Most like this:
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/The_Image_Editor_Tab#Eek.21_My_Raw_Photo_Looks_Different_than_the_Camera_JPEG
The DCP which @TooWaBoo mentioned may or may not contain a curve. It doesn’t matter - you can do the same using either tone curve in the Exposure tool.
Well, in rawtherapee I can see both the dng and the rw2 and there’s an obvious difference between them. I know on the camera it only shows me the jpg (and the quality looks quite awful, I’m always wondering if I’m really in focus or not because it’s so bad)…
Before I tried rawtherapee, I could only see the RW2 file in the Image Capture window, then I would download them and not be able to open them at all unless I converted them to DNG. I didn’t realize there was such a difference until the last photos I shot turned out so completely different, so underexposed that I couldn’t really fix them. I thought perhaps it was because of the JPG display on the camera, and this is just how they really looked. And now with rawtherapee I can see the RW2 and the DNG side by side. And I just don’t understand what happens in the process of conversion. Will be really glad to not have to re-shoot stuff and have the raw files to work with. lol
@kendal first, read the links I sent you.
Adobe DNG Converter, like RawTherapee, re-creates the thumbnail from the real raw data, so the thumbnail will look different to the thumbnail produced by your camera in the RW2 file.
Your raw file submission was deleted before I could get to it because it contained a person and that requires a model release. Could you upload it using https://filebin.net/ instead?
That is most likely true.
lol. Well I hereby give myself permission to use a photo of myself.
https://filebin.net/bq0lqi8bp5j7tyt2
I notice when I double click on the thumbnails in rawtherapee that it changes them, for instance the DNG and the RW2 in this screenshot… is the thumbnail not reflecting what the file actually looks like, or is the program altering the image?
Duplicate the “Panasonic DMC-GX85 Adobe Standard.dcp” and rename it to “Panasonic DMC-GX80 Adobe Standard.dcp”. The profile contains a tonecurve and when you convert to DNG it should brighten the image.
I am not quite sure how to do that. lol. I am not very technologically gifted. I am using the Adobe DNG converter and I don’t know where to find that to rename it.
No, it shows the embeded jpg until the file is processed by RT (e.g. when you open it).
OK. So what is the difference between the DNG file and the RW2 file that makes the thumbnails look so different? And I can’t really tell what the RW2 file would look like without the pink… lol
@kendal I examined your raw file briefly and I didn’t see anything wrong or suspicious on RawTherapee’s side. RawTherapee has good per-ISO support for the Panasonic DMC-GX80/DMC-GX85/DMC-GX7MK2.
@ilias_giarimis added the per-ISO white levels for your camera, maybe he knows what’s up, if anything.
The question remains why the thumbnail of the RW2 is so different from the raw data. It’s normal for the raw data to look flat and underexposed, but not that much. There is a possibility that RawTherapee expects an e.g. 12-bit raw file while this is a 10-bit one. Such a situation would explain the thumbnail, but I saw no sign of that being the case.
I see two reasons to believe that what RawTherapee shows is indeed correct:
That would mean that your out-of-camera thumbnail lies - not surprising.
Assuming that RawTherapee does in fact show you the raw contents correctly, I created a PP3 as a starting point for your camera. It’s based on that cat photo which is better exposed, and the tone curve in this PP3 is similar to the one you would find in the DCP - i.e. you don’t need to use the DCP.
Panasonic DMC-GX80 natural.pp3 (9.3 KB)
My computer is having issues opening that, the Panasonic one. I’m trying again but I can’t seem to find it when I search in rawtherapee.
So is there anything I can do about my camera so that it shows me what it’s actually shooting? It’s frustrating to look on my iPhone app while shooting, and on the camera, and even seeing the RW2 files when I’m importing, and think they’re fine, when they’re actually not.
What do you mean with “that”. If you mean the …pp3 file, this is not a picture, it’s a file which contains all processing steps @Morgan_Hardwood has done to make the picture look like this.
Open YOUR picture and load the “P1020405.RW2.pp3” file by clicking on the “Load Profile” button.
Probably not. It’s not a professional camera, and even those lie. But that shouldn’t stop you from taking great photos. What you can do is shoot several bracketed test shots in different lighting conditions and compare the embedded JPEG to the real raw data which RawTherapee shows you, to learn how much your camera ‘lies’ and how much you should over-expose, and whether this difference is always the same or whether it changes depending on the light conditions.
Setting your camera to its most neutral settings may help, a tiny bit.
P.S. I am talking about minimizing noise in the real raw data, not about getting it to match the thumbnail or embedded preview.
off topic but congrats on the setup/poses/styling 
looking great!
Nothing strange with the RAW data … normal 12bit file with White Level at 4095 (according to exif). Although indeed a 3 stops underexposure is present !!.
It would be interesting if we had the same frame/same settings but with a bright light source (a lamp or your smartphone’s display open and bright) included in one of the corners to see where exactly the RAW data clipping occurs … to be sure that it’s not a hidden 10bit mode …
But … given that the scene is a low DR one, and the -0.33EV detting selected, the low exposure selected by GX80 auto mode looks reasonable (it’s like with scenes with snow where all Cameras underexpose by around 2 stops).
What is strange is the jpeg brightening. I could not detect any strange setting (iDR) in exif … but it must be something about this (the settings about jpeg rendering) … maybe a “auto levels” setting is ON …
Have you tried opening it in another software? Try like this: http://www.aftershotpro.com/en/pages/rw2-file/ and see if it is a file issue, or it is damaged maybe.
Hi @David_Bridges, we generally like to solve our problems with free and open source software, so that our solutions are repeatable and sharable with constraints. Thus, many here will find that Corel After shot Pro, while I’m sure is a fine product, is not acceptable.
