amehta Loc: Boston

Again, this is the result of the software you are using, not the "sensor data" in the file.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

it probably changes how the pp software chooses to render it by default.
I don't know. Regardless, I have always felt that my raw images were always flat, and I always work on contrast, saturation and other things just to start with.

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

I take as long as it needs to say "that's it!!"

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

:thumbup: excellent reply

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Ah, but it does.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

The software makes no difference. To prove that to myself, as well as members of the three camera clubs I belong to, I took different RAW files to different software, i.e., Corel Draw, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint, Photoshop, Lightroom Photomatix, etc. In every single case, the DNG file was flatter than the CR2 file. That tells me that it's not the software, it's the RAW file.

amehta Loc: Boston

The CR2 file includes both the sensor data and an embedded jpeg. I think the different programs were showing you the jpeg, not the raw sensor data with post processing applied. If you take a picture using raw+jpeg, and they look identical, it's because you are seeing the embedded jpeg in the CR2 file.

What produced the DNG file?

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

ACR, and other programs that process RAW files won't show you the embedded JPG when you're processing the RAW file. All the settings are at 0, so to have a jpg showing in ACR while you're adjusting the RAW file doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I shoot only RAW.

Adobe DNG converter produced the DNG files. Interestingly, the DNG files show up exactly the same in all the software programs. So if I take four RAW pictures of the same thing except with different picture styles, they show up differently in all software. However, if I convert those four pictures to DNG, the four DNG pictures are exactly the same. That, again, tells me that it's the RAW files, not embedded jpgs, or software, or.......

That also is why DNG works in all software programs and with all cameras. It's a standard, albeit one that hasn't been accepted by everyone yet. It doesn't matter what camera maker's proprietary RAW format is, DNG converts them all to the same standard, again seeming to prove that the difference is in the RAW files and how they are created by each individual camera maker and their in-camera settings, not by photo editing programs.

JimGuy

Depending on the image it can take a lot of time. If you start with a good exposure it can take less. The more familiar you are with the software, the faster you can go.
Hows that for evading the question?

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

Having take over two million photos I am pretty sure it takes about 4 times longer to get them looking like I want (I use Bridge), than it did to take them.
Stan

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

batch processing, the only way to go when you are trying to get through several shots. I always look for the "magic few" that I take lots of time on. The hard part is learning which ones are "worth" the time.

amehta Loc: Boston

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I would think so, since Bridge is only a librarian and not an editor!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

In other words, learning to be honest with yourself.

nolte1964 Loc: Des Moines, Iowa

Time spent is irrelevant because ultimately it is the finished product your after and that is what matters. As you gain experience you will know what works and doesn't for image's.