several parameters that are used in the in-camera conversion to a RGB raster image. DPP, Canon, is using those in-camera parameters too in it’s conversion. Other converters are not using these parameters. So what you see is difference between a raw conversion using the in-camera selected parameters and a raw converter that’s using it’s own parameters.
You can make that visible by setting the camera to monochrome,B/W, and do the same comparison. The result in DPP will be a monochrome image, in another converter a colored image.
You might also see that the histogram is not the histogram of the embedded jpg but the histogram of the converted image.
I speak based on my knowledge of Nikon, but I don’t believe it’s different for other brands.
Image viewers do use the embedded jpg.
George
George
I’ve been birding for 11 years .
I only take RAW , and use DPP and Photoshop for RAW processing .
this is the first time I saw a darker image from APP .
if DPP / Photoshop can get the correct data from RAW file , there is no reason Dxo PureRAW can not do it .
that’s why I think it’s a software bug
BTW , CR2 is a very common RAW format for Canon camera , 5D2 /7D2/…1D4/1DX/1DX2 …
Wei-Hsin Chen
I post 3 RAW
1 is Normal , 2 are Darker
DxO Normal-Pitta.CR2 (20.7 MB)
DxO Darker 1-Purple Swamphen.cr2 (23.8 MB)
DxO Darker 2 - Chestnut Munia.CR2 (19.4 MB)
Wei-Hsin Chen
I opened them in PL4 and they are darker. I don’t know what setting PureRaw is using, I don’t have it, it’s included in PL4.
Read what @platypus wrote
Two exampels of a conversion in PL with no-correctioon and standard-correction.
The other two have less differences so I think it’s based on the image itself too.
In fact, what you are seeing is the difference between the embedded jpeg in the CR2 file and the DNG file.
If I open the CR2 files in PL4, the first thing I notice is that the “DxO Darker 1-Purple Swamphen.cr2” file was taken with a lens that DxO do not have a module for. But this isn’t going to affect the overall dark/light appearance. The other two have a supporting module.
If I now export it to DNG with just the default optical corrections for the DxO lens module lens and DeepPRIME NR, in PL4, I can’t see any noticeable difference.
The CR2 file…
The DNG file…
This is because, in PL4, for the CR2 file, you are looking at the demosaiced image and not the embedded jpeg, which is what you see on the back of the camera.
However, if I then using macOS Quick Look to view the images…
There is a noticeable difference, with the CR2 on the left.
Unless you are using a demosaicing application to view the CR2 files, you will only ever get the jpeg preview, which has already been processed in the camera.
Now, I made a virtual copy and couple of minor adjustments to it in PL4 (Smart Lighting and a slight tone curve)
… and re-exported to DNG.
Now, in macOS Quick Look, I get…
With the CR2 on the left and the DNG on the right.
I will repeat - if you are not using a demosaicing too like PL4, the preview you get from th eCR2 file will always be the embedded, processed, jpeg. And it would seem that Photoshop is showing you exactly that.
When they are opened in any demosaicing tool, RAW files hardly ever look like their jpeg thumbnail.
And I can do the same with the Swamphen image…
Again, CR2 on the left, DNG on the right
DPP is a demosaicing tools. And it uses the in-camera settings so the result of the demosaicing is exactly the jpg. Any other brand converter will/can not use the in-camera settings but all show the converted RGB raster image. Also Photoshop.
Except in their native converter. DPP for Canon, CaptureNx for Nikon, the others I don’t know.
George
Indeed, which is why the preview of the CR2 looks so good. But, for the DNG file, it is taking the results of an export of the unprocessed RAW CR2 file, which is not going to include any such “pre-processing”
Absolutely
DxO is definitely doing something to the Swamphen:
Left image: Preview as extracted from the file with exiftool (check command above the image)
Middle: DxO PhotoLab with “No Correction” preset. (“Landscape Neutral” will be closer to preview)
Right: Adobe Lightroom Classic
Adobe’s representation is close to the embedded preview and that is what Adobe aims for with its default settings. DxO does it’s own thing, which leads to the darker preview.
@Wei-Hsin-Chen, I recommend that you create a bug report and add the images to the report, so that DxO can check out what is going on.
I’m not sure if this really is a bug in PureRAW, you get exactly the same kind of result if you open the file in PL4 and do a straight export to DNG with only the optical corrections and DeepPrime.
The bug report serves to attract some attention from DxO. They strive for better quality and might want to find out why their algorithm darkens the image.
As far as I remember, PR also applies smart lighting, although it is not mentioned in the manual.
I tried to reproduce the looks of the preview, and found that, starting from a PR dng file, it was not trivial… Other than that, an intermediate file should not be used as a reference, be it an ooc preview or a PR dng. Nevertheless, PR also offers to export as JPEG, something that is not suited well for postprocessing and that should therefore have usable qualities, which I don’t find in the case of the swamphen image.
platypus
yes, I will asking solution to DxO .
below image from DPP and PhotoShop Camera RAW , all looks normal , Camera RAW even brighter than DPP , but such a tiny difference
is OK to me .
platypus
where can I report to DxO company ?
I can not find their service Web .
Wei-Hsin Chen
For PureRAW, DxO proposes to post to support.
https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Feature requests can be posted here:
PL exports a DNG as 8bit. When I remember well PR also exports as 8 bit. But one has to check that for them self.
George
The point is that, from what I can understand, PR takes the unmodified RAW image, applies lens corrections and noise reduction and then exports it to DNG without any other adjustments.
A jpeg preview of what you see in DPP is already processed to make it look like the embedded jpeg.
Since the DNG that is exported from PR is purely the unadjusted RAW, it is hardly surprising that it looks exactly the same as the unadjusted RAW you see in PL4.
It is futile to compare the DNG from PR with either an adjusted version of the the RAW that you see I DPP because DPP has a already applied changes to try and match it to the embedded jpeg.
Try opening the CR2 files in PL4, do nothing to them, don’t even apply the standard preset which changes things and then export it straightaway to DNG. You will get a dark image that matches the unadjusted RAW you see in PL4.
But, I will repeat, PR does not apply any adjustments and only exports the essential RAW image, which, only rarely matches the jpeg preview. This is not a bug in PR. It is exactly what PL4 does if you don’t apply any adjustments.
From the manual Exporting to an application
DxO PureRAW does not have any image correction and processing tools, as its role is to produce a linear DNG file with perfectly-treated noise and lens flaws. It is an independent program, not a plugin. However, you can open linear DNG files in any photo program that supports this format.
Leaves the question: what is a linear DNG file exactly.
George
In short: each pixel is rgb, not just r, g, or b.
