Long time Qimage-SE user - but for printing only.

I'd like to compare Q's RAW conversion against my current program. I made a quick pass with a sample image and at the end chose to accept the changes via the save & close option. However, I did not see a new file created - neither NEF nor JPEG. I did this via the Refine RAW Exposure option - not seeing any other obvious choices. Did I mention that even after several years the QI UI leaves me puzzled more often than not if I try anything new? 

Am I missing something? Probably, but what? Further, I assume that the changes made by Q are non-destructive to my original RAW file - true?

TIA for your help.

Thanks, Terry.

I was generally pleased with the process and the result. In comparing Qimage's jpeg output with my default (no adjustments) jpeg from Capture NX2 the most notable difference was that Q's colors were very flat. With that in mind, I purchased Mike's camera profile for my D300 upon reading that improved colors were the big plus with a profile. We'll see - although approaching 2 hours after the purchase I have the receipt but not the file thus far, but it's on its way I'm sure. I'll report back for those who are curious.

You should tell Mike that I said you're owed a finder's fee as I wouldn't have plunked down $17.95 without your input. 

Ed, some more questions/ideas on your flat looking jpeg from Qimage.

1. First, what setting was use in the raw preferences for colour space?
2. Have you got "Embed Colour Profiles in saved/Converted Images" ticked in your Colour Management set-up: Edit-Preferences-Colour Management?
3. How did you make the jpeg in Qimage?

If you had 1. above set for Adobe RGB and not got "embed" checked as in 2 and then Converted, the resulting jpeg, although in Adobe RGB would not be recognised as such by Qimage and the default sRGB would be used resulting in a flat looking image.
If "Web/E-mail copies " was used to make the jpeg, then you should be ok because that is always sRGB.
You can tell what Qimage is using as the image colour space by hovering your mouse over the thumbnail and checking the Exif hotbar below the thumbs.

If none of the above applies, did you Refine the raw image, perhaps the White Balance needs setting or a little bit of Fill required?

Finally, does the Qimage jpeg appear "flat" because the NX2 default version is overdone?

Terry

Ed,
Been following the thread with you and Terry, and I have a question.
What are the default settings for developing Raw in the Nikon software. The sample shot in your post seems simply over saturated...
or perhaps, more saturated.

Fred

Fred,

Like beauty, saturation must be in the eye of the beholder.

Just to put this thread to rest from my end, I'm posting the NX2 and Qimage versions side by side. The NX2 is the default (no tweaks). NX2 defaults, to answer your question, are the exact setting applied in the camera when the image was made. As I noted, I keep every in-camera setting that affects image quality to its lowest (most subdued) setting available in the camera's menu options. Since I shoot 100% RAW, any and all settings can be changed before the RAW conversion - but in this instance nothing was changed. The result is the plainest vanilla jpeg possible from the Nikon D300 (plus or minus any Nikon secret special sauce as suggested in my earlier reply).

In summary, I'm satisfied with the Qimage results - certainly as a starting point.

Here's a link to the images as they contain a caption with pertinent details which seems to get lost when just adding an image. As I look at them here I almost prefer the Q-version as the NX2 appears to have a slight greenish cast - or maybe it's my eyes. But never mind, its just a starting point and any cast, if present, is easily removed.
http://ed-k-photo.smugmug.com/Other/Demo/7110830_brEmW#920764957_4NgX8-A-LB

Out of the box/default settings, virtually every raw converter will give a different result. If you are picky, you will use the one that best suits what you are trying to achieve, but the defaults will be what someone else thinks is right, not you. It then comes down to the ease of use, and the detail changes you can make in the software, to get the exact result you want. This is more or less an exact analogy to developing a film - some used one brand of chemical, others another, many argued about which was best. Others were happy with the local lab results.

If your images are to be shared/viewed on a monitor, then it will not matter very much what you use, it depends more on viewer's setup, (and yours) - you would get a good enough result using the in-camera jpeg. If you want a print, then it also depends on other factors outside the realm of colour management and pixel peeping. That is not to say that the raw conversion should not be 'good', but it is only part of the process, in the same way as getting a print from a film negative - you have room for corrections.

The main problem with qimage raw conversion, imnsho - apart from not handling all camera raw files, is that the interface is 'sparse' - if you want to make precise adjustments to some attributes, it can't be done. However, if speed of processing and 'average' is what you want, then it is OK. In other words, for most shots it will be fine, but for the ones you need to work on, you are probably better off using something with more controls.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray,
Isn't that the whole point of using colour management, to get consistency? I know not everyone who yu may share your images with will have  colour managed set-up, that's why sRGB is used because in most cases it'll be close.
I must disagree with you there, in many cases I found the in camera jpeg was poor compared to the raw conversion; I gave up in-camera jpegs soon after I started using raw.
You can do quite lot with a filter 
Terry

Hi Terry,

Colour management should get consistency across different systems, but what I was getting at, in the images that Ed posted, either one of them would have looked the same, if only one was given - not said that right, so say it some other way... If Ed had posted, say the qimage one only, without us pixel peepers knowing, i.e he had sent it to 'normal folk'  , then they would say it was fine. They would say the same if he had sent the NX2. When it comes to comparing both images, side by side, for us, it gets down to taking colour spot readings, and so on. In fact, I think what is happening, for those images, it is not consistency, but a sort of subjective accuracy that we are trying to define. Probably a better test for that would be to put up a colour chart on the pc screen, on one half of the screen, then take a photo, then present the result beside the original, then using 'ColorPix' or similar, measure the colour values for each square (then we can argue about other nuances  ).

Wrt in-camera jpegs, it depends on the camera, I guess. I have images from a few years back - since normally use raw nowadays - and they are good enough for the web, but it also depends on the subject material, of course. I am not into portraits or people photography, so in scenery, colours can be a way off, not so with skin tones. Occasionally, I use the canon 'magic green square' setting, and the jpegs are OK, and with the little sigma dp1s, using fastone viewer, I thought I was viewing the raw file, for a day or two, until I realised it was reading the jpeg embedded in the raw file.

I think there is a lot of prejudice, wrt raw/jpeg, nikon/canon, apple/pc, qimage/adobe whatever, and it tends to prevent folk looking at things with an open mind. If I were only sharing photos on the web, or printing postcard size images, or similar, then I would be looking to using the in-camera jpegs.

wrt a filter. Again, it's a sort of perception - maybe a prejudice? - but a filter is generally added to remove something. It is a separate item, but once you can remember what it does, it is easy to use it again. I think it is a different concept compared to the more usual controls in most raw converters, which you can slide around and see a more or less immediate effect. However, I tend to think that in many instances there are too many controls (but you have the choice of ignoring them)  and these other interfaces can be too complicated for many purposes, but then the world doesn't dance to my tune

Best wishes,

Ray