I understand that Canon cameras typically create very vibrant colors. I can observe these vibrant colors in the JPEG pictures my EOS RP and R6 creates. I can also observe these vibrant colors when I process the raw files using Canon Digital Photo Professional.

However, if I use RawTherapee to process raw images, I don't observe these vibrant colors anymore. It's possible some setting in RawTherapee could create these vibrant colors, but it doesn't do that as a default. As a result, all of the JPEG images I have create using RawTherapee look very dull.

Does using Adobe Lightroom for raw images create vibrant colors in the manner that Canon cameras and Canon Digital Photo Professional creates?

  • \$\begingroup\$ You should probably rephrase this. I think your question is: "Can Lightroom reproduce the color balance of the camera jpeg from a Canon RAW file?" Also it might be worth asking if there's a way to do this somewhere in the settings of rawtherapee. \$\endgroup\$
    – davolfman
    Commented Mar 18 at 17:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Personally I think it would additionally be helpful to include some screenshots or something if possible - because it's not totally clear to me exactly what you are seeing/experiencing. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Commented Mar 18 at 18:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Given that you have both the Canon and Raw Therapy software you could do a side-by-side test on a RAW image of a simple primary color, and see what extra manipulations the Canon software is making, by making adjustments in Therapy until the resultant images look similar. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peter M
    Commented Mar 18 at 19:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Relevant: photo.stackexchange.com/q/10715/9161, photo.stackexchange.com/q/13091/9161 \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 18 at 20:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @davolfmanm I can't help thinking the real question here is "How do I get RawTherapee to display CR3 files like DPP or Lightroom?" \$\endgroup\$
    – inkista
    Commented Mar 19 at 22:50

1 Answer 1


DPP automatically applies the in camera jpeg settings (picture style) to a raw file, so it looks the same as a jpeg produced by the camera. Only the OEM software may be able to interpret everything 100%.

However, Adobe products use ACR (Adobe camera raw) for raw files, and it has the ability to apply profiles (default edits) based upon the picture style selected in the camera, or as desired. There are camera matching profiles for both the R6 and the RP. And these profiles can be applied automatically on import/opening.

However, these are Adobe's interpretation of the default picture styles; they are almost certainly not 100% the same. And any changes made to the picture style in camera will not be applied (for Canon CR3 files); whereas DPP would apply them. Also, not all picture styles are duplicated as Adobe camera profiles (e.g. fine detail and auto are not available).

This shows a Canon RP image and the profiles available for that camera (in Lightroom). You can see that it is quite vibrant by default... too much so for my taste. Camera landscape seems to be the most saturated/vibrant, and camera neutral the least; standard is what was set in camera.

enter image description here

You could also get the same/similar results in RawTherapee manually. And IMO it is worth learning to edit the images manually to get the look you want, regardless of what software is in use.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "Only the OEM software will be able to interpret everything 100%." Close to 100% anyway, the JPEGs produced by DPP are not exactly the same as those produced in-camera (or at least, weren't in 2013). \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Commented Mar 18 at 22:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PhilipKendall; Interesting, I wonder what the difference would have been if the DPP conversion had been output at max quality rather than 7... but I do get the point that just because they could doesn't mean they will/do. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 18 at 23:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ My very vague memory says that quality 7 was the closest match to what came out of camera, quality 10 JPEGs were much bigger than the out of camera JPEGs. But I wouldn't be surprised if my vague memories of 11 years ago were wrong. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Commented Mar 19 at 8:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.