08-16-2017, 04:26 PM
I took pictures this morning of the same scene with lighting as close as, my guess, could make it to being similar. In that about the same time of day with similar cloud formations. This time the camera is set to record both a raw and a jpeg file. When using DPP4 to view both files they are indistinguishable to my admittedly untrained eye. However when opened in GIMP where the UFraw plugin is used to load the raw image the very same kind of difference that triggered this post is evident. Whereas with GIMP the .jpg file looks the same as with DPP4 and other viewers.
My speculation is that the camera, as I expected, made some automatic corrections when preparing the .jpg file. Then the same, or at least similar corrections, are being made by DPP4 when it opens the raw (.CR2) file. This would mean that when using DPP4 I'm not getting to see the actual raw file. I'm also thinking that this defeats the purpose of having raw images. Possibly if I study the Instruction Manual for DPP4 there is some solution for this problem. In that, either turn off or reverse these automatic corrections. To the extent that my speculation is correct I'm not sure I'd want to waste my time doing that. As a result, it now looks to me like UFraw may be delivering the actual raw image with a caveat about, my previous observation and, what looks like UFraw automatically making some exposure adjustment, which can be easily undone.
Finally, as suggested, turning off the "progressive" option when using GIMP to export the same .jpg file referred to above did result in DPP4 being able to open it. Seems like another reason not to waste one's time working with DPP4.
Based on the various findings resulting from this discussion I'm also now inclined to think that Picasa is handling the raw files more correctly than DPP4.
Where am I going wrong?
My speculation is that the camera, as I expected, made some automatic corrections when preparing the .jpg file. Then the same, or at least similar corrections, are being made by DPP4 when it opens the raw (.CR2) file. This would mean that when using DPP4 I'm not getting to see the actual raw file. I'm also thinking that this defeats the purpose of having raw images. Possibly if I study the Instruction Manual for DPP4 there is some solution for this problem. In that, either turn off or reverse these automatic corrections. To the extent that my speculation is correct I'm not sure I'd want to waste my time doing that. As a result, it now looks to me like UFraw may be delivering the actual raw image with a caveat about, my previous observation and, what looks like UFraw automatically making some exposure adjustment, which can be easily undone.
Finally, as suggested, turning off the "progressive" option when using GIMP to export the same .jpg file referred to above did result in DPP4 being able to open it. Seems like another reason not to waste one's time working with DPP4.
Based on the various findings resulting from this discussion I'm also now inclined to think that Picasa is handling the raw files more correctly than DPP4.
Where am I going wrong?