Do 'picture profiles' affect RAW? I thought RAW was RAW?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 89874
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 89874

Guest
First post around here.

Getting back into photography after 30 years away from it. Back in the day I shot on a Nikon F3 film camera.

Just bought a used Nikon D3s and am almost up to speed on the 'digital' differences. But, RAW has me a trifle baffled. I assumed RAW was just that, RAW, as in nothing effects the RAW image, it comes straight off the sensor, period.

However, after a friend and I did a little shoot together recently their RAW images (taken on a Canon EOS 60d) looked beautifully smooth and flat (with a great looking histogram) while my Nikon RAW files looked very contrasty in comparison. We did a side-by-side shot with both cameras on a tripod framing the same landscape at the same focal lenght, aperture, shutter speed etc and snapped both shots at exactly the same time so there was no time for a cloud to move over the sun to create a flatter image etc.

I have to mess about in post to get my RAW Nikon image flat and nice before I can get to work on them while my friends Canon RAW images are beautifully flat and smooth.

Only had my gear a month and am already considering ditching the D3s in favour of a Canon EOS 5D MK3.

I thought picture profiles were only for jpeg shot images in-camera? So, my question is, do 'picture profiles' effect the RAW image? as in, can I download or create from scratch a picture profile that will make my D3s RAW files smooth and flat and neutral?
 
A little more information might help.
How are you viewing your photos?
What editing software are you using?
It could be that your software is applying a profile on import.
 
If you are viewing the file in Nikon's Capture software or on the camera, it will show it with the picture control applied. Select the neutral picture control on the camera and you will get a flatter picture by default and the exposure histogram will be nearest the recorded data.
 
Sorry guys. I'm using Affinity Photo on a Mac. I'm opening both RAW images from Canon and Nikon and side-by-side Canon is flat and smooth and Nikon is full of contrast.
 
Affinity is a great editor, but I don't think raw processing is its strong point. Have you tried Nikon's own Capture NX-D, as mentioned by Andrew? It's a free download:

https://nikonimglib.com/ncnxd/

Affinity doesn't care about Nikon's Picture Controls, but NX-D can both use and alter them. It's not the fastest or slickest raw processor, but the results from Nikon files are excellent.
 
I have NX-D, will try it. Don't want Lightroom as don't want to subscribe, that's why I got Affinity Photo, one payment of £49, sorted.

But, we've digressed. Opening both CAnon and Nikon RAW images taken at the same time of same subject from same angle with same settings and the Canon RAW is way better side-by-side in editor. So, I guess it does not matter what the editor is (I've opened them side-by-side in Preview also) the Canon one is always way smoother and flatter and the Nikon is always full of contrast in comparison. So it's a camera thing. Both Nikon and Canon pic profiles are set to 'Standard'
 
I don't think that's a fair comparison, as you may simply be testing how well Affinity copes with raw files from different cameras, rather than their inherent characteristics. Different cameras (and sensors) require different parameters for high quality conversions. Nikon and Canon go to a lot of trouble optimising for the specific characteristics of their gear in their own raw converters, and a few third parties like Adobe do something similar - I'm not sure Affinity does. Try some NX-D conversions to see how Nikon intends the output from the D3s to look, and experiment with applying different Picture Controls in Capture to see if you prefer one or another. Save as tiff and load the output into your favourite editor. Compare with in-camera jpegs. You might still prefer the Canon, of course, but at least you'll have given the Nikon a fair trial.
 
Maybe party of the issue is, you are in effect comparing different sensors, and different lenses.
Different lenses have different characteristics. Not all things are equal, the sensors are made by different companies, it's not just about how they compare in image quality, but also how they produce colour, contrast etc.
 
Generally most RAW processing software, apart from each camera brand's own software, doesn't recognise, and so doesn't show, the effects of the Picture Style / Control used in camera. That said, some sort of profile needs to be applied by the software to generate a preview image to edit, as a RAW file is just data.

I have tried various software over the years, including Canon's and Nikon's, but only have a lot of experience of Adobe software. Adobe normally applies the Adobe Standard (afaik) Profile by default, which has been tweaked by Adobe for each camera's RAW file to show colours/contrast/sharpness/saturation etc as a good representative of an in camera standard Picture Style / Control. There are also Adobe Profiles for Portrait, Landscape, Vivid, Colo(u)r and Monochrome mirroring the in camera Picture Styles / Controls which may be chosen either as an temp alternative / starting point, or permanently as a default if you like the effect. Other software manufacturers may do something similar, and to an extent, you are at the mercy of what the software applies as a default for each camera for its RAW file. You can sometimes tweak the default to your liking if it is not what you expect, and save that as your default when an image opens from a particular camera. I would check whether your software does something similar. If you can't find something similar, and the images continue to appear so different to your friend's, I would get in touch with the makers of Affinity to see whether it is a known problem.

I didn't know what 'Preview' was, but having looked and seen that it is an image and PDF viewer on a Mac, do the images look the same in that software as they do in Affinity? The Preview software also has to apply some sort of profile to display a RAW file as an image, though some software show an embedded Jpeg in the RAW file, which would of course have the Picture Style / Control applied.

After writing all the above, and reading through your posts a few times, how long have you had the camera? And how used is it? There shouldn't be a huge difference between two camera RAW files, even from different manufacturers. If somehow the software is 'taking notice' of the in camera Jpeg settings when displaying the images, there shouldn't be a huge difference if they were both set to the 'standard' profiles, unless the Nikon standard profile has been customised and overwritten the original settings. I'd do a full camera reset to default settings, and see if the problem continues, and if so, I would seek out another D3S locally to compare to see if it is a sensor problem.
 
in Affinity Photo you have 2 options re raw file processing,that is wether to use Affinity photos,which i think is the default or the Apple raw,they do give slightly different look,you find the option in the main preferences,sorry not used it for a while .and you can turn off again in preferences the option for AP to apply a tonal curve or something like that on input so you get a flatter look.
the d3s i believe sensor gives a similar look to the d700 files which many consider wonderful but perhaps you prefer the Canon look which ive found to be very nice also.
 
There's bound to be a difference between the look of raw files from different manufacturers just as there is a difference in appearance between brands of film. Manufacturers like to differentiate their products..

Then again I don't understand why it matters what a raw file looks like on import if it's going to be processed.
 
Yes/No maybe.
With Sony if you have Picture profiles in some modes e.g. sLOG for video (I think) the RAW is affected, I don't suppose they wanted that to happen so might occur on other brands too.
 
I find that Nikon raw files usually have more bite ... contrast to them ,which to me is more appealing I can’t understand why you would want a “flat” image to start with either . Also your comparing files from a fairly modern aps- c camera the 60d and comparing them to a far older full frame camera of a different brand ,bit like comparing a 1960mini to a 2015 Toyota they do the same job but differently . ... how much do you want for the D3s anyway
 
Profiles shouldn't affect the raw file, but they will affect the small jpeg preview file embedded in the raw. You're not inadvertently shooting Raw+Jpeg and viewing the jpeg are you? Also all editors do read the files slightly differently. There's a very interesting video on The Art Of Photography YouTube channel about this here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZdzcaaqaeY
 
Sorted now. I've done a comparison with my Nikon D3s and a Canon EOS 5D MK3 as apposed to the EOS 60D APS-C sensor. The difference in RAW files between D3s and 5D MK3 is very minimal now, in fact I prefer the greens and blues of the Nikon, but I prefer the skin tones of the Canon. I guess if I was doing landscape all the time I'd stick with the Nikon or if I was doing more portraiture I'd go with the Canon. The only other noticeable difference between the D3s and the 5D MK3 was the resolution, Canon produces more sharpness and detail when zoomed in and pixel peeping.

My 5D MK3 using buddy also pointed out that Canon speedlights are radio controlled and, unlike Nikon, do not require a flash from another 'in line of sight' flashgun to trigger. I also preferred the way the 5D MK3 felt to hold, just more ergonomically comfortable in my hand (with the added grip).

So, with these extra things in mind I'm going to switch over to the 5D MK3 as I do more portraiture than landscape and prefer the skin tones, and the other bits mentioned above.

Thanks for all the advice, guys, it's been an education and I'm more up to speed on RAW images and their processing now than I was yesterday so thank you all again so much for helping get me through this little stumbling block.
 
I'm glad that you have found that the sensor on the D3S doesn't seem to have a problem. :)

That being said, with a RAW file you can make it look like anything. Generally, the colour differences between cameras people see is with Jpegs, and how the camera processes the RAW file based on the Camera Profile / Control. And as mentioned earlier, programs will generate previews of RAW files from different cameras based on the in camera settings for the Jpegs, so that would be why RAW files open up differently.

Now there is a way to make the RAW files from different cameras look more alike. You can make your own profiles for each camera to try and make RAW files more accurate using a X-Rite Colorchecker Passport for each camera. I do this with my cameras as I would rather have accurate colours as a starting point for editing. Doing this the RAW files from my Nikon D500, D300S and Sony RX100III appear almost identical when opened up in my RAW processor.

This is an interesting video about the 'colour science' of different brands. If you are more happy with the images coming out of a particular brand, or camera though, I hope you are satisfied with your final choice, you seem to have no qualms changing. :)

View: https://youtu.be/EMfCDujQywY
 
When I did the side-by-side to day comparing the EOS 5D MKiii with my Nikon D3s there was little difference (unlike the comparison I did with the EOS 60D APS-C that I started this thread with). With the 5D the tonal range was identical, the contrast was identical. In fact, I prefered the blue in the sky on my Nikon, which was bluer and more saturated than the 5D MKiii. Also, preferred the green grass on Nikon, which was deeper in colour. But, I preferred the way the 5D reproduced the red brick in a building, more red and smoother tones, which led me to believe the 5D would be better for portraits and would reproduce skin tones better. Whereas the Nikon would be better for landscape.

I also noticed (which I'd predicted in advance) that the Canon (Being 21mp as apposed to the D3s which is 12mp) produced sharper images with more detail (when pixel peeping and zoomed in somewhat).

Based on the sharper resolution and more detail of the Canon (my Nikon seemed soft and lacking in comparison) and the fact that Canon's own Speedlites are RF controlled (Nikon needs light) and I much preferred the way the 5D with grip felt in my hand, like a glove (I feel like I could drop the Nikon due to its shape) and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 is bloody pin sharp and, I prefer the Canon wheel on the back, rather than four way push button of Nikon. All these made my decision to switch quite easy.

Shame as I'd spent ages researching Nikon gear (as I'd used F3 film cameras back in the day) to get back into photography after years out of it. I should have looked at the other brands also, but hey.

Hopefully, in about a month I'll be sorted re new Canon gear.
 
Pretty sure that Nikon have wireless flash triggers available, and if not then someone like Godox certainly does to fit Nikon. Also you will also find that if you chose a less aged camera body with a more recent sensor then you will also get 24MP (or more) for better resolution and also a better dynamic range than the equivalent canon can manage. The D3 sensor dates from 2007 and the D3S was discontinued in 2012 - if you want more resolution then look for a used/grey D750 or D810. I have no idea when the Canons were made, but Canon generally lag behind Sony/Nikon in sensor technology, though many still use them very effectively.

If you WANT to swap to Canon then do so by all mean, but the reasons you've given don't really hold up.
 
One of the most important things, which is sometimes overlooked, is how the camera feels in the hand. It is the reason I use Nikon's now. When I was making the choice of first DSLR, it was a Canon 350D or a Nikon D70. The Canon was newer, and technically the better camera, but my knuckles rubbed the lens and it felt cramped, the Nikon felt perfect in the hand. :) If a camera is not nice to use, it may put you off using it.
 
redhed17 said:
One of the most important things, which is sometimes overlooked, is how the camera feels in the hand. It is the reason I use Nikon's now. When I was making the choice of first DSLR, it was a Canon 350D or a Nikon D70. The Canon was newer, and technically the better camera, but my knuckles rubbed the lens and it felt cramped, the Nikon felt perfect in the hand. :) If a camera is not nice to use, it may put you off using it.
Click to expand...

So true, has to feel nice to use. I bought a new steering wheel for a BMW I had years back as I hated the way the original one felt, went for a 'thicker' M- steering wheel to suit my larger hands and it totally transformed the car. After all you spend a lot of time holding these things – cameras and steering wheels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top