Adobe Camera Raw: Auto vs. Default?

[KazeNoNamida]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forums, so I sincerely apologize if I am asking a question already answered or asked. To start things off, I'm using a Nikon D3100. I'm just starting to make use of Photoshop CS2 that I've had for a while now in an effort to edit RAW images. The plugin that I am using is the Adobe Camera Raw 3.7. When I open a RAW file (in this case a .DNG file) I see that there are 2 categories for the Exposures, Shadows, Brightness, Contrast, and Saturation values: Auto or Default. What are the differences between these two categories, and why would one use one over the other?

This relates to my other question in a way. I'm using a Nikon D3100, and it seems that when i convert .NEF files to .DNG via the Adobe DNG converter, the colors are not the same. Granted, I'm viewing the two types of files in 2 different programs (DNG in PS CS2 and NEF in ViewNX2) but I'm not sure if that's the cause of the color difference. At times the DNG is darker, and at times it's brighter than the NEF. I have been reading up on why there is this difference, but due to my lack of knowledge and experience to digital photography (I just started shooting with a dSLR 2 days ago), the only piece of information I gathered was the fact that this difference may have to do something with the "Auto" or "Default" settings in my Camera Raw 3.7. What is the cause of this color difference?

I'd greatly appreciate any information and help! On a side note, I am really liking the learning atmosphere at this forum.

-Kaze

[LeeR]

I have never quite seen the advantage to converting RAW files to DNG. The argument I have heard is that DNG is a bit more universal and may be around longer, but Nikon isn't going anywhere anytime soon and as far as I know all the tools that work for one work for the other. For that reason, I would leave my files in NEF format if I were you.(If someone has a better reason for switching to DNG I'd love to hear it.)
Likewise, if you plan on using the "auto" feature in your RAW processor then you may as well leave your images in JPEG format. The whole idea behind RAW is that you are smarter than the computer program that processes images automatically. If you aren't smarter than you camera or computer systems, then let them do the heavy lifting for you. If you are smarter, then you won't be satisfied to let those systems do the work for you. Of course, if you are new to RAW you may want to hit the "Auto" switch just to see what you can get and to see if you can improve on it. But if you are finding that most of the time the "Auto" setting is as good as you get, then I see no sense in wasting time in the RAW processor. The learning curve for camera RAW is rather steep, and it may take some time before you can improve on what your camera can do internally.

[audiman90]

Auto sets the exposure, the recovery, the fill light, the black point, the white point, the brightness, and the contrast, all in one clever click according to the information in the picture and generally it does a pretty good job, much quicker than adjusting each slider individually.
You may agree with the result, in which case fine, or you may disagree with it in which case you can alter the setting/s that you do not like, but you will not have to set each slider individually initially.

Lee
Nikon may be around for ever and a day, but will their raw formats change in future from those used in your camera model. What you have to ask yourself is will camera raw still support your camera's raw format in 5, 10, 50, years time, although you may have upgraded your cameras in this time, will you still be able to view your photos from your old cameras. Will your children and grand children.

I don't think Adobe would go to the expense of making their own raw format if they didn't think so.

[Digidave]

Nikon's software renders the RAW file using the camera's settings. That is why it may look different. Photoshop will make an educated guess at how to render the RAW file but it will not be exactly the same. It may be close though & that may be good enough for you. I'm not familiar with Photoshop but isn't there an option somewhere to use camera profiles? This may get you closer to what the Nikon software would do.

I would suggest that you get more familiar with View NX2(VNX2) & start there with your processing. You can do quite a bit within VNX2(Exposure Compensation, White Balance, etc...) & then set it up so that you just need to click 1 button & it will convert to a TIFF & open in your software of choice. You may be happy enough with the results you get with VNX2 & in that case just export a s JPG file.

When I mentioned "Convert to a TIFF", I should have added that it will leave your NEF intact. You can always go back to that NEF & change any of those settings that you may have altered.

[KazeNoNamida]

Thanks to all for the quick replies. I can see where my misunderstandings are now that I've read your posts. I also did not like the extra step of converting to DNG from NEF, and so I believe I will explore the option of editing via VNX2 first, then converting to TIFF for PS processing. That way I won't have to bother with the different renderings between DNG and NEF (which I now understand a little better thanks to Digidave).