Question about RAW images in Adobe Elements RAW Editor: I am currently using Elements 11 and a Nikon D5100. I am wondering that when you work with the RAW image in Elements does this...

threedeers Loc: Northern Illinois

I am currently using Elements 11 and a Nikon D5100. I am wondering that when you work with the RAW image in Elements does this view have all the camera settings that is used in the JPEG file? I know that it uses the camera setting for white balance. Are all the other adjustments carried to the RAW image such as Picture Control Image (Vivid etc.) and Noise Reduction?

Thanks in advance

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

No.

The Nikon starts with RAW data and produces a JPEG that will be processed according to what Nikon thinks the image should look like. The JPEG will include what you've told it to include like "Vivid" and Noise Reduction.

ACR in Elements starts with the same RAW data and produces a preview image according to what Adobe thinks it should look like. It will not include any of the in camera Nikon JPEG processing settings.

If you have the Nikon on "normal" settings, they should be the same, but they are not. I used to think Adobe got their "recipes" for those previews from the camera manufacturers, but I've failed to find that documented.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I completely concur with Bill's explanation.

Here is related info:
FAQ: What is the Difference Between Raw and JPG?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26507-1.html

wisner Loc: The planet Twylo

Yes, the RAW file has all the settings that you specified in your camera's menus. The beauty of RAW being that you can change them after the fact if you don't like the original capture.
I prefer to usually use the camera's default settings and process the RAW file in the computer to my liking.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

wisner wrote:

Yes, the RAW file has all the settings that you specified in your camera's menus. ....

Wity respect, exposure, shutter speed, aperature and other settings, yes. But, color grading and noise reduction, no.

Try putting your camera on "Happy Color", "Cartoon" or "HDR" in the menu. They won't come through in the RAW file, only in the Nikon processed JPEG.

(Yes, my wife really has a camera with a "Happy Color" setting!)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

bsprague wrote:

No. br br The Nikon starts with RAW data and pr... (show quote)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understood that you never see a RAW file - because it cannot be viewed - what you see is an embedded JPG - which is how the RAW displays itself for info. It is not the same JPG that gets downloaded as a JPG file - it is only there to visually identify the downloaded RAW.
Once the camera is set up with YOUR preferences it will not produce a JPG in accordance with what Nikon thinks - it will produce a JPG in accordance with how YOU think. Of course, you can still PP both RAW and JPG. The advantage of RAW is that you can adjust more things with hindsite - most importantly better control of WB and the options associated with it. Other than that adjustments can be carried out to your JPG including WB etc. Don't forget that after developing your RAW you have to save it as a JPG (or TIFF for no loss) anyway. BUT - you will still have your RAW if you feel the need for a second stab at PP.

wisner Loc: The planet Twylo

bsprague wrote:

Wity respect, exposure, shutter speed, aperature and other settings, yes. But, color grading and noise reduction, no.

Try putting your camera on "Happy Color", "Cartoon" or "HDR" in the menu. They won't come through in the RAW file, only in the Nikon processed JPEG.

(Yes, my wife really has a camera with a "Happy Color" setting!)

Thanks, bspraque, for the correction! As soon as I posted it, I wanted to correct myself. BTW, what is your wife's camera with the 'Happy Color' setting?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

wisner wrote:

....BTW, what is your wife's camera with the 'Happy Color' setting?

It is a Panasonic P&S that gets rave revues on a cruiseship travel forum. I don't know the model number but will get it if you want.

It is small and fits her small "travel purse". She gets lovely and happily colored snapshots from it!. She has two more "serious" cameras a Panasonic GM1 and Panasonic FZ150. Even the GM1 was too big for here "travel purse".

wisner Loc: The planet Twylo

bsprague wrote:

It is a Panasonic P&S that gets rave revues on a cruiseship travel forum. I don't know the model number but will get it if you want.

It is small and fits her small "travel purse". She gets lovely and happily colored snapshots from it!. She has two more "serious" cameras a Panasonic GM1 and Panasonic FZ150. Even the GM1 was too big for here "travel purse".

Thanks, but model number not important. I found the setting quite humorous. I have an LX-5 and love it; my wife has a GX-1 and I find it to be an amazingly capable camera.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Delderby wrote:

I understood that you never see a RAW file - because it cannot be viewed - what you see is an embedded JPG - which is how the RAW displays itself for info.

Unfortunately, this is a misconception about raw files. "Raw" literally means not-yet-processed or not-yet-cooked, like raw eggs or raw meat. A JPEG image results from processing a raw file. It is not logical to have a processed image "embedded" in a raw file.

You will find no mention of "imbedded JPG" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

threedeers Loc: Northern Illinois

I just tested a monochrome setting and the RAW was in color where as the JPEG is B&W. It uses the white balance "As Shot" but the rest is obviously what the senor picks up.

Thanks to all for you replies.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

Unfortunately, this is a misconception about raw files. .....

Agreed. It seems the misconception comes from the capability in many cameras to shoot "RAW+JPEG" where companion but separate files are produced.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Nikonian72 wrote:

Unfortunately, this is a misconception about raw files. "Raw" literally means not-yet-processed or not-yet-cooked, like raw eggs or raw meat. A JPEG image results from processing a raw file. It is not logical to have a processed image "embedded" in a raw file.

You will find no mention of "imbedded JPG" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Well - the following comes from the wikepedia article you quote above.

"Raw files contain the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data. The structure of raw files often follows a common pattern: Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format"

But I am no expert - I only read and retain info. (so far still retaining) and with so many opinions I feel the need to question. :-)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Delderby wrote:

..... Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format"....

The manufacturers of the cameras I have that shoot RAW have not exercised that option. I don't own Nikons or Canons, so it may be that they do.

That said, I've read about software that claims to "extract the embedded jpeg" but every time I do further reading, the software is creating quick previews using its own algorithms, not viewing a camera originated JPEG picture.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Delderby wrote:

Well - the following comes from the wikepedia article you quote above.
"Raw files contain the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data. The structure of raw files often follows a common pattern: Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format"

"Raw files contain the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data." The raw information is there; it does NOT say that it contains a JPG image. P&S and some DSLR cameras need an internal processing program to produce a "reduced-size image in JPEG format" for the camera's LCD screen.