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
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg
from that vs. shooting jpg directly? I understand RAW is superior in image quality and manipulation, but I am only concerned with jpg format in this question now. Thanks, ML |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
ML Photo writes ...
Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg from that vs. shooting jpg directly? Well, technically you are ALWAYS shooting RAW but if you have the camera set to output jpegs then it takes the RAW file and processes it according to your settings for white balance, sharpening, exposure, contrast etc and spits out a jpeg, discarding the RAW info. So the real question is 'can you do a better job of making a jpeg by adjusting white balance etc with the converter than the camera does with fixed settings'? If you got everything right at exposure time (especially white balance and exposure) then the in-camera jpeg will be fine, but if not then it's better to make the corrections on the RAW file and convert than to make the corrections on the jpeg. Bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
Bill Hilton wrote:
ML Photo writes ... Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg from that vs. shooting jpg directly? Well, technically you are ALWAYS shooting RAW but if you have the camera set to output jpegs then it takes the RAW file and processes it according to your settings for white balance, sharpening, exposure, contrast etc and spits out a jpeg, discarding the RAW info. So the real question is 'can you do a better job of making a jpeg by adjusting white balance etc with the converter than the camera does with fixed settings'? If you got everything right at exposure time (especially white balance and exposure) then the in-camera jpeg will be fine, but if not then it's better to make the corrections on the RAW file and convert than to make the corrections on the jpeg. Bill If the scene is a pretty typical one then the camera will normally do a fine job of making the jpeg. If the scene has some extremes in it then raw can do wonders. There is a lot of talk about what color space to shoot in, if you shoot in raw you can reduce the saturation until all the colors fit. Raw will also give you a bit more dynamic range then what you would get from the jpeg straight from the camera. There is also some pretty odd processing that goes on in some cameras before they output the jpeg file, with my Sony it does a lot of filtering to try and reduce noise, unfortunately it also removes detail in some cases. The worst case is water with waves, the Sony seems to see this as a blue sky with noise and so removes the waves. Shooting raw gives me the waves back. I see far fewer problems with the camera jpeg using the 20D. The best thing to do is shoot both for a while and get a feel for what you are able to do with the raw and see if it is worth it to you. Try shooting some bright reds both ways, this often give the camera jpeg a hard time. When converting the raw to jpeg play with the saturation control. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
The quality of a JPEG obtainable from a RAW file is potentially better than
that produced by the camera, but it's all dependent on the RAW conversion software and how you use it. Ian Digital Photography Now http://dpnow.com "MJL Photo" wrote in message news:R4uif.630838$oW2.613793@pd7tw1no... Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg from that vs. shooting jpg directly? I understand RAW is superior in image quality and manipulation, but I am only concerned with jpg format in this question now. Thanks, ML |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
Everyone that says a camera will output a jpg that is the same as a RAW
converted jpg has not done the conversion and simply LOOKED at the 2 images. I have shot RAW and JPG, looked at the JPG then had my RAW converter make a JPG with no changes in the settings so the 2 files SHOULD be identical, but they are not. The RAW converted JPG was MUCH sharper and the color was richer. I always shoot RAW and convert to JPG.... JR |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg
from that vs. shooting jpg directly? Only in how the RAW data is converted. Sometimes the camera makes pretty decent decisions as to how to render the JPG, but often you can make a better decision, or at least a more informed one. Also, presumably you're importing at more than 8 bits into your photo editing program, and in a larger color space than sRGB - so your editing and manipulations are much less likely to result in various technical deficiencies than if you performed them on the JPG. steve |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
JR wrote:
Everyone that says a camera will output a jpg that is the same as a RAW converted jpg has not done the conversion and simply LOOKED at the 2 images. I have shot RAW and JPG, looked at the JPG then had my RAW converter make a JPG with no changes in the settings so the 2 files SHOULD be identical, but they are not. The RAW converted JPG was MUCH sharper and the color was richer. I always shoot RAW and convert to JPG.... If they were converted using the same fundamental parameter settings they would be the same. There is no doubt that on high contrast scenes the default camera settings for JPEG conversion are sub-optimal. But most of the posts saying in camera JPEG is rubbish appear to have the aggressive conversion settings posterising the in camera image. It isn't fair to compare radically different conversion strategies and then blame the file storage format for the differences! Incidentally sharper does not alway mean better. Conversion software often oversharpens images knowing that this scores extra points in benchmarks and product reviews. Look for ringing on edge transitions. There is no reason at all why a JPEG should be visibly less sharp than a native raw image. It will necessarily have compromised dynamic range compared to a 12bit native raw image but even that can be managed. RAW is ideal when you know you have a high dynamic range subject where highlight or shadow detail will be a problem. The camera has to make a compromise when making its JPEG and doesn't always choose wisely. Regards, Martin Brown |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
All digital images are taken in raw form initially. They got to be converted
into image format like jpeg or tiff. The question is who is converting. You or the camera. If it's the latter, then you have to choose an image format and its pixel dimensions and compression degree. You are under the mercy of the camera irreversible automation conversion by the built-in processor and raw conversion software. If you understand things like white balance, luminance, gamma, color depth, noise etc...you may want to shoot in raw and manipulate those mentioned by a good raw converter to bring out the best image quality. Therefore it not raw is superior but your skill to make it superior by manipulation and develop into a format of yours (jpeg or tiff). http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kcpps "MJL Photo" wrote in message news:R4uif.630838$oW2.613793@pd7tw1no... Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg from that vs. shooting jpg directly? I understand RAW is superior in image quality and manipulation, but I am only concerned with jpg format in this question now. Thanks, ML |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
JPG from RAW vs. JPG only
I forgot one important issue to mention and that is a calibrated monitor is
essentially needed for any image adjustment and manipulation. "kctan" wrote in message ... All digital images are taken in raw form initially. They got to be converted into image format like jpeg or tiff. The question is who is converting. You or the camera. If it's the latter, then you have to choose an image format and its pixel dimensions and compression degree. You are under the mercy of the camera irreversible automation conversion by the built-in processor and raw conversion software. If you understand things like white balance, luminance, gamma, color depth, noise etc...you may want to shoot in raw and manipulate those mentioned by a good raw converter to bring out the best image quality. Therefore it's not raw is superior but your skill to make it superior by manipulation and develop into a format of yours (jpeg or tiff). http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kcpps "MJL Photo" wrote in message news:R4uif.630838$oW2.613793@pd7tw1no... Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg from that vs. shooting jpg directly? I understand RAW is superior in image quality and manipulation, but I am only concerned with jpg format in this question now. Thanks, ML |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|