Are You Really Seeing What You Think You Are Seeing?

Great Egret. It suddenly  appeared from behind a tree to the left.  The camera’s Bird Subject
Detect AF picked it up and tracked it very nicely.  (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6mm lens @ 400mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/6.4; ISO 320

Let's suppose you shoot RAW format with your digital camera.  I think most of us do.  You then import your images into Lightroom, Capture One, On1, Luminar, Camera Raw, Affinity or any other editing software that can read RAW file information.  As you look at your images are you really seeing what you think you are seeing?  Let me explain.

How often do we see or read comments from reviewers, influencers, professional photographers, enthusiast photographers and even our photographer friends raving about how much they love their cameras’ colors, how beautiful the tonal gradations are, how wide the dynamic range is, etc.?  I’ve done it myself.  I read and see those kind of comments very often.  But there is a potential problem with those compliments.

A RAW file out of your camera is merely millions of ones and zeros which then have to be interpreted into an image by a piece of software.  When you look at the back of your camera after making an exposure, you are not looking at the RAW data, but an embedded JPEG generated by your camera’s image processor according to your camera’s settings so you can see what you just shot.  After importing or opening a RAW file into your editing software, the raw data is demosaiced by that software into an image you can view.  In other words another, but different preview is generated from the RAW data.  Often times this preview looks very different from what you saw on the back of your camera.  Interestingly enough, if you open the same RAW file in different editing programs, those previews can and often do look different from each other.  True.  That goes for not only the color but also hue, contrast, saturation, dynamic range, noise, sharpness and detail.  

As an example, my Fujifilm files are rendered differently in Lightroom Classic than they are by Iridient X-Transformer or DXO PhotoLab 5.  Which one is the correct version?  Which version represents what Fujifilm engineered into its cameras?  Well, none of them really.  They are usually close approximations in most cases but not what Fujifilm designed.

So, if we are speaking about the looking at our images in RAW format we are not really seeing the camera makers' intended overall ‘look’ of an image.  What we are seeing is the editing software’s engineer’s interpretation and approximation of what the camera maker intended them to look like.  We are not really seeing the exact hues of the colors engineered into the camera’s sensor/image processor combination but most likely a 'reverse engineered,' best attempt, at reproducing the colors and other image attributes the camera maker engineered into their cameras.  How close they get is really up to each camera manufacturer's willingness to work with the software companies and whether or not a particular camera manufacturer decides to 'share' or 'license' their demosicing algorithms with software companies.  It also depends upon the skill of the engineers. I think most manufacturers now work with Adobe, On1, DXO, Capture One, etc., but some may not.

If you think you are seeing the actual colors generated in-camera, etc., just change the camera ‘profile’ or ‘style’ in the develop section of your editing software.  It’s like magic!  The relative hue of each color, contrast, saturation, dynamic range and white balance can all change.  It changes because the editing software’s engineers have designed it as best they can to ‘mimic’ what menu settings you have set in your camera but they can’t perfectly duplicate it.  It’s’ their best effort. Generally, they do a very good job.

As an example, I am primarily a Fujifilm camera user.  Often times I hear Fujifilm photographers rave about the colors and 'looks' the Fujifilm cameras produce with the various film simulations.  But if they aren't shooting JPEGs (or haven't converted the RAW files to JPEG in Fujifilm X-RAW Studio using the camera's image processor), it's not what Fujifilm created but an approximation of what Fujifilm intended.  JPEGs represent the actual luminance, hue of the individual colors, saturation, contrast, noise, sharpening, etc. to be seen in the image files. 

When I shoot RAW and upload my images to Lightroom Classic, I can manipulate the entire ‘look’ of my images by just changing the ‘film simulation’ setting.  One click.  My images look totally different using Velvia versus Eterna, Nostalgic Nagative, Provia or Classic Chrome.  Of course they look very different if I click on the Acros black and white film simulation.  

Not only color, saturation and contrast are affected, but also dynamic range.  An example is Velvia versus Eterna.  With the Eterna film simulation your data may fit fully within the histogram but switch to Velvia and now you’ve potentially losing some highlight or shadow detail.  (It can be recover so don’t worry.)  But those film simulations in Lightroom Classic are still only Adobe’s best try at duplicating what Fujifilm has engineered into my camera.  

To see what actual image qualities Fujifilm has engineered into my camera I have to set my camera to shoot JPEGs using one of the film simulations or, alternatively, I can shoot RAW but then have to use Fujifilm’s X-Raw Studio software which uses the camera’s image processor to convert the RAW images in my memory card to JPEGs or TIFF files.  JPEGs are then created from the RAW files in-camera with all of the image attributes you have set showing exactly what Fujifilm engineered and reflect what the camera designers have actually provided.  (For those not familiar with that software, you connect your camera to your computer, open the software and that then allows you to manipulate your RAW image files’ film simulation, color, contrast, saturation, dynamic range, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. as well as convert your files to JPEGs or TIFFs instead of using another image editing program like Lightroom)

You get my point.  Unless you are looking at a JPEG or TIFF file (some Nikon cameras have a setting to record images in-camera using the TIFF format instead of just JPEG or RAW), your images displayed in your editing software are representative of what the editing software's engineers approximate the intent of the camera manufacturer's when it comes to all of those image parameters I have mentioned.  Now, after all that I have written, don't think I'm complaining, I'm not.  I think they all do a very good job.

I mostly shoot RAW for the advantages we all know that format has over the JPEG format.  (Sometimes I shoot RAW + JPEG because today’s JPEGs are really, really good and I want the original film simulations.  More on this topic later.)  Even though the image parameters are different from the exact ones the camera manufacturer's have engineered, I can live with those differences and make editing changes to each of those parameters to suit my taste.  The purpose of this post is to make you aware that you may not be seeing what you think you are seeing when looking at your RAW files.

On a related topic and in my humble opinion...

If you are going to test any of your lenses for sharpness, I suggest you forego using the AF system and test your lenses using manual focus—on a sturdy tripod, in bright contrasty light, with a remote shutter release or 2-second delay, with the electronic shutter engaged and with image stabilization turned off. The idea is to remove any variable that can affect the outcome.  

If you test your lens using your camera's AF system, you are inherently testing the accuracy and consistency of the AF system.  If the AF system is not absolutely accurate and consistent, you will get a false indication of just how good (or bad) you lens is.  By using manual focus you can take that variable out of the equation and obtain a more accurate result.  Just sayin'.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2022 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.