UKC

So after Lightroom 5 sitting on my desk for 5 months I finally got around to dabbling in RAW today. After several hours blundering I now have a set of RAW ski touring pics from the Lyngen Alps in Lightroom that are nowhere near as good as my JPEGs which were edited in about a third of the time on Picassa!

Clearly operator error! So can anyone recommend where/how to get a preset for a Sony RX100 that will give me "JPEG-looking" images as a starting point? I'm assuming this is the most efficient way of batch processing a bunch of shots?

Any tips/clarification appreciated. Here's some RAW vs JPEGs albums on Flickr if anyone has the inclination to compare!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/100520660@N07/sets/72157651814282676/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/100520660@N07/sets/72157651462687739/

And yes I know some of the processing in the JPEG album slightly iffy/exaggerated!

In reply to mudmonkey5:
Using presets only makes sense (to me) if all the images are very similar, which your selection aren't. I'd never consider using them for such a variety of images as all their highlights, shadows, contrast etc will vary. Adjusting the white clipping point for one for examplewon't be applicable on another and might blow thehighlights completely.

I found the LR Youtube tutorials by Anthony Morganti to be very helpful.

Nice shots btw

In reply to Fraser:

Thanks Fraser!

I get the exposure thing being unique to each photo but was just looking for a starting point really that is similar to the camera's JPEG processing of other parameter - clarity/vibrance/saturation/sharpening etc. Then I could fine tune exposure and other parameters and hopefully get my RAW images looking better than the JPEGs whilst saving time.

Seems to be the main advantages of Lightroom/RAW but I'm failing on both counts!

In reply to mudmonkey5:

I'd examine your camera's jpg settings as a starting point. Things like 'white balance', 'sharpening', 'contrast', 'creative style' and 'DRO' will all directly effect the OOC JPG but not the RAW. If you have anything other than neutral/off/standard etc selected in each, it's a field you will need to emulate in your RAW->JPG conversions. As Fraser said, I think you're setting yourself up for a hard task. There'll be things the Sony in camera JPG software is doing automatically on a per image basis that'll be unique to each exposure.

In my opinion, even if your preferred post processing is OOC JPG in Picassa, you'd be better of with all in-camera JPG fields set to off or neutral (save for auto WB) anyway. It makes a better starting point for JPG's in Picassa because you won't have already skewed colour, exposure, noise or tonal range to an irrecoverable point so you'll stand a better chance of enhancing the output.

Looks like a good trip. Loved the aurora shots, the beardy skinny dipping was a surprise, and the snow looks awesome. Preferred your RAW->JPG conversions to be honest, too much blue/magenta in the JPG's for my liking.

In reply to moffatross:

Thanks for reply.

Ah, so the camera is analysing each image and processing differently for every JPEG generated? Right, I get you - so what I'm looking for is not really possible then I guess.

I've been really pleased with the improvements I have been getting from Picassa but felt I sould be learning some RAW/Lightroom techniques to be a "proper photographer." I noticed how the dynamic range was that little bit better with RAW and that was one of the main reasons for it - I'm getting a bit better at not blowing highlights now though!

I agree with you about the Sony JPEGs - seem a bit cool to me and a totally different look to my Canon JPEGs. Also seemed consistently well underexposed. I kind of chose to leave them like that or even enhance that effect as it seemed to reflect the moody atmosphere up there - the light really seems quite different.

Yep, Lyngen Alps were amazing, can really recommend the trip, we're all back next year. And the northern lights don't actually look anything like that green in real life but come out that way on a JPEG. Also really wished I had a tripod at that point!

In reply to mudmonkey5:

>"Ah, so the camera is analysing each image and processing differently for every JPEG generated? Right, I get you - so what I'm looking for is not really possible then I guess."<

Auto DRO (dynamic range optimisation) is the most pronounced. It'll attempt to put some tone into overexposed areas and put some light into underexposed areas on an per exposure basis and write it into the OOC JPG. It works very well but you'll never know quite what it did, so emulating the effect (arggghh ... just noticed my effect/affect boo-boo in the post above) for the RAW becomes guesswork/trial and error.


Dynamic range will be hugely better with RAW and your software should be able to fetch it out. Having tried a whole bunch, I ended up buying Photoninja which although is a bit more expensive than Lightroom, is easier to use and gets nicer results. For pure RAW processing, it's better but it doesn't have the photo organisational capabilities of Lightroom.


The exposure may be due to a spot or scene setting ? If you use your cameras on an auto mode rather than fully manual, and Sony's exposure for example was set on centre spot, pointing at snow, it will take that as the 'grey point', choose a shorter shutter speed or a smaller aperture and 'underexpose'. If your Canon had been set on a multipoint exposure, it would look at the whole scene (dark skies and clouds too) and would relatively 'overexpose' compared to the Sony. Colour is a mystery and even varies from one model to the next. My Canon S110 was a shocker for putting excess magenta into its OOC JPG's in snow scenes.


Would love to. A Norway ski tour is on the lotto win bucket list, as is a summer cycle camping tour. Hoping for some decent aurora shots from here in Moffat some time but the cloud keeps conspiring against me.

In reply to moffatross:

Agree with you about maximising the dynamic range when shooting RAW, that's the biggest benefit I can find, at least for me. You'll be able to salvage detail in the shadows and highlights from the RAW files which simply won't be appearing in the OP's jpgs. I noticed he is shooting on Auto even for the RAW shots so it might be worth experimenting with some of the more manual options. When I switched to DSLR, people on here said to jump to fully manual and it's surprising how quickly you get proficient at it. It might be more of a fiddle with a bridge type camera, having to go through menus rather than thumb-dials but if there's the time to do that and set up the shot correctly, I'd recommend it.

Am posting from the mobile so can't readily see which images I thought would be ripe for getting more detail back, but there were definitely a few which would give you much more than we're currently seeing in the jpgs.

To the OP: good luck and persevere, it'll be worth it, particularly with the shots you have!

In reply to mudmonkey5:


Nice images. The link for the RAWs didn't work for me.

When I first used Lr, I used the sliders pretty randomly according to my sense of what needed adjusting in each image. However, I've found – albeit using a different camera – that it's best to work down the Develop panels, tweaking the image in that order. For example, adjusting exposure and contrast can make a large difference to the clarity, vibrance, and saturation of the images without even touching those sliders.

Don't give up! RAW developing makes it possible to create far better images than OOC JPEGs. But if you want to save time and, after trying, don't enjoy developing RAW images, then you may be better off shooting JPEGs. And even then, some cameras' JPEGs will respond well to adjusting in Lr.

In reply to mudmonkey5:

Thanks for advice all - I actually took down most of the images as they were cluttering up my Flickr page. Nursing a calf injury at the moment so have spent the weekend going through LR instruction vids and starting to see how it all comes together now!