I shot this flag with my Canon XSi and Canon 70-200mm f/4L. The sun was shining bright and beautiful blue skies. On the left is the untouched version straight from the camera. The right is tweaked with Camera RAW. Is it normal for the photo to look so dull? Is there settings inside the camera I should change to give a more saturated/contrast look? The original just looks to faded.

Thanks,
Matt

EXIF:
Shutter Speed: 1/200 sec
F/stop: 8.0
Focal length: 200mm
White balance: daylight

When you say "straight from the camera", do you mean a jpeg from the camera, or as a RAW, how it appears in ACR with the initial defaults for ACR?

The photo was shot as a RAW image. Default settings in Camera RAW.

ACR, by default, applies very flat settings which show a large dynamic range (at the expense of contrast) and the WB is set from the camera as long as ACR can read it. The flat look is normal, and you should be glad of it- that lack of contrast is what allows you to pull more detail from your photos. The jpg, while much more attractive to look at, loses a fair amount of data (varies camera to camera, but ~2-3 full stops of exposure lattitude) to show greater contrast in the image. The lack of saturation also allows more highlight recovery from the raw photo, where a fully saturated image may easily lose some datat due to clipping in an individual channel, making colors inaccurate.

RAW is not meant to be viewed as a final output, it is a -raw- output from the sensor, and converted with the in-camera tone curves to create a jpg. 'In camera' would refer to the tone curves (and exposure, sharpening, etc) applied by the camera in jpg conversion. The RAW file is really an intermediate stage, showing exactly what the sensor recorded.

In this situation, 'less pp' would be attained by finding good ACR settings for most of your work, and storing those as a standard profile to use on all your images. This would give a starting point closer to the desired result. Alternately, if you shoot a lot of pictures under the same conditions, you can make your adjustments once, and then bulk process all your shots from the session using the same settings. Then, if any of them are not good enough, you can go back and redo just those that really need it.

I hope this helps some.

Jeremy

There's nothing magical or "right" about ACR default values. They are *not* "in camera values", as such. Sometime they are good. Sometimes they aren't. The defaults make assumptions about the light and exposure. The assumptions are often wrong. Correcting the ACR assumptions is the first part of my normal PP. You might try Canon's DPP and see if Canon's RAW processor gives you better defaults. (I misplaced my disk with DPP, so I can't install it and compare, but I know some recommend it.)

I'm trying to practice what many on here preach over and over again. Get it right on the camera so you don't have any post processing. I don't mind doing PP (I'm a graphic designer by profession and have worked in Photoshop for 18 years). I'm just trying to get more of the photographers mentality.

Thanks,
Matt

If you get all the image data in the shot, that's getting it right in the camera. Sharpness and proper exposure are good examples of getting right image data. So is getting an interesting subject. Color balance and saturation, for example, are artistic choices you can settle after you've gotten a good capture. Ansel Adams controlled the development of his negatives and extensively manipulated his prints to produce works of high art. He made good negatives, that's the equivalent of a good RAW image out of ACR in my book. Then he carefully made prints with manipulations such as burning and dodging. The PS stage is equivalent to the print making process and completely valid.

Thanks AuntiPode.

I don't, but you can set ACR up to make a best guess at what the conversion should look like - which may give you less flat looking images as a starting point.

But - as I said I don't like it myself.