In camera or in Post

[sonya580]

I'm wondering if it makes any difference if I set things like Contrast, HDR, and other settings like "Landscape", Portrait", etc. in the camera when I have the exact same settings available to change in my RAW post processing program. I hesitate to set them "in camera" because all pictures will receive the same changes whereas changing them in Post only affects one shot at a time. Are the changes made in Post as effective as those made In Camera?

 

[Rassie]

I can only speak for Nikon. In-camera settings are only applied to RAW files when using Nikon's own branded processing software. Other photo editing programs ignore in-camera settings for RAW files. Those same settings are applied when one shoots Jpeg with a Nikon.

 

[sonya580]

Interesting Rassie. Have you noticed any difference in IQ using camera settings vs making changes (in RAW files) using the Nikon branded software?

 

[Rassie]

Sorry, no. I don't use Nikon's software so I haven't tested that.

 

[SandyW]

The way I understand it, in camera settings are only applied to the JPG. RAW is still RAW. LR classic camera settings that you apply are supposed to be the same as in camera settings so the result should be the same. The in camera settings would affect what you see on the camera LCD. If your RAW editing software has an option to start with the in camera settings you would see a difference from an actual RAW image, but the settings wouldn't be baked into the RAW image. Hope that makes sense.

 

[DRwyoming]

If your RAW editing software has an option to start with the in camera settings you would see a difference from an actual RAW image, but the settings wouldn't be baked into the RAW image

Agreed and even if you use Nikon raw conversion software the in-camera settings are not baked into the photo, those settings just establish the starting points for the various raw conversion sliders but you can change them as desired without image degradation.

I'd say the exception to that is HDR as mentioned in the original post. A single merged HDR image captured in camera already has all the various exposures combined and that cannot be easily undone in post.

 

[StefanSC]

I'm wondering if it makes any difference if I set things like Contrast, HDR, and other settings like "Landscape", Portrait", etc. in the camera when I have the exact same settings available to change in my RAW post processing program. I hesitate to set them "in camera" because all pictures will receive the same changes whereas changing them in Post only affects one shot at a time. Are the changes made in Post as effective as those made In Camera?

How much do you use the histograms in the camera? Basically that is generated using the embedded JPEG from the RAW file and those settings will impact how the histogram is shown so it will skew any decision made from it.

Also, turning ADL on will lead to underexposed RAWs in Nikon Cameras.

On the other hand, playing with the sharpening and contrast settings could be helpful to check critical focus ...

 

[dabhand16]

How much do you use the histograms in the camera? Basically that is generated using the embedded JPEG from the RAW file and those settings will impact how the histogram is shown so it will skew any decision made from it.

Also, turning ADL on will lead to underexposed RAWs in Nikon Cameras.

On the other hand, playing with the sharpening and contrast settings could be helpful to check critical focus ...

The histogram in camera is, AFAIK, not 100% accurate and as you say is based on the jpg embedded in the RAW file, so I take it as more of a guide than anything else.

 

[bleirer]

I'm wondering if it makes any difference if I set things like Contrast, HDR, and other settings like "Landscape", Portrait", etc. in the camera when I have the exact same settings available to change in my RAW post processing program. I hesitate to set them "in camera" because all pictures will receive the same changes whereas changing them in Post only affects one shot at a time. Are the changes made in Post as effective as those made In Camera?

You didn't say which camera, but Canon is the same as mentioned above. The canon raw conversion software that you download free with the camera is set to apply the in camera settings (you can tell it not to) but the settings are not baked in, so easy to change. This is the same as out of camera jpegs, but the jpegs have the settings baked in and more difficult to adjust. Lightroom and similar ignores most camera settings (it keeps white balance as shot but it can be changed). Lightroom can't use the camera profile/picture style settings but it makes up its own version of them which are similar.

 

[Larry Shuman]

I can only speak for Nikon. In-camera settings are only applied to RAW files when using Nikon's own branded processing software. Other photo editing programs ignore in-camera settings for RAW files. Those same settings are applied when one shoots Jpeg with a Nikon.

That is not correct. I shoot raw all the time. In the shooting menu at set picture control I've set to vivid and sharpening at 9. The D810, D600, D3, D2Xs and Df are all set to 9 in sharpening. The camera then applies all my menu settings to each shot. I've had Nikon, Steve Perry and E.J. Piker (naturescapes.net) all confirm that Nikon does apply menu settings to each raw shot I make. I've seen this on my cameras and my friends cameras. I use Nikon Transfer 2 to download. I've shot this way and downloaded this way since 2004 when I went digital.

 

[Rassie]

That is not correct. I shoot raw all the time. In the shooting menu at set picture control I've set to vivid and sharpening at 9. The D810, D600, D3, D2Xs and Df are all set to 9 in sharpening. The camera then applies all my menu settings to each shot. I've had Nikon, Steve Perry and E.J. Piker (naturescapes.net) all confirm that Nikon does apply menu settings to each raw shot I make. I've seen this on my cameras and my friends cameras. I use Nikon Transfer 2 to download. I've shot this way and downloaded this way since 2004 when I went digital.

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/using/introduction-camera-raw.html
The third paragraph on that page:
When you shoot JPEG files with your camera, the camera automatically processes the JPEG file to enhance and compress the image. You generally have little control over how this processing occurs. Shooting camera raw images with your camera gives you greater control than shooting JPEG images, because camera raw does not lock you into processing done by your camera. You can still edit JPEG and TIFF images in Camera Raw, but you will be editing pixels that were already processed by the camera. Camera raw files always contain the original, unprocessed pixels from the camera.

Perhaps you and I are not on the same page here. I don't use any of Nikon's software with my images. I only use Adobe, and Adobe does not recognize or apply any in-camera settings to RAW files. And that is what I tried to say in my original post.

Which software do you use to process your RAW files?

 

[bleirer]

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/using/introduction-camera-raw.html
The third paragraph on that page:
When you shoot JPEG files with your camera, the camera automatically processes the JPEG file to enhance and compress the image. You generally have little control over how this processing occurs. Shooting camera raw images with your camera gives you greater control than shooting JPEG images, because camera raw does not lock you into processing done by your camera. You can still edit JPEG and TIFF images in Camera Raw, but you will be editing pixels that were already processed by the camera. Camera raw files always contain the original, unprocessed pixels from the camera.

Perhaps you and I are not on the same page here. I don't use any of Nikon's software with my images. I only use Adobe, and Adobe does not recognize or apply any in-camera settings to RAW files. And that is what I tried to say in my original post.

Which software do you use to process your RAW files?

I think adobe is starting to apply some settings for some cameras. I know my Canon is not on board yet, but some are.

Set up raw defaults

Set default settings for importing raw file format images in Lightroom Classic based on Adobe defaults, camera-specific defaults, or custom presets.

helpx.adobe.com

 

[Rassie]

I think adobe is starting to apply some settings for some cameras. I know my Canon is not on board yet, but some are.

Set up raw defaults

Set default settings for importing raw file format images in Lightroom Classic based on Adobe defaults, camera-specific defaults, or custom presets.

helpx.adobe.com

I was not aware of this. My older copy of Photoshop certainly cannot do this. According to your link this is a feature introduced into Lightroom in 2020. Now if someone can confirm whether the 2020 or later copy of Photoshop can do this too.

 

[bleirer]

I was not aware of this. My older copy of Photoshop certainly cannot do this. According to your link this is a feature introduced into Lightroom in 2020. Now if someone can confirm whether the 2020 or later copy of Photoshop can do this too.
[/QUOTE

It can. Camera raw in Photoshop is based the same 'engine' as Lightroom. They both are included in the $9.99 per month photography plan, but anything Lightroom develop module can do the camera raw module of Photoshop does. Check to make sure your camera is supported though.

And be careful about what it does. It is Adobe's simulation of the camera setting, not the same as using the cwmera makers raw converter.

 

[Larry Shuman]

See here: https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/using/introduction-camera-raw.html
The third paragraph on that page:
When you shoot JPEG files with your camera, the camera automatically processes the JPEG file to enhance and compress the image. You generally have little control over how this processing occurs. Shooting camera raw images with your camera gives you greater control than shooting JPEG images, because camera raw does not lock you into processing done by your camera. You can still edit JPEG and TIFF images in Camera Raw, but you will be editing pixels that were already processed by the camera. Camera raw files always contain the original, unprocessed pixels from the camera.

Perhaps you and I are not on the same page here. I don't use any of Nikon's software with my images. I only use Adobe, and Adobe does not recognize or apply any in-camera settings to RAW files. And that is what I tried to say in my original post.

Which software do you use to process your RAW files?

That's Adobe not Nikon. Nikon applies all menu settings to each shot. Raw or jpg. I use PS CS6

 

[Rogereh]

I've read that the Z cameras use a specialty Topaz software imbedded into the lens (or camera?) that overrides the RAW files to make corrections to the len's deficiencies and is not capable of being removed/changed in Lightroom. This is most apparent in wide angle Z lenses like the 14-30 f/4. You can see the extra file that is created when you download the photos.

 

[bleirer]

That's Adobe not Nikon. Nikon applies all menu settings to each shot. Raw or jpg. I use PS CS6

Do you mean only if you use the Nikon raw converter it applies the menu settings?

 

[Steve]

For the record, the settings you apply in-camera apply to your Jpegs / Tiffs but not necessarily to the RAW file. If you use Nikon software (i.e Capture NX-D), Nikon will apply those settings (although you can still adjust them after the fact). However, what setting are applied by other RAW processors may vary. In the case of Lightroom, the processing settings you use in-camera are not applied as far as I've experienced.

 

[Calson]

Adobe engineers have to reverse engineer the Raw files from each camera manufacturer and while they do an OK job it is still inferior to the camera companies own Raw conversion software where the engineers have direct access to internal data for the cameras' electronics and A/D processing. I used PS to batch process thousands of files automatically but when I found a problem with banding for example, the same image would not exhibit banding if converted with the Nikon software into a TIFF format file.

 

[bleirer]

Adobe engineers have to reverse engineer the Raw files from each camera manufacturer and while they do an OK job it is still inferior to the camera companies own Raw conversion software where the engineers have direct access to internal data for the cameras' electronics and A/D processing. I used PS to batch process thousands of files automatically but when I found a problem with banding for example, the same image would not exhibit banding if converted with the Nikon software into a TIFF format file.

I'm with on the Canon software too, Canon DPP4 is their free software, and they have digital lens optimizer that reads the shooting distance and uses the proprietary camera and lens info to reduce the impact of the camera aa filter as well as adjust for distortion, aberrations, and other things. Lightroom does a nice job, but Canon is a touch better for 'keepers.'

 

[SandyW]

I'm not sure about Adobe having to reverse engineer RAW files for every camera. I think for at least some cameras the manufacturers work with Adobe. The variations I've seen have depended on which camera/adobe profile I selected in LR develop module.

 

[bleirer]

I'm not sure about Adobe having to reverse engineer RAW files for every camera. I think for at least some cameras the manufacturers work with Adobe. The variations I've seen have depended on which camera/adobe profile I selected in LR develop module.

I believe when a profile is available in Lightroom for example 'camera standard' as opposed to 'Adobe standard' that is just Adobe's interpretation of what the proprietary camera profile would be. And if they pick up for example sharpening from the camera, they are only estimating how far to slide their own sharpening tool, not getting anything special from the camera. I know for sure that is true for Canon.

 

[Howard5252]

I have been following this conversation and cannot understand why it would be advantageous to process in the camera. To improve the final image, I want to see not only WHAT to adjust but also HOW MUCH, and I want to see the results on a big screen.

 

[kimball]

For the record, the settings you apply in-camera apply to your Jpegs / Tiffs but not necessarily to the RAW file. If you use Nikon software (i.e Capture NX-D), Nikon will apply those settings (although you can still adjust them after the fact). However, what setting are applied by other RAW processors may vary. In the case of Lightroom, the processing settings you use in-camera are not applied as far as I've experienced.

Something that's confusing about this, and may be what Larry Shuman is experiencing, is that in-camera settings still get applied to the JPG preview that is embedded in the raw file.

Yes, even if you are just shooting raw, not raw+JPG, each raw file gets an embedded JPG that is used when reviewing images in the camera, zooming in and checking focus, etc. The embedded JPG is also used by 3rd party programs (ones that aren't themselves raw processors) to preview the raw file-- for example, macOS Finder, Windows' File Explorer, Photo Mechanic, etc.

So it may appear at first glance that in-camera settings are being applied to the raw file. They are not. Raw = raw data off the sensor, unmolested by the camera's image processing pipeline. The embedded preview, however, will definitely reflect your chosen settings.

 

[Steve]

Something that's confusing about this, and may be what Larry Shuman is experiencing, is that in-camera settings still get applied to the JPG preview that is embedded in the raw file.

Yes, even if you are just shooting raw, not raw+JPG, each raw file gets an embedded JPG that is used when reviewing images in the camera, zooming in and checking focus, etc. The embedded JPG is also used by 3rd party programs (ones that aren't themselves raw processors) to preview the raw file-- for example, macOS Finder, Windows' File Explorer, Photo Mechanic, etc.

So it may appear at first glance that in-camera settings are being applied to the raw file. They are not. Raw = raw data off the sensor, unmolested by the camera's image processing pipeline. The embedded preview, however, will definitely reflect your chosen settings.

This is an incredibly good point and probably does explain some of the confusion.