Canon S95 RAW files not rendered correctly in Photoshop or Lightroom using Camera RAW

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 7 years ago
In both Photoshop and Lightroom, the Canon S95 RAW files are not rendered to an image that looks correct relative to the JPEG that comes out of the camera and how Canon Digital Photo Professional renders the file. There are several issues in the way the S95 RAW files are rendered by Camera RAW 6.4.1:

1) The reds and magentas are too dark, saturated, and the hues are way off, usually not consistenly
2) The contrast is significantly reduced
3) The whole image is much less sharp and the colors are muted.

This happens with any camera profile: Adobe Standard, Camera Faithful/Landscape/Neutral/Portrait/Standard.

Very major, time-consuming tweaking has to be done to each image to get it to look any where near the JPEG, let alone fix the issues that caused me to want to process the RAW image the first place. The tweaking that has to be done is different every time, so a preset can't be created to speed up this process. Are there plans to improve the S95 RAW quality?

I verified this issue exists on multiple computers.
Photo of Noah Wardrip

Noah Wardrip

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 380 Reply Likes
This link is a response to normal differences in Lightroom vs. in-camera jpeg rendering. Sounds like Noah's problem is different.

He does NOT have the problem with a 7D...
Photo of Noah Wardrip

Noah Wardrip

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks, but everything stated in that thread I addressed in my original post. The rendering done by Lightroom is incorrect. The reds and magentas are way off from reality. Also, there isn't one magic preset that I can create that works on all images, as I stated before. This problem does not happen with my Canon EOS 7D RAW files - they are much truer to reality and the JPEG that the camera produces.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 378 Reply Likes
I can't help but wonder if the correct cam-cal profiles are being applied. I mean, if its really as fouled up as you say, and everyone were experiencing the same problem, I would expect more "outcry". So, assuming you're not making a mountain out of a mole-hill, I suspect you're having an unusual problem. Consider using AdvancedColorEditor to check the profile being used and make sure it matches your model name.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
Might help to post examples, its hard to know if this is a true problem, or just an expectation thing. - sounds like a true problem to me ;-)

The G12 renderings are similar to my ND300 for Adobe Standard, but not exact.
The G12 camera-cal profiles however can not be touched with DNG Profile Editor for some reason or they fall apart - very strange (there's another thread about it that got no response) - basically, if you change one number by one, then huge changes in the colors displayed - not normal, no, no... not normal at all, in my experience... - dunno if related problem.
Photo of Noah Wardrip

Noah Wardrip

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Here is an example. The CR2 is on the left, the JPEG is on the right (screen cap from Lightroom). On my (sRGB calibrated) monitor the CR2 looks flatter/less saturated/less contrasty, some of the reds and magentas are significantly off (see plastic magenta mesh bag on right) and the yellows are different. The reds are the ones that are really noticeable but not all reds seem to be way off. My wife's swimsuit (not shown) is definitely red and the JPEG shows it as red, but the raw rendering shows it as magenta.

Another example (CR2 left, JPEG right) showing the reds are significantly different (although maybe the CR2 rendering looks better in the particular case, but that is not my point):


Final disclaimer: I didn't take these pictures...I'm just trying to make them better :)
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 378 Reply Likes
I hate to say it, but from my viewpoint, these don't look that far off - i.e. within normal limits. Maybe you should consider a modified profile: I did this for all the Adobe provided profiles: start with the Adobe profile, then fold in some adjustments based on the 24 color chart... (using DNG Profile Editor, maybe with a little help from the AdvancedColorEditor plugin). Which camera calibration profile are the CR2's using now? And which were the jpegs created from in-camera?

Or, maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing for some reason...
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
The shipped profiles are going to be useful for how many sensor and camera combinations react to controlled lighting siutations -- but not all. Each sensor is going to react -- possibly in a non-linear manner -- to a variety of inputs.

It sounds like you have an outlier.

Try rolling your own camera profiles.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
PS - The Adobe Standard profile is often considered "magenta-y". This issue has been raised a fair amount, on this forum and others - for many different people and cameras..

Try this if you don't want to fuss with modified profiles just yet:

(In cam-cal section of develop module)
Select Adobe Standard
Red Hue +7
Blue Hue +9
Green Hue +4
(this is what I use in some of my Adobe Standard derivatives, another gent uses red+5, and blue+10, no green hue adjustment)

And maybe change the white balance tint toward the green a smidge if that don't get it (or use shadow tint slider if magenta-y-ness seems more in the darks or lights, or split toner to fine tune that...)

Better? - Can be saved as a preset, or baked into a camera profile.

Note: If canon camera emulation profiles also seem magenta-y, then your issues are not just with the "characteristics" of Adobe Standard, so.........

Rob