Coloring in JPG vs. RAW

[digitalpixels]

I hope this isn't a silly question. The following picture is a picture I took at Greg Daniels & Scott Watters' workshop this past Saturday.

The image on the left is the Camera Raw version, the image on the right being the JPG the camera produces. The color of her hair is dramatically different.

So I have some questions.

1) Why is the hair so dramatically different in color?
2) How do I get my image to get the coloring that is correct? For instance, the RAW version of this image her hair is way too orangey. If I want to work with the RAW file, how do I get the color to be more close in color to what the JPG produced?

All of my images of this model turned out this way.

I hope this isn't a stupid question, I'm just learning the power of RAW.

Thanks in advance!
-Emily

[LWimages]

Not a silly question at all.
Not too sure how you're viewing your RAW image. Most likely you're viewing the original and when you converted to JPEG, there are some color conversion taking place.
I use LR or Aperture and whatever correction I did in the camera, if it is taken in RAW, both of those programs displays as no corrections were made, only the sharpness and white balance. Then I make my color corrections with those programs, even before going into PS.

[venchka]

Back in the Stone Age I would have a portrait customer hold an 18% grey card in the first frame. As long as the light didn't change, then the color balance, etc. stayed the same and the lab read the grey card and Presto! Decent portraits. I think an 18% grey would work the same with digital. Color is color afterall.

Good luck.

[venchka]

Louis, Emily said both images were made in the camera.

[digitalpixels]

Hi Louis!

This is just a screenshot of the CRW file opened in Adobe Camera Raw in CS3 (no corrections have been made), with the JPG opened with a simple file viewer right next to it. I shot JPG+RAW, so both file formats came off my CF card.

[venchka]

One more thing, Emily. Your monitor should be calibrated.

[LWimages]

Originally Posted by digitalpixels

Hi Louis!

This is just a screenshot of the CRW file opened in Adobe Camera Raw in CS3 (no corrections have been made), with the JPG opened with a simple file viewer right next to it. I shot JPG+RAW, so both file formats came off my CF card.

Oops, disregard my previous comment, then.

What camera did you use? I'm thinking of testing it on my 40D, and see if there's a difference between both in mine.

I did notice that on my D200, the RAW and JPG version were quite different as well. I just attributed that to mean the sensor on the camera captures color somewhat different for RAW and JPEG, and that I thought I could live with the difference, and I just shot JPG anyways.
Now, with having larger CF cards, I shoot RAW almost all the time.

[venchka]

Never mind. I was never here.

[AndrewCCM]

RAW images are just RAW data.. your converter of choice will interpret it differently from one another. The JPG takes on all settings within the camera (saturation, sharpness, hue, etc..).

Typically, when shooting studio shots...you'd have a temperature reference 5500k (or there abouts) or a gray card to white balance off of. When shooting in studio...set your Kelvin temp and do not use auto white balance.

RAW will not typically ever look like the JPG right out of the camera as the JPG is interpreted depending on your Picture Styles (Canon), or Curves/etc...(Nikon)

Also, I noticed that your pic shows that they are Adobe RGB... When viewing in a browser/web...be sure you convert to sRGB or the colors will look off if they are not Adobe RGB aware...(Most aren't).

FWIW

[ramblinray]

Part of the difference may be the different methods you used to view then on your monitor. You can open them both in CS3 and they should both open in camera raw. Until you have them both open in the same program it will be difficult to make an educated guess as to what you would need to do. The raw file does look a little cooler. You can check the color temperture of the white balance in ACR and adjust as needed to get the effect you want. The grey card does work with digital. Or you could use an Expodisc. I have both and both seem to work quite well to get color pretty closet to right on. Scott and Greg may have mentioned a suggested color temperature for a custom white balance for the lights they use. That would have gotten you pretty close too. So that all said, how about a screen shot of both opened in the same program?

[migrider56]

The reason your jpg is so different is probably due to the presets in your camera settings, saturation, contrast, brightness and sharpness levels are setup and effect your jpg images.
Open your raw files with dpp and you can adjust the satuation , brightness, hue contrast and sharpness levels as well as adjust your color balance. If you have cs2 cs3 you can open the raw with either program and adjust the raw image having more control over the image vs opening the jpg and adjusting it .

[venchka]

Seems to me that in the absence of a gray card (better still-two cards and include the white side also) to use as a known reference, relying on your memory to get a model's hair color right is risky.

[AndrewCCM]

If you're using studio strobes, it should be pretty easy to determine your color temp...They all are pretty close on the Kelvin scale, so it should just be a tweak.

With Greg/Scott's studio lights I typically shot at around 5900k

I always adjust to taste in RAW during post processing. Rarely is completely neutral color what I want from a portrait anyway.

[venchka]

Thanks Andrew.

[Duffy Pratt]

You can change colors in Camera Raw either by playing with the white balance sliders, or by using the HSL tabs. With white balance, you can move things on the yellow/blue axis and also on the magenta/green axis. Your jpg has more magenta in the skin and the hair than the Raw rendering.

With the HSL sliders you can manipulate the hue, saturation, and luminance of particular colors. If you think the skin is too orange in the RAW rendering, you can play with the oranges in this slider. (This might not give the results you expect, but its worth playing with.)

You can also make adjustments in Photoshop to get the results you want. There are lots and lots of ways to approach this.

By the way, the flesh tones might be a bit too yellow on the Raw rendering. But they are way too magenta on the .jpg. What you are looking for may lie somewhere in the middle.

And I agree that this stuff is much simpler if there is an identifiable neutral in the frame for at least one shot using the same lighting.

Duffy