RAW files much darker than normal

[Kai Hawaii]

Hi,

when I open RAW files for development they are much darker than in e.g. Pixelmator (or preview). Also the histagram is more to the left. If I adjust the brightness til they look about the same and export them as jpeg the result looks equal in both apps. Color profiles do not fix it allthough I use a calibrated profile from my Datacolor Spyder...

MacBook Air 13", Sequoia, Affinity 2.6, Canon 90D

Edited March 14 by Kai Hawaii

[Pšenda]

This question is discussed quite often on the forum - so try looking here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=RAW+files+much+darker+than+normal+site:https://forum.affinity.serif.com

[Kai Hawaii]

Thanks. I looked for it, but everything was Windows related. Tried the assistant settings, but everything was enabled

[Kai Hawaii]

I read all the threads I found but didn't get a solution... But I can live with that...

 

[Pšenda]

[Bound by Beans]

3 hours ago, Kai Hawaii said:

when I open RAW files for development they are much darker than in e.g. Pixelmator (or preview). Also the histagram is more to the left. If I adjust the brightness til they look about the same and export them as jpeg the result looks equal in both apps. Color profiles do not fix it allthough I use a calibrated profile from my Datacolor Spyder...
MacBook Air 13", Sequoia, Affinity 2.6, Canon 90D

With a prosumer Canon camera like yours, perhaps even with good lenses if you have them, a calibrator, and a Mac—and if you take a lot of photos with ambition—I think you should consider a proper and competent RAW program. Alternatively, it's underrated to nail the exposure correctly, save in good JPG quality, and edit JPGs instead. And in that case, Photo is decent.

You're not supposed to spend your life on things that other good RAW converters handle automatically or on unnecessary work.

[Ldina]

Many RAW processors and image viewers display the embedded JPG preview initially, rather than the actual raw data. The LibRaw module that Affinity uses doesn't do ANY "auto" adjustments to a file when it is opened. So, a newly opened RAW file often tends to look flat and underwhelming, especially when compared to a JPG preview image that has a lot of in-camera processing done to it. Many RAW processors apply auto adjustments to boost contrast, saturation, sometimes sharpness, or whatever. I never liked that myself and always turned those Auto adjustments off in other RAW processors. I wanted to do that myself for full control. 

I've used the Affinity Develop Persona A LOT (over a thousand RAW images) and find it to be very capable, once you learn to use it properly. But, it's not an auto, one button thing. I love the "non-destructive RAW" feature when using a Linked or Embedded RAW file, which enables one to go back and forth between Photo and Develop Personas when needed. It also keeps AfPhoto files very small, since the file is "linked" to the original RAW file. Since one MUST develop a RAW image and bring it into AfPhoto anyway (in order to even save the file), you can do most of your edits in the Photo Persona non-destructively. Again, my preference. I always prefer to bring a "conservative" image into Photo, leaving plenty of headroom for further editing. I know that doesn't work for everyone, but that's always been my preference and I find it usually results in a superior final result. 

If you're looking for a more automatic approach right off the bat, I agree, other RAW processors may be a better choice. Then again, you give up that non-destructive RAW capability. 

[Bound by Beans]

I’m not talking about one-button processing either, but rather about a starting point where the program reasonably presents the image based on the camera model and lens, rather than requiring the user to simulate all of this manually. On top of that, the algorithms behind pixel data rendering are vastly superior in high-quality commercial software, and the in-camera renderings are also excellent (no surprise there).

I have conducted many tests on Affinity’s renderings, which are significantly weighed down by its dull demosaic rendering and the need for numerous adjustments. The algorithms used in high-end software are simply better, making the alternatives worth the money.

I don’t personally use AI automation or even dehaze, but I do focus on aesthetics. And in that regard, the major software and camera manufacturers have powerful algorithms at work, which put programs relying on the uninspired mechanical demosaicing from an open-source background in a poor light.

But I won’t argue against what you’re happy with. 🙂

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Bound by Beans said:

... and the in-camera renderings are also excellent (no surprise there).

Not sure what you mean by that for RAW formats. That is the whole point of using RAW formats; it allows users to manipulate the sensor data in ways that can't be done in-camera.

The old RAW, Actually Affinity Spotlight article is still a great source for comprehensive info about RAW files.

[Kai Hawaii]

Thank you all for your advices! I read a lot the past day...

[Kai Hawaii]

Changing the RAW Engine from Serif Labs to Apple RAW brings similar look in Affinity, Pixelmator, Rawtherapee when opening the RAW files...

[Ldina]

You can use the Apple RAW engine if you prefer the results, but I believe you lose the RAW Layer (linked or embedded) capability. I'm guessing the Apple RAW engine applies some image enhancements to tone, saturation, etc, to the RAW data, similar to other RAW processors. 

[Kai Hawaii]

Thanks, I'll check that out.

[Kai Hawaii]

You're right! So that's not the way to go. Can I predefine a tone curve when I open a RAW file? I just want the image to be brighter when I look at it... didn't find a way

[Kai Hawaii]

I tried all different editors/viewers, and only Affinity shows the flat, dark version of the RAW image... strange.RAWDigger is much brighter than the rest. 

[Ldina]

18 minutes ago, Kai Hawaii said:

Can I predefine a tone curve when I open a RAW file?

Yes and No...

You can create your own Presets in the Basic panel, Curves Panel, Lens Panel, etc, and save them, but they be won't automatically applied. You have to apply your Presets manually after opening the file in the Develop Persona. There are no "auto" settings that will look at image content and then scale tones etc. As it currently stands, the Affinity Develop Persona is a manual operation.

You can create Macros in Photo that will apply Develop Presets to one or more images (in a New Batch Job), but whatever is in the Macro will be applied equally to all images. 

I know some people like to do a LOT in RAW development and get the image almost perfect (especially if you come from a DAM, like LightRoom, etc). With Affinity, I have found it better to develop a very conservative image in the Develop Persona, leaving plenty of headroom, then do most of my work in the Photo Persona. I get the brightness, contrast and WB reasonably close, avoiding clipping, maybe some lens correction, chromatic aberration, etc. You've got to do these adjustments in one Persona or the other, and you can't save a file from Affinity unless you visit the Photo Persona anyway, so I do it there, with more power and flexibility, non-destructively. 

If that's unpalatable, then you're probably better off using a 3rd party RAW development app. Canon's DPP will give great results, since they know their cameras, algorithms, etc, best. 

[Ldina]

Your comparisons are all brighter...but which one is "right?" They're all very different, and each applies its own special sauce. That's why I like starting from mostly unmanipulated RAW data, without a lot of software based enhancements. 

The Develop Persona is what it is. I'm okay with it and get great results, though it would be nice to have more features, optional 'auto' features, more flexibility,  etc. 

[Kai Hawaii]

Thank you for your profound advice!

[Ldina]

You're welcome. 

I'm a long-time user of Photoshop, Lightroom, ACR, and other RAW & editing software. With LR, I got good results quickly and easily, and it was great for batch-processing a lot of photos, synchronizing them, etc...but the downside is that it also made me rather lazy. I often skipped editing images in PS or Affinity. And that's fine for quick client proofs and run-of-the mill images that don't deserve more effort and time. 

It's a very rare occurrence for me that I can't make an image look significantly better by spending more time and attention in a dedicated image editor like Affinity Photo, Photoshop, etc. I've re-edited well over a thousand images originally done just in LR, and they look so much better (starting from scratch with the RAW files in Affinity Develop Persona). That's not a fault of LR, which is a great program. I became lazy. I can't do that as easily using Affinity Develop and Photo Personas, so my images routinely look better (admittedly with more effort). 

Sometimes, good enough is...well....good enough. Different strokes for different folks. 

[Kai Hawaii]

Ok... Finally. Seems to be a thing with my RAW files. I downloaded a sample file from https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-r7/Y-JG-CANON-EOS-R7-0012.CR3.HTM which was taken with a Canon R7 (same CR3 format) and it looked the same in every programm...

[Ldina]

That’s a tough image for comparisons…all contrast. Might be better to try something with a more “normal” tonal distribution.

[Kai Hawaii]

Like so? 
Differences are visible but by far not as much as with my own photo...

[Ldina]

Wanna upload one of your raw files?

[Kai Hawaii]

Looks about the same, depending on the photo. I think maybe some are underexposed and Affinity shows them correctly while the other "boost" em up allthough it's a raw-file. Shouldn't be... But I have photos which look about the same in every software and some (like the dog above) are totally different and darker and flatter in Affinity

[Kai Hawaii]

Left Affinity, right Pixelmator