# lcd display on 6d



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 19, 2013)

hi guys,

was just interested to know, what sort of processing is the canon 6d (or rough equivalent) doing to the photos before it displays it on the lcd display? 

i ask because i took a reference photo of a nice sky the other evening, there were some subtle colours that i wanted to remember.

i know i shouldnt rely onthe lcd screen for colours or anything like that but a quick glance never hurts, i remember being happy with what i saw ( just a simple Av setting 100mm f2)

i downloaded the file which was a raw image, which has everything zeroed, so photos need a bit of processing, but the image i got was almost grey compared to what i saw on the lcd screen.and i had to process the raw in lightroom to look like the image from the back of my camera,as it was what i wanted it to look like! which seems totally stupid lol ive attached the files.

just for reference and for comparison id love to know what sort of processing is applied for the lcd output ?

sometimes digital photography is so darn backward lol

( the first photo is the raw no processing turned into a small jpeg, the second is the procssed image to look like what i saw on back of lcd screen and more what the actual sky looked like )


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 19, 2013)

You just need to get more creative with your editing of the raw file. The lcd image is always going to look brighter and more colorful than a raw image, even if everything is not zeroed as it is first displayed.

If you are only using the Canon software, that might be part of the problem. Lightroom seems to work best...

The whole point of shooting RAW, is you have a lot of color and dynamic range information getting recorded, that you can enhance later, and optimize for the eventual jpeg or 8 bit tiff that gets printed, or else displayed on the web.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> You just need to get more creative with your editing of the raw file. The lcd image is always going to look brighter and more colorful than a raw image, even if everything is not zeroed as it is first displayed.
> 
> If you are only using the Canon software, that might be part of the problem. Lightroom seems to work best...
> 
> The whole point of shooting RAW, is you have a lot of color and dynamic range information getting recorded, that you can enhance later, and optimize for the eventual jpeg or 8 bit tiff that gets printed, or else displayed on the web.



yes, i understand what your saying, i think you miss my point, or maybe im not being clear!

i would just like to know what processing is given to the lcd image, which is processed in camera from th eraw image im taking ( i only shoot raw, for the reasons you mentioned, no jpeg )

i want to know simply to help me make decisions in the field, and to help me understand my camera better


----------



## catfish252 (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm not sure how Canon does the LCD preview display but on Nikon's the preview image is a jpeg and not a representation of a flat raw file. I believe thats why it looks more like what you saw when you took the shot. Not sure whether picture style settings comes in to play or not -- try adjusting your picture style from faithful to monochrome and see what happens to your preview. I just verified that the preview image on Canon's are jpeg with picture style applied.


----------



## canon_convert (Jul 19, 2013)

Hey... I think I get what you are asking. I am not sure about the 6D but in my 5d3 I can shoot raw+jpeg. Jpeg is close to what you see on camera lcd screen so you can use it as-is (and keep the raw if you'd like to modify the look and feel)

I'll let the experts chime in.


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 19, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i would just like to know what processing is given to the lcd image, which is processed in camera from th eraw image im taking ( i only shoot raw, for the reasons you mentioned, no jpeg )



Canon cameras apply one of their "picture styles" to the RAW file before displaying it on screen. There are several different picture styles such as Landscape, Portrait, Neutral, etc., and you can select your preferred one from your camera's main menu in P, M, Tv, Av modes (the same place you change shutter speed, ISO, etc.) You can also create your own picture style and have the camera use that as the default.

Just remember that if you shoot RAW, the picture style doesn't get applied to the RAW file, just the image that gets displayed on the back of your camera screen. If you use Canon Digital Photo Professional to process your RAWs then you can have it automatically set the picture style of the RAW you are processing to the same one that was selected when you took the photograph. This still doesn't modify the actual RAW file, it just automatically processes it with the same style that the camera would have used had it been set to shoot JPG.

If you don't care about the picture styles but you still want the image displayed on the back of the camera to look like the RAW you can set the picture style to neutral.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 19, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > i would just like to know what processing is given to the lcd image, which is processed in camera from th eraw image im taking ( i only shoot raw, for the reasons you mentioned, no jpeg )
> ...



the picture styles have no correlation to the output RAW , but i would love the option of seeing an image more like the raw file in its unprocessed state.

so we are saying the lcd display version of my RAW capture ( i only shoot raw no jpeg) is a small jpeg converted to the picture style settings??


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 20, 2013)

Reason for shooting RAW is to be able to tweak the photo the way you want it to be. Otherwises, RAW looks boring/flat. I usually shoot RAW + JPEG. I review my photos with JPEG, once I have all keepers, all JPEG get deleted. RAW will be imported into Lightroom and start PP.

Try these presets as the base line. With minor tweaks, your photos will look as good as everybody else.

http://vsco.co/film
http://www.slrlounge.com

Best of luck


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 20, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> Wildfire said:
> 
> 
> > jimjamesjimmy said:
> ...


Yes that's right. The histogram is also based on this JPG with picture style applied.
if you want the image on the lcd to be closer to what the raw file is (pretty flat), choose "Faithful" or "Neutral", or create one yourself that has Saturation, Contrast, Sharpness set to their minimums


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 20, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > Wildfire said:
> ...



yes i have it set to neutral, but this does not change the lcd image to match the raw image, it just effects its jpeg image on the lcd, which is useless as i dont shoot jpeg?

what i saying is if im only shooting raw and the lcd image has no relation to the raw image, whats the point of the lcd image? except maybe for composition?


----------



## J.R. (Jul 20, 2013)

To me the images on the LCD of the 6D don't appear sharp. This happens even though the images are pin sharp when viewed on the monitor. Has anyone else noticed this?


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 20, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > You just need to get more creative with your editing of the raw file. The lcd image is always going to look brighter and more colorful than a raw image, even if everything is not zeroed as it is first displayed.
> ...



I understand what you are saying also, but you missed a subtle hint of mine. Frankly, the LCD screen itself on the camera, is not meant to display an accurate representation (regardless of what processing is applied to the RAW file for display). It is meant to display a color and contrast boosted representation, because marketing told them that's what people like to see when they take a picture. This is likely due to the lcd's firmware and/or the nature of the lcd itself, and very little to do with any jpeg conversion the camera performs on the RAW file, in camera.

Basically what I'm saying is, the camera's LCD is far from being "calibrated" accurately. It's small, it has limited resolution, it is unsophisticated...compared to a large dedicated monitor for editing on a desktop. It also has a sluggish refresh rate, and displays motion artifacts in video that aren't in the file...from what I can tell.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 22, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > jimjamesjimmy said:
> ...


Even if you shoot raw, the camera always creates a jpg preview image (not in full resolution), and that is displayed on the lcd. Picture style Neutral or Faithful will produce a preview on the lcd which os closer to the RAW, but it won't be exactly what you see on your computer when viewing the RAW file.

And yes, it is for composition, and reviewing shots you have taken. You can also use it to adjust exposure and manual focus. It might not be perfect, but better than nothing. It does have a relation to the raw image, just don't expect it to be what you will see on your computer after developing it, sometimes with adjustments specific for one particular image.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 22, 2013)

i would still rather like the official output settings that the lcd image is made up of! its much more than just picture style.

it must be out there somewhere?


----------



## CTJohn (Jul 22, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> hi guys,
> 
> was just interested to know, what sort of processing is the canon 6d (or rough equivalent) doing to the photos before it displays it on the lcd display?
> 
> ...


I've had a similar problem with my 6D. The images I take look dull when imported into Lightroom, and I've never had that issue with my 7D using the same processes. It's to the point I've been questioning the accuracy of the light meter in the camera.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 22, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > hi guys,
> ...



Happens with me all the time. I shoot RAW and the images look flat when imported into LR. Can't really say for JPEG.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (Jul 22, 2013)

for me the wider issue is also that if when i import my raw files into lightroom, what looked initially acceptable (good histogram no clipping, not much blur) mostly gets zeroed out in the raw converter into a really nasty looking 'exposure' what is the point of tring to expose and get things right in camera, if i then have to go and fiddle around to get it looking like what i thought id exposed for! 

i can understand why phtography rules must be such a pain for proffesional photographers now if the initial raw photo looks dull as muck before you tweak it back to something acceptable!


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 23, 2013)

One piece of advice: Always judge exposure using histogram, the R-G-B one.

You understand that digital photos are just bunch of numbers stored in memory right? As long as you recorded the entire scene values within sensor's dynamic range (i.e. not 'blow it'), what appears on screen doesn't matter, a beautiful scene can always be recreated using various mathematical mojos.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> for me the wider issue is also that if when i import my raw files into lightroom, what looked initially acceptable (good histogram no clipping, not much blur) mostly gets zeroed out in the raw converter into a really nasty looking 'exposure' what is the point of tring to expose and get things right in camera, if i then have to go and fiddle around to get it looking like what i thought id exposed for!
> 
> i can understand why phtography rules must be such a pain for proffesional photographers now if the initial raw photo looks dull as muck before you tweak it back to something acceptable!



If you set Lightroom to open the file with all sliders at zero, of course it is going to look dull on the display. Mine looks relatively dull even though it opens to Lightroom's default auto correction, rather than "zero". I am using Lightroom 4. If you are using 5, I've not tried it. It's possible version 5 performs an even more dull, flattened RAW conversion.

There is a form of artistic control that is allowed and encouraged with digital photography. This should be embraced, not avoided, or thought of as "too subjective to portray reality".

If you don't want to do any post processing, just shoot the pictures as jpegs, and keep experimenting with the camera's picture styles until you get something you think you can live with most of the time. Otherwise, just learn to edit, and make your own develop profiles for Lightroom. It's kind of fun after a while.

And again, the light meter on pretty much all digital cameras I have ever used, becomes less accurate as the available light decreases. This is even true of the beloved 5D3 and 1DX. They all tend to give you an underexposure if you look at the RGB curves. Also as the light gets very low or lacks contrast, the "auto white balance" becomes a whole lot less accurate...

One other variable, is the type of metering you choose for a particular shot. "Evaluative", "center weighted average"..."spot"...etc.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 23, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> but i would love the option of seeing an image more like the raw file in its unprocessed state.



I am not sure I understand the advantage of displaying on the LCD, a RAW file unprocessed. What would you see?

An unprocessed RAW file is not an image file. It won't look like anything, nor can it be displayed. For a RAW file to be displayed as any form of image, it has to have "some" processing. Whether a lot or a little depends on the machine.

As other's have posted, Canon cameras allow the user to modify, to some extent, the processing the camera will do in order to display an image on the LCD. This is a JPEG. If none of the modifications native to the camera are to your liking, I am assuming there may be third party modifications, but even they will take the RAW data and provide some level of processing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I am not sure I understand the advantage of displaying on the LCD, a RAW file unprocessed. What would you see?



You would see the real clipping, the blinking areas on the current cameras are only for jpeg and don't show how much highlights can be recovered from raw. Magic Lantern's raw zebras/histogram & auto-ettr is very helpful here, but even with that you cannot see the clipping *after* shooing because ml isn't able to re-read the raw from the card.


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 23, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i would still rather like the official output settings that the lcd image is made up of! its much more than just picture style.
> 
> it must be out there somewhere?



It _is_ the picture style and nothing more. The picture style, however, has complex jpeg compression algorithms that may or may not be available publicly outside of Canon.

The best way to get the RAW file to replicate the JPEG displayed on the LCD screen during playback is to process your RAWs with Canon Digital Photo Professional software, which came free with your camera.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I understand the advantage of displaying on the LCD, a RAW file unprocessed. What would you see?
> ...



Interesting, excellent point...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I understand the advantage of displaying on the LCD, a RAW file unprocessed. What would you see?
> ...



There are tricks (neutral or custom picture style and custom/shifted WB) that you can use to get the histogram and highlight clip warning 'blinkies' to more closely approximate what you can pull from the RAW file. The actual JPG preview image won't look very good, though...so don't go showing it to people.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are tricks (neutral or custom picture style and custom/shifted WB) that you can use to get the histogram and highlight clip warning 'blinkies' to more closely approximate what you can pull from the RAW file.



Interesting, never heard of this - any details available on how to achieve it exactly? I shoot raw anyway and it would be handy for flipping through the shots and look for real overexposure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are tricks (neutral or custom picture style and custom/shifted WB) that you can use to get the histogram and highlight clip warning 'blinkies' to more closely approximate what you can pull from the RAW file.
> ...



Here's a start, and a Google search for "canon uniwb" will pull up plenty of reading material.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a start, and a Google search for "canon uniwb" will pull up plenty of reading material.



Thanks! Strictly speaking the Magic Lantern raw histogram/zebras/peaking in the picture review are better, but they also draw a lot of battery power, so I'll have a look at this.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks for the link. Looks promising.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 24, 2013)

Yes it is UniWB. It basically give the camera WB adjust coefficients of 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, which means WB is NOT applied at all.

Then you use flattest tonal curve by choosing Neutral picture style, then dial down the contrast to lowest, sharpness to lowest (to remove sharpening halo)

Then the histogram will be a lot better resembling what the RAW records.

Of course the output JPG will be garbage, all green and stuff. But if you enable highlight blink, you gets RAW blinks too!

There will still be a bit of discrepancies between UniWB histogram/blinkies and the real RAW data but at least it's a lot closer.

Oh, while you are at it, don't forget to shoot a white card in the scene to restore WB in post.


----------

