Dull, Lifeless, and flat

[WhiteStone]

Greetings all, and Happy New Year!

I don't know if this is a bug in AP, or simply a preset adjustment that I don't know about, so I posted it here.  I have noticed that RAW files direct from my Nikon D7200 (haven't used any other camera) are not as bright and lifelike as the playback on the camera; or when tethered with Capture One.  I have attached two photos.  The best and most accurate is from Capture One directly captured from the camera.  The next one that is quite dull, at least 1 -1/3 stops under is the same photo opened by AF.  

What is going on?  Any comments or direction is welcome!

Regards,

Jeff

[Waveluke]

Different raw editors have different default looks for interpreting raw data.  Looks like Capture one adds a default tone curve, whilst the Affinity Photo Raw editor does not, or is more subtle.  Raw files start out as linear, undemosaiced images that look like this, a checkerboard of red, green and blue pixels from optical color filtration and raw capture on the original image sensor, also would look really dark since in linear color space, so pretty green, and pretty useless (zoom in to see checkerboard pattern) 

Next we have an example of a neutral raw processor render of the image, the checkerboard pattern has been remove, it's in the proper colorspace, but, depending on the raw editor, a 'neutral' edit can look pretty flat or dark, but not as weird as an undebayered image. Some raw editors add a base contrast curve to make it look more contrasty, but here is an example processed with Rawtherapee (Free and Open source Raw editor, check it out here: http://rawtherapee.com/), that can get pretty close to "true" neutral.  Still going to be background  interpretations going on, in terms of gamma, and black point rendering, but still looks pretty flat.

Now for the final image, showing some basic contrast curves, sharpening, noise reduction, and slight white balance adjustments to get a more contrasty look, all done in Rawtherapee:

Bottom line is, there is a lot of subjectivity to what is 'correct', so the default image out of a raw editor is a starting point, and it is up to you to use the tools in the raw editor to get to the image you are looking for, and when you have the general look you want, you can then save as jpeg and call it good, or then save as tiff and import to Affinity Photo if raw processing in a third party editor, or continue editing in Affinity Photo after hitting the develop button in the develop button in the develop persona, to do more "photoshopy" things to the image.

Generally, I'd suggest you edit raws in Capture One instead of Affinity Photo, and export to Affinity Photo if you want to make "photoshoppy" tweaks, as the debayering algorithms used to process  raw images are much more refined in programs like Capture One and Rawtherapee than in Affinity Photo.  Also, be sure to save adding contrast last, so that you don't lose detail in shadows and highlights in the middle of your workflow,  IE export a flat looking tiff if doing further work on a photo, do the detail work in Affinity Photo, then add contrast using levels, curves and/or LUTs at the very end through topmost adjustment layers.

[Pšenda]

https://www.google.com/search?q=RAW+dark+site:forum.affinity.serif.com

[IanSG]

12 hours ago, WhiteStone said:

I have noticed that RAW files direct from my Nikon D7200 (haven't used any other camera) are not as bright and lifelike as the playback on the camera;

Just to address that detail - the camera isn't displaying the RAW file, it's using an embedded JPEG. 

[WhiteStone]

15 hours ago, Waveluke said:

Different raw editors have different default looks for interpreting raw data.  Looks like Capture one adds a default tone curve, whilst the Affinity Photo Raw editor does not, or is more subtle.  Raw files start out as linear, undemosaiced images that look like this, a checkerboard of red, green and blue pixels from optical color filtration and raw capture on the original image sensor, also would look really dark since in linear color space, so pretty green, and pretty useless (zoom in to see checkerboard pattern) 

Next we have an example of a neutral raw processor render of the image, the checkerboard pattern has been remove, it's in the proper colorspace, but, depending on the raw editor, a 'neutral' edit can look pretty flat or dark, but not as weird as an undebayered image. Some raw editors add a base contrast curve to make it look more contrasty, but here is an example processed with Rawtherapee (Free and Open source Raw editor, check it out here: http://rawtherapee.com/), that can get pretty close to "true" neutral.  Still going to be background  interpretations going on, in terms of gamma, and black point rendering, but still looks pretty flat.

Now for the final image, showing some basic contrast curves, sharpening, noise reduction, and slight white balance adjustments to get a more contrasty look, all done in Rawtherapee:

Bottom line is, there is a lot of subjectivity to what is 'correct', so the default image out of a raw editor is a starting point, and it is up to you to use the tools in the raw editor to get to the image you are looking for, and when you have the general look you want, you can then save as jpeg and call it good, or then save as tiff and import to Affinity Photo if raw processing in a third party editor, or continue editing in Affinity Photo after hitting the develop button in the develop button in the develop persona, to do more "photoshopy" things to the image.

Generally, I'd suggest you edit raws in Capture One instead of Affinity Photo, and export to Affinity Photo if you want to make "photoshoppy" tweaks, as the debayering algorithms used to process  raw images are much more refined in programs like Capture One and Rawtherapee than in Affinity Photo.  Also, be sure to save adding contrast last, so that you don't lose detail in shadows and highlights in the middle of your workflow,  IE export a flat looking tiff if doing further work on a photo, do the detail work in Affinity Photo, then add contrast using levels, curves and/or LUTs at the very end through topmost adjustment layers.

 

[WhiteStone]

Wow!  Thanks for the clear explanation.  A lot happens there in steps.  It leaves me a bit confused as to the use of standards.  Isn't red just red?  Meaning in RGB space R=255 G=0, B=0?  Then comes the B and G all equalling 255 whilst the others equal 0?  Then comes the plethora of combinations of RGB for all other colors within RGB space?  I'm saying the colors have a specific scientific definition.  Now I'm only asking - shouldn't the output from the camera(s) be the same?  I.E. Take a photo of a calibrated red test sheet with the values of R=255, G=0, B=0.  The light set for a proper exposure of F 8, 1/60th, ISO 100.  Light source = 5000K calibrated measurement.  I would think that all RAW processors would output the same results from any camera.

Am I wrong?

~Jeff

[WhiteStone]

9 hours ago, IanSG said:

Just to address that detail - the camera isn't displaying the RAW file, it's using an embedded JPEG. 

Thanks Ian.  I learning a lot here.  

[WhiteStone]

9 hours ago, Pšenda said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=RAW+dark+site:forum.affinity.serif.com

Goodness!  I wish I had known about that link before I asked!  Thanks!  Now to read and get educated on the subject.  Appreciate it man.  

[WhiteStone]

Waveluke,

I visited some YouTube videos where photographers are doing exactly what you suggested:  Do all RAW processing in Capture One, then edit it in Affinity Photo.  The two work in perfect tandem.  That is the direction I'm taking.  Thanks for the advice!