S95 / Magic filter RAW unable to emulate JPG?

[String]

I've just been playing with Magic Filters on my S95 but come across a strange problem (im sure its not filter related).

Taking a photo, ambient light, manually white balanced, shooting in RAW+JPG mode.

The JPG has much more red and less colour cast substantially than the RAW file. BUT when i load into LR5 or CS6 RAW editor it initially displays as the jpg (as its reading the embedded preview) but once its rendered properly the colour goes substantially green or blue.

I'm unable to process the RAW to look anything like the JPG - the white balance tint is already at the max of 150 and the image is still very green or blue. As the slider appears maxed out already i cant remove this.

The result is a JPG off the camera looks fine (if i load this into LR or PS i can do a lot of editing the colours so plenty of room to spare) but a RAW file that appears maxed out.

Example below (crap picture due to low light and algae but it gets the point across):-



The first is the JPG straight off the camera (sliders on LR are neutral/middle FWIW) and the second is the same RAW file which comes with the tint at +150 maxed out already so no further correction possible.

Any idea what/how i can sort this problem out? Its odd i have a lot more potential for JPG editing than i do RAW or is it likely to be an ACR bug in handling the S95 files?

[Decosnapper]

When I set the colour settings of my D300 to Black and White and shoot RAW, Lightroom still (or at least V3 did...not tried it in V5) rendered a colour preview. But that's not the same as what you see...I think...I share this as an example of how non-proprietary (EG not Nikon) software can take a RAW file, fail to read a proprietary setting and give a different result...

There is something unusual going on here. Have you tried taking the RAW into Lightroom? Do you get the same effect?

[String]

Im importing the RAW directly into lightroom via the import option. It displays as per JPG initially (its reading the embedded clearly) but then after "Rendering previews" goes to the green.

Just to make sure it wasn't a LR problem i loaded the RAW file directly into Adobe Bridge/ACR and got the same green cast.

Not sure if its an issue with the camera (dont think so), some artefact of a filter being used or something to do with ACRs handling of that camera (as the engine is shared LR and Photoshop).

[rockinrobin]

I've never used my camera underwater, so can't give anything from that point of view, but for what it's worth when I'm using my Sony on RAW the only thing I do is set a manual WB. I've got loads of old-school filters, and the "virtual" ones in the camera's software, but in my mind RAW needs to have the cleanest image possible to allow maximum manipulation - after all, that's what it's designed for. As the old programmer's saying goes - shit in, shit out.

I may be completely wrong, but it's my take on this FWIW.

[Tim Digger]

That's very interesting String. Here's my thoughts, the in camera manual white balance settings must be stored differently for JPEG and Raw files, one is implemented by the Adobe software one is not. I never use JPEG plus RAW only RAW. Is the same phenomenon seen with Auto white balance? If you have access to one of Canons own bits of photo software then does that do the same? Does it do the same without a Magic Filter? IE white balance different for the two file systems.
Finally post this on Wetpixel They'll love it!
Sorry I don't have a ready answer.
regards
Tim Digger

[String]

Didnt try auto WB (as it'll obviously be bad) but i'll give it a go next time. I'll try to dig out a copy of Canon DPP as well to see if its the same - didn't think of that.

It's done it on several dives ranging from 5m to 20m deep now so not just a one off event.

[Decosnapper]

The JPEG will be rendered from the RAW using the in-camera embedded software, reading the settings such as saturation etc. The white balance will be known and understood by said software.

Its my suspicion that the white balance information embedded in the RAW file cannot be read or understood by Lightroom/ACR - hence the preview that is the 'as shot' capture.

I would check LR/Lightroom are up-to-date. It might be your camera is supported with later versions.

Tim is right; Wetpixel is the kind of place to ask this one.

[Stuart Keasley]

Just a quick thought, if you're working in raw, then the white balance should be displayed in kelvin, with a second slider for tint. You've mentioned a scale, up to 150, which sounds as though LR is looking at the image as a JPG, no raw access to colour balance.

[String]

It's an old Canon S95 so been around (and supported) a long time. Ive used the RAW function a lot with it previously with no issues. It seems to be an issue with these filters (possibly at the extreme end of being no red or similar). I'm using the latest LR 5.2 and the latest ACR versions.
DPP is downloading now so i'll try it with that later on when i get home.

For anyone interested in playing themselves i've uploaded the original right off the camera JPG and RAW files here:-

Index of /files/2013/wb/originals

I know the photo etc is technically useless - it was grabbed on a guided dive purely to prove the point above with no attempt at getting settings or anything correct. WB was set manually with a slate at the same angle/depth a few seconds previously. Depth roughly 17m in fairly dark green water.

Will stick a post on wetpixel as well when i get home.

Just a quick thought, if you're working in raw, then the white balance should be displayed in kelvin, with a second slider for tint. You've mentioned a scale, up to 150, which sounds as though LR is looking at the image as a JPG, no raw access to colour balance

The RAW comes in default after import as 8000K and tint +150 (and exported directly off that to produce the above file). The correctly displaying JPG shows the sliders middle and zero as expected and is normal for those.

[Stuart Keasley]

The RAW comes in default after import as 8000K and tint +150 (and exported directly off that to produce the above file). The correctly displaying JPG shows the sliders middle and zero as expected and is normal for those.

Ah, Ok, forget what I said then

I'll have a look on Monday...