06-30-2010, 09:23 PM
This might be a basic question, but why do raw files look different in different software when using to 'flat' settings (all settings to zero)?
LR and other programmes seem to produce very different results (very dull, low contrast etc.) when set to 'zeroed', compared to Canon's DPP software or a RAW viewer such as Irfanview.
It's an interesting theme/dilemma, because it raises the whole issue of treatment/manipulation of digital images.
I mean, a negative can be manipulated too, but you do have a kind of 'absolute' reference point before you choose the paper/chemicals to do your print.
In the digital world - and this is something I am constantly wrestling with - there is not really a true reference because a RAW file usually (always?) requires treatment to make it resemble the scene photographed. And once you start manipulating, it can be an open-ended process.
On film, I always have certain preferences for film type, process, paper etc. to yield certain tones and to achieve a certain type of contrast etc., but in digital I have to use a series of manipulations to re-create how the image should/would look if shot on film. Well, that may be normal, but it remains that I don't really consider my RAW file a definitive 'negative' of the shot.
LR and other programmes seem to produce very different results (very dull, low contrast etc.) when set to 'zeroed', compared to Canon's DPP software or a RAW viewer such as Irfanview.
It's an interesting theme/dilemma, because it raises the whole issue of treatment/manipulation of digital images.
I mean, a negative can be manipulated too, but you do have a kind of 'absolute' reference point before you choose the paper/chemicals to do your print.
In the digital world - and this is something I am constantly wrestling with - there is not really a true reference because a RAW file usually (always?) requires treatment to make it resemble the scene photographed. And once you start manipulating, it can be an open-ended process.
On film, I always have certain preferences for film type, process, paper etc. to yield certain tones and to achieve a certain type of contrast etc., but in digital I have to use a series of manipulations to re-create how the image should/would look if shot on film. Well, that may be normal, but it remains that I don't really consider my RAW file a definitive 'negative' of the shot.