RAW and JPEG

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Conrad, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. Conrad

    Conrad Guest

    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
    Conrad, Feb 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Conrad

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:28:05 -0800, Conrad wrote
    (in article <>):

    > 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
    C J Campbell, Feb 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Conrad

    Matt Ion Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:28:05 -0800, Conrad wrote
    > (in article <>):
    >
    >
    >>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.
    Matt Ion, Feb 1, 2007
    #3
  4. 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.

    Would it not be best to ask the OP the simple question, "what are you using
    to proces/view the raw file?"
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Feb 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Conrad

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    Ron Hunter, Feb 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Conrad

    Matt Ion Guest

    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.
    Matt Ion, Feb 2, 2007
    #6
  7. "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
    Michael Meissner, Feb 2, 2007
    #7
  8. 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)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 2, 2007
    #8
  9. 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.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Feb 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Conrad

    timeOday Guest

    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.
    timeOday, Feb 2, 2007
    #10
  11. 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)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Conrad

    Conrad Guest

    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.


    I used RAW and L (best res JPEG) with 350XT camera. Used Bridge
    program (from CS2 package) to initialy view each shot (RAW and L).

    Best,

    Conrad
    Conrad, Feb 3, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    895
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. certsnsearches

    Exiff-jpeg and jpeg

    certsnsearches, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,217
    Jim Townsend
    Jan 7, 2004
  3. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,243
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Conrad

    jpeg and jpeg 2000

    Conrad, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,690
    Barry Pearson
    Feb 3, 2007
  5. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    464
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page