Yes, there is a difference: Several months ago and during a discussion about RAW data editing I sustained that the reason I was using proprietary software was because it made a...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Several months ago and during a discussion about RAW data editing I sustained that the reason I was using proprietary software was because it made a difference when printing the files. Proprietary software PRESERVES the original colors of the file. This is not something that came from me, it was what my lab technician told me when I gave him for printing a RAW data converted to JPEG in Affinity Photo.

Several members of the forum argued that my technician was not correct. I keep on using proprietary software to edit my RAW data, Studio NX for Nikon and OM Workspace for Olympus. I sent an email to ON-1 about their RAW data software inquiring if I would get the true color of my files and this was the answer they gave me "We use our own RAW engine, so there will be differences between what you will get in either NX or Olympus software." I got a similar response from Affinity Photo. Nikon told me that their files are not compatible with Affinity Photo. I made no inquiries about Photoshop because I do not use it to edit my files anyways.

I rest my case.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I have no doubt that the color produced in the final file is different from one piece of software to another; but I would argue that the colors are very close to each other, that the computer and color corrected screen adds a second variable, that the printer and technician involved is a third variable, and finally the human eye perceives color differently for different humans.
If I were trying to reproduce a copyrighted logo, for example Coca Cola red, for advertising purposes, I realize that precise color replication is crucial. Otherwise, realistically, the software used is not going to make a whole lot of difference; or at least, I have been satisfied, using Photoshop rather than Nikons proprietary product.

BebuLamar

lesdmd wrote:

I have no doubt that the color produced in the fin... (show quote)

Generally colors of a logo would be specified with Pantone numbers.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

BebuLamar wrote:

Generally colors of a logo would be specified with Pantone numbers.

Thank you for the clarification. I hope my other, major, contentions are correct.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

camerapapi wrote:

Several months ago and during a discussion about R... (show quote)

Rest wherever you want. Just know you're wrong.

As the replies moved onto other subjects, there's a bit of relevance in the idea of graphics. If I want to create something for Loyola University Chicago, I'd google "Loyola University Chicago RGB color codes". The results give me both the RGB values and the HEX code for both the Maroon and Gold, as published by their University Marketing and Communication department. The values are independent of the camera, lens and software.

Similar to the question for RAW vs JPEG, who really cares what the camera engineers have to say (aka their JPEG results, their RAW engine)?

When you shoot in RAW, you are saying: I Am The Finger, not the button. Why this crazy and ongoing fixation with turning your images back into JPEGs your camera could have created, instead of how you -- the photographer, the artist -- performs that action?

Remember: you are The Human, the only person who is 100% responsible for creating your RAW result.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

camerapapi wrote:

Several months ago and during a discussion about R... (show quote)

I prefer to set my own colors with photoshop. I rarely use the colors from the original RAW image.
That would be boring indeed.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Given the deference so many of the community regularly give to the community's group-think on so many topics, why this lone resistance to instead take the word of self-interested engineers at various companies over the independent assessments from the UHH community?

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

camerapapi wrote:

Several months ago and during a discussion about R... (show quote)

And as I have reminded folks many times: "color" doesn't exist in the real world! It only exists as a perceptual response in each of our individual and different brains. Satisfy your own unique perception unless you are constrained to meet some standardized technical color measurement.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

one_eyed_pete wrote:

And as I have reminded folks many times: "color" doesn't exist in the real world! It only exists as a perceptual response in each of our individual and different brains. Satisfy your own unique perception unless you are constrained to meet some standardized technical color measurement.

On this subject: I have noticed that colors perceived by my right eye differ from the left eye, try it.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

camerapapi wrote:

Several months ago and during a discussion about R... (show quote)

Yes, proprietary software often gets the best out of your RAW file more easily, but you can duplicate what you get in any of the popular commercial RAW processors. And what you post on the internet will be viewed on a monitor that is not calibrated the same as your monitor and will appear different than you see it. If you print from an uncalibrated monitor and don't make adjustments for printing or posting, what results won't be what you see on your monitor.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Paul, when you shoot in raw and then import into an adobe product...which editing color profile do you use? Adobe standard?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

jackpi wrote:

Yes, proprietary software often gets the best out of your RAW file more easily, but you can duplicate what you get in any of the popular commercial RAW processors. And what you post on the internet will be viewed on a monitor that is not calibrated the same as your monitor and will appear different than you see it. If you print from an uncalibrated monitor and don't make adjustments for printing or posting, what results won't be what you see on your monitor.

If you compare the capability of commercial 3rd-party software to the limited actions available from the 'free' software bundled with the camera purchase, the idea of 'easily' is easily and completely dispelled. There is no relevant comparison in terms of ease of use, nor basic, nor complex edit actions. It's an apples to rocks comparison, even though both are RAW digital editors.

rcarol

Don, the 2nd son wrote:

On this subject: I have noticed that colors perceived by my right eye differ from the left eye, try it.

Have you had cataract surgery in one eye but not the other. That is my situation. I see images with my left eye entirely differently from my right eye.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Orphoto wrote:

Paul, when you shoot in raw and then import into an adobe product...which editing color profile do you use? Adobe standard?

Adobe Standard? Nope. Here's where most people drive all four wheels off the road, so early in their Adobe RAW workflow

Every ACR and / or LR user should have at least one default action in their RAW workflow:

Step 1 (after import) is to adjust the 'Camera Calibration Profile' from Adobe Standard to >> Camera Standard.

To William's point, Adobe is a mimic of the Camera Standard profile. But, once you started editing your RAW, you're not using the camera 'standard' profile either, whether you're in Adobe, the camera software, or any other software.

Our Adobe users can easily flick this option back n forth between Adobe Standard and Camera Standard and see the immediate difference. For those where this is something new, please, please note and make this change permanent into your workflow, possibly even as an Import User Preset or a Develop User Preset in LR Classic.

Otterbug

Don, the 2nd son wrote:

On this subject: I have noticed that colors perceived by my right eye differ from the left eye, try it.

Don, Ihave noticed this discrepancy also. Especially with some shades of pink, or orange.