If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
Hi,
Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. Best, Conrad |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:28:05 -0800, Conrad wrote
(in article .com): Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. The JPEG images should generally look better. RAW files have not been processed by the camera software and generally need some editing. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
C J Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:28:05 -0800, Conrad wrote (in article .com): Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. The JPEG images should generally look better. RAW files have not been processed by the camera software and generally need some editing. Seconded. Depending on the settings, the camera will do some sharpening and brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments and most importantly, apply the white-balance settings to the picture when creating the JPEG. The RAW data has no adjustments until YOU do them in software. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
Conrad wrote:
Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. Best, Conrad Considering that the hardware was the same for each version of each picture, that really shouldn't be too surprising. In most cases, 16 bit values for each pixel aren't necessary, or even noticeable. Of course, it you want the very best the camera can deliver, then RAW is the way to go. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:30:56 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Matt Ion wrote: Seconded. Depending on the settings, the camera will do some sharpening and brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments and most importantly, apply the white-balance settings to the picture when creating the JPEG. The RAW data has no adjustments until YOU do them in software. Well not necessarily, no? I mean most all the raw converters I used set their own automatic settings or use the as shot values as their defaults (Nikon Capture) when you open up the image. ACR and RSE all start out at various levels of tweaking with no user intervention at all. True, the software may or may not automatically apply the captured WB settings... there's still the other processed settings the camera does, as I noted above. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
"Conrad" writes:
Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. While your RAW editor may be 16-bit, I relieve most cameras RAW images are only 12-bits (possibily with some of the Fuji cameras being the exception). -- Michael Meissner email: http://www.the-meissners.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
Michael Meissner wrote:
"Conrad" writes: Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. While your RAW editor may be 16-bit, I relieve most cameras RAW images are only 12-bits (possibily with some of the Fuji cameras being the exception). The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must* be processed into an image format (such as JPEG). The significant point is that shooting RAW means one *must* do postprocessing external to the camera. Shooting JPEG merely means in camera processing, and you cannot adjust the process and try it again until it is best; which is precisely the advantage of shooting RAW. The fact that post processing defaults are *different* than in camera processing is not at all surprising. The fact that two different processing defaults would produce differently optimized results, some images looking better from one and some looking better from the other, is not even slightly amazing. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
On Feb 1, 8:28 am, "Conrad" wrote:
Hi, Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and for some images, JPEG looked better. I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the results coming from initial camera transfer. Best, Conrad Consider that both prints and most monitors only have a dynamic range limited to less than eight bit equivalent. This is similar to film and printing paper. The negs used to have far more DR than printing paper. This allowed you to print shots where exposure was off a bit. Same thing for RAW and jpeg. If the shot were perfectly exposed, there is little advantage to raw unless you actually want to alter color or exposure (say create a fake "moonlit" shot. It is almost impossible to find a way to actually view a 16 bit (or even 12 bit) image and see ALL the range that is in the image. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must* be processed into an image format (such as JPEG). That statement doesn't mean anything. No computer data is viewable until it's decoded. If anything, the encoding of jpeg is MORE obscured than RAW. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RAW and JPEG
timeOday wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must* be processed into an image format (such as JPEG). That statement doesn't mean anything. No computer data is viewable until it's decoded. If anything, the encoding of jpeg is MORE obscured than RAW. JPEG data defines specific image, pixel by pixel. The sensor data does not do that. The values from multiple sensor sites are used to generate each pixel when that data is processed to make an image. Which sensors, and now they are evaluated to make each pixel, is not defined by the RAW file data. We are not talking about "decoded" data. That is what you do to view a JPEG image. Raw sensor data has to be *processed*, and then *encoded* into an image format (which is then decoded for viewing). -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
jpeg and jpeg 2000 | Conrad | Digital Photography | 71 | February 3rd 07 11:04 PM |
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation | Paul D. Sullivan | Digital Photography | 14 | January 30th 07 07:34 PM |
RAW vs. jpeg | Conrad | Digital Photography | 9 | September 30th 06 02:01 PM |
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? | Amit | Digital Photography | 1 | March 16th 06 06:50 PM |
RAW vs JPEG | Robert R Kircher, Jr. | Digital Photography | 36 | December 23rd 04 07:41 AM |