Why process image files? Here's why...

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Viathelens

Viathelens

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Someone recently posted, not in this forum but in the general forum, about posting our "naked" files, his term for a non-processed image file (which, of course, really cannot happen in digital unless it's a RAW file). As I was playing today with an image it clearly showed why I process my digital files and how big of a difference it makes to do so. I do understand contest rules and would abide by any processing contest rules if I chose to enter an image so no need for anyone to comment on that. Good processing can make a decent shot a much nicer shot, and yes I do try to "get it right" in camera but that simply cannot always be done. This RAW image was taken at a hummingbird feeder. I used Topaz DeNoise, LrC, and PS to complete the processing. The original image is in the middle, top is the Topaz DeNoise image (also made the subject larger in LrC), and bottom is the image as completed in LrC after the feeder was removed in PS. I have a hard time understanding why someone would not want to process their images to be the best that they can be. For me, processing images is digital magic, a bit like watching the image come up in the photo processing bath for BW film.

CCassinettoAnna'sHummer-8778-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
CCassinettoAnna'sHummer-8778-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
CCassinettoAnna'sHummer-8778.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
Someone recently posted, not in this forum but in the general forum, about posting our "naked" files, his term for a non-processed image file (which, of course, really cannot happen in digital unless it's a RAW file). As I was playing today with an image it clearly showed why I process my digital files and how big of a difference it makes to do so. I do understand contest rules and would abide by any processing contest rules if I chose to enter an image so no need for anyone to comment on that. Good processing can make a decent shot a much nicer shot, and yes I do try to "get it right" in camera but that simply cannot always be done. This RAW image was taken at a hummingbird feeder. I used Topaz DeNoise, LrC, and PS to complete the processing. The original image is in the middle, top is the Topaz DeNoise image (also made the subject larger in LrC), and bottom is the image as completed in LrC after the feeder was removed in PS. I have a hard time understanding why someone would not want to process their images to be the best that they can be. For me, processing images is digital magic, a bit like watching the image come up in the photo processing bath for BW film.

View attachment 22698View attachment 22699View attachment 22700
Click to expand...
I agree that processing a RAW file is part of the picture taking process. More often than not I underexposed my images intentionally by about a 1/3 of a stop. That way I can recover shadows better without overexposing other areas of the photo especially areas of wildlife that have patches of white. It should also be mentioned that there is in- camera processing based on how you have set the camera for JPEG output. And if your using RAW, the software settings that you use are also using a series of processing settings.
 
Member's gallery
aolander said:
There is no such thing as an "unprocessed RAW file". The second it opens in a RAW editor, default adjustments are made. And, for example, a Nikon NEF file opened in Nikon software will have all the in-camera settings applied.
Click to expand...

Which in camera settings are automatically applied to the RAW file ?
 
Member's gallery
Most would use picture control to apply to JPGs. If they are needed to apply to RAW files the photographer has to create that form of processing via the playback option retouch in the menu system. The retouched photo is an additional image so the untouched RAW file is still available.

Outside of Nikon software It's not my understanding that any processing is done via the sensor other than to make it a readable format for non Nikon RAW editors. So I'm happy to believe that the RAW files I import into something like LrC are unprocessed to all intents and purposes.
 
Member's gallery
" Most would use picture control to apply to JPGs. "

Yes, but when you open a NEF in Nikon software, those picture controls are applied to the image you see. And Lightroom applies a color profile. e.g. Adobe Color, etc. So a RAW is processed at least to some degree from the get go.
 
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
Outside of Nikon software It's not my understanding that any processing is done via the sensor other than to make it a readable format for non Nikon RAW editors. So I'm happy to believe that the RAW files I import into something like LrC are unprocessed to all intents and purposes.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. There are some differences in the actual RAW demosaicing output between software companies. (I think that is the correct term but I could be wrong.) It is also possible to edit the actual camera profile a piece of software uses. For example LR applies some basic sharpening and a contrast curve to on import. I think the sharpening can be removed with a slider, but the contrast curve is baked in by the camera profile. These differences are why there will be arguments about the best RAW converter (capture 1, adobe, etc) similar to all the arguments about camera brands, sports teams, etc.

Yes, I'm splitting hairs, but the differences can be observed.
 
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
Most would use picture control to apply to JPGs. If they are needed to apply to RAW files the photographer has to create that form of processing via the playback option retouch in the menu system. The retouched photo is an additional image so the untouched RAW file is still available.

Outside of Nikon software It's not my understanding that any processing is done via the sensor other than to make it a readable format for non Nikon RAW editors. So I'm happy to believe that the RAW files I import into something like LrC are unprocessed to all intents and purposes.
Click to expand...
But Lightroom is applying settings before you mess with the photo. So in essence it is being processed. And that was the point of the post. So even pictures that are being posted have been processed even if they are not intentionally altered by you using an editor.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph Bruno said:
But Lightroom is applying settings before you mess with the photo. So in essence it is being processed. And that was the point of the post. So even pictures that are being posted have been processed even if they are not intentionally altered by you using an editor.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the contention. Rather it was that there is no such thing as an unprocessed RAW file. When it comes out of the camera it's unprocessed.

If your LrC has development sliders already set turn them off.
 
Member's gallery
aolander said:
" Most would use picture control to apply to JPGs. "

Yes, but when you open a NEF in Nikon software, those picture controls are applied to the image you see. And Lightroom applies a color profile. e.g. Adobe Color, etc. So a RAW is processed at least to some degree from the get go.
Click to expand...

Correct but the contention was " There is no such thing as an "unprocessed RAW file " . Out of the camera it's unprocessed. I acknowledged that the Nikon software applies styles but that's "after the fact". I don't use the Nikon software so my RAW files are unprocessed.
 
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
Correct but the contention was " There is no such thing as an "unprocessed RAW file " . Out of the camera it's unprocessed. I acknowledged that the Nikon software applies styles but that's "after the fact". I don't use the Nikon software so my RAW files are unprocessed.
Click to expand...
All RAW files are processed even when you don’t touch the sliders. Each program which imports the RAW has to use algorithms in order to develop the file. That’s why if you use several different manufacturers to develop your RAW file they will have a slightly different look . I found that out while using Luminar and Apple’s RAW converters. Check this link out. It has a pretty good explanation. https://learn.zoner.com/why-doesnt-my-raw-look-like-it-did-in-the-camera/
 
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
Correct but the contention was " There is no such thing as an "unprocessed RAW file " . Out of the camera it's unprocessed. I acknowledged that the Nikon software applies styles but that's "after the fact". I don't use the Nikon software so my RAW files are unprocessed.
Click to expand...
All RAW files are processed even when you don’t touch the sliders. Each program which imports the RAW has to use algorithms in order to develop the file. That’s why if you use several different manufacturers to develop your RAW file they will have a slightly different look . I found that out while using Luminar and Apple’s RAW converters. Check this link out. It has a pretty good explanation. https://learn.zoner.com/why-doesnt-my-raw-look-like-it-did-in-the-camera/
 
Member's gallery
Ralph Bruno said:
But Lightroom is applying settings before you mess with the photo. So in essence it is being processed. And that was the point of the post. So even pictures that are being posted have been processed even if they are not intentionally altered by you using an editor.
Click to expand...
Maybe along with "intentionally" you could say "or additionally".
 
Member's gallery
The files are being processed by whatever algorithm/camera profile your software uses to make camera data visible. Not all of those settings can be altered once you are in whatever program by the sliders. In the case of ACR/LR it is possible to create a camera RAW profile without any initial contrast curve (looks horrible when you first open it!) with the Adobe DNG profile editor, but it is still changing the camera data into something visible.
 
Member's gallery
This thread has gotten deep into semantics, but yes an 'unprocessed raw file' is a real thing as I have thousands of them on my hard drive. An 'unprocessed raw image' not so much as the conversion of a raw file to a viewable image is 'processing' just as developing slide film into a viewable image is 'processing'. Sure there's an embedded jpeg in each raw file so that part of it has been processed but until you bring a raw file into some kind of conversion software it isn't a viewable image and once you do it's been processed.

This discussion reminds me of my early days working in the digital darkroom with scanned slides. I had friends and even photo editors ask me if an image was 'Photoshopped?' Implying it was digitally altered with elements added or subtracted. Well yes, I was using Photoshop to do my processing but I wasn't doing photo composites or swapping out backgrounds but yes it had been processed through PS.

Seems like we're in a similar discussion here on what constitutes a processed image. Any image that's viewable has been processed to some extent either in-camera or in a raw converter but I suspect the idea of comparing 'naked images' or SOOC images is whether selective or image specific processing has been performed or whether the image being shared is literally straight out of camera using only the in-camera jpeg processing settings or the default raw processing settings with no selective adjustments. To me that's valid as even if the raw converter is reading the camera settings, the photographer chose those camera settings when the image was captured.

All that said, @Viathelens point and photo illustrations are right on target (nice image BTW), it's a rare photo that can't be improved with some image specific editing even if that's as simple as some subtle Contrast or Shadow/Highlight, Curves or similar adjustments. Just as there was a time when skilled B&W photographers were expected to have decent darkroom skills to produce prints that matched their vision, today it's pretty much a given that digital photographers shooting raw should have at least some post processing skills.
 
Member's gallery
Yes, the discussion certainly did go down the road of semantics! All digital files are simply numbers until we "pull them up" with software, not sure why the discussion always goes that way. I guess it does because digital is still new even after years of being around. The point here is, as DRwyoming noted, just about all files/images can benefit from skilled processing, JPEG or RAW. Why anyone would want to show work "SOOC" confounds me, unless the lighting and the composition were absolutely perfect (and I've had a few of those as we all have). Why not show our very best work instead!
 
There are some programs that allow you to see raw files before conversion, but each pixel is monochromatic, with twice as many green ones in a red green blue green or similar array. So you see a greenish tinted ugly image. 2/3 of the color information of a regularly viewable image have to be created by the raw conversion software, it looks at a blue pixel for example and also at the surrounding red and green pixel and assigns an RGB value for that formerly blue pixel. That's why an uncompressed image file is 3 times the file size of the original raw file. Where one blue value was in the original the software has to now invent a red and green value.
 
Member's gallery
I took my cue on this a long time ago from someone who knew a little about it. I'm just not working in an unlit room. If you're not "printing" your images then you're just taking snapshots. They may be incredibly good snapshots, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve a little better treatment.

R.3da6b7676ee5ad2b1f9cee30771cdc41.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph Bruno said:
All RAW files are processed even when you don’t touch the sliders. Each program which imports the RAW has to use algorithms in order to develop the file. That’s why if you use several different manufacturers to develop your RAW file they will have a slightly different look . I found that out while using Luminar and Apple’s RAW converters. Check this link out. It has a pretty good explanation. https://learn.zoner.com/why-doesnt-my-raw-look-like-it-did-in-the-camera/
Click to expand...
The article is primarily talking about processing in some kind of software. I'm saying that a RAW file SOOC and not yet opened in any editor is as unprocessed as it can be. Any software that incorporates any "pre-set" during the import or opening of the image will obviously change that SOOC image. Not the same thing.
 
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
The article is primarily talking about processing in some kind of software. I'm saying that a RAW file SOOC and not yet opened in any editor is as unprocessed as it can be. Any software that incorporates any "pre-set" during the import or opening of the image will obviously change that SOOC image. Not the same thing.
Click to expand...
But You can’t view a RAW file without using software. RAW itself is just data not an image. You need software to view it. And the software itself has presets whether there yours or the manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
gbodave said:
No presets on my LrC. No camera profiles either.
Click to expand...
Yes there are. It is the built in Adobe standard or color or whatever profile. It is the profile that decodes the RAW data and makes it visible. I'm not sure of everything that is involved, but the contrast curve applied to the RAW data is very obvious if look at it in the Adobe DNG profile editor. You can also use that editor to roll your own profile.

The need to build an algorithm to decode the RAW data is why there is often a delay when new cameras/RAW file formats are released.

We are splitting hairs in this discussion as I agree the composition is what is important. Just realize there is a very deep rabbit hole once you start looking into what the software is actually doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top