DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Raw format IMG vs _IMG difference
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/19/2009 09:20:04 AM · #1
Would someone know what's the difference between files that are named IMG_####.CR2 vs _MG_####.CR2

I shoot with Canon 50D set to RAW file format consecutive numbering.

I was in Whistler last month and all my images (hundreds of them) came out of the camera as the usual... IMG_1956.CR2, IMG_2043.CR2..., etc. which is what I am normally used to seeing. The this past weekend I came back from a shoot, downloaded my photos and all images are now named as ... _MG_2187.CR2..., _MG_2188.CR2, etc... with the " _ " underline charcter being substituted for the normal " i " at the beginning of the file.

Anyone has any idea why the camera does this?
01/19/2009 09:35:20 AM · #2
Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.
01/19/2009 09:39:16 AM · #3
Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.

What he said.
01/19/2009 09:43:03 AM · #4
Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.

See, I learn something everyday. I honestly didn't know that. Thanks!
01/19/2009 09:45:34 AM · #5
Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.


Mine doesn't do that.

I shoot in Adobe RGB (1998) and my image names are all IMG_*** and not _IMG_*****

My image names changed to _IMG_***** a while ago and now have changed back to IMG_*** and I have checked and both types of raw were in Adobe RGB (1998)
01/19/2009 09:52:44 AM · #6
Thank you so much. I was loosing my mind over this. I do remember changing the colour format to Adobe RGB because that's what my stock agency requires now. But I never clued in that the camera would switch the names because of that.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.
01/19/2009 10:04:30 AM · #7
Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.

Mine doesn't do that...

I just tested it on my 40D and the file names change exactly as described above.
01/19/2009 10:11:42 AM · #8
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.

Mine doesn't do that...

I just tested it on my 40D and the file names change exactly as described above.


Hmmm, I'll have to try changing it later ....

Is it just CS3 RAW editor isn't showing the correct colour space at the bottom?

01/19/2009 10:16:19 AM · #9
Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bobonacus:

Originally posted by gys:

Files are named _MG*** when the Adobe RGB profile is used and IMG*** when the sRGB profile is used.

Mine doesn't do that...

I just tested it on my 40D and the file names change exactly as described above.


Hmmm, I'll have to try changing it later ....

Is it just CS3 RAW editor isn't showing the correct colour space at the bottom?


The colourspace at the bottom of the ACR window is the one to convert to when moving into Photoshop, not the colourspace of the RAW image.
01/19/2009 10:20:34 AM · #10
Ahhh, that'll be why then!
Cheers
01/19/2009 10:46:24 AM · #11
Okay, here's a dumb question:

If you're shooting raw, do you really have a color space??? Does shooting Adobe vs RGB make any difference inside the raw file other than to tag the file for later processing?

01/19/2009 11:00:06 AM · #12
Originally posted by dwterry:

Does shooting Adobe vs RGB make any difference inside the raw file other than to tag the file for later processing?

Nope. It's just that image has to default to SOME color space, and that tag determines which one it will be.
01/19/2009 11:53:38 PM · #13
Actually, I believe that it does matter what colour space you capture the image in. Adobe RGB has wider gamut capability in the green and blue spectrums of the light. sRGB is just more of a standard for image capture, but many stock agencies prefer the Adobe RGB colour space. I really don't know why, but it probably has to do with Adobe being such a giant industry standard in graphics and photography, that many people somehow think it's better. But since there is no way to compare an image of sRGB to the original Adobe RGB shot, then it doesn't matter to the viewer or end user.

It would be an interesting experiment to shoot some images in Adobe RGB and then switch and shoot the same images with the same settings in sRGB and then compare them in terms of colour accuracy. Then in the Raw converter, don't covert them, keep them in the colour space they were shot in and see if there is a recognizable difference.

I might try that sometimes in the summer. Now in winter, it all looks the same monotone anyway. Unless you shoot some clowns inside :-))
01/20/2009 01:08:08 AM · #14
Originally posted by timmi:

Actually, I believe that it does matter what colour space you capture the image in. Adobe RGB has wider gamut capability in the green and blue spectrums of the light...

It only matters for JPEG. RAW captures the entire gamut of your camera sensor (wider than AdobeRGB), and you can output to any color space from there.
01/20/2009 01:13:04 AM · #15
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by timmi:

Actually, I believe that it does matter what colour space you capture the image in. Adobe RGB has wider gamut capability in the green and blue spectrums of the light...

It only matters for JPEG. RAW captures the entire gamut of your camera sensor (wider than AdobeRGB), and you can output to any color space from there.


To expand on that: absolutely NOTHING you set in all those menus changes what the sensor is seeing; it just changes how it is output. The RAW file is a straight, unexpurgated, unedited recording of everything the sensor saw. Just like you can then choose white balance, contrast, sharpness, saturation and so forth in PP, so can you choose which color space to create the new file in when you are processing RAW.

R.
01/20/2009 01:35:14 AM · #16
Exactly as Scalvert and Bear_Music have said. The camera's default color space is what the camera's sensor is capable of capturing. That is why some RAW converters such as Phase One's Capture One Pro include individual color profiles for specific camera models. This is also another reason why very serious photographers process their RAW files into the Pro Photo RGB color space (Which is a larger gamut than Adobe 1998). The Pro Photo color space will retain more of what the cameras sensor was able to capture and not throw out some colors in the conversion to a smaller color space. The caveat here is that your display will never show everything in this color space, so you run the risk of pushing the colors into a realm of over saturation and clipping. Only the highest end displays such as the Eizo ColorEdge CG301W can show about 95% - 98% of the Adobe 1998 color space. And some higher end printers from Epson are capable of printing colors that are outside the gamut of Adobe 1998. So there is a fine balancing act of trying to retain as much information as possible and trying to reproduce the colors as accurately as the camera captured them.
01/23/2009 12:00:07 PM · #17
Thanks for all the info. I am learning all the time.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:23:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:23:07 AM EDT.