RAW vs JPEG

[xxrenxx]

Hi guys, regarding my previous post
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=799341

i have found the solution.

But i never really do a comparison between JEPG and RAW to JEPG(saving into JPEG using RAW file) until i try it now.

So just to clarify that camera JEPG vs RAW to JPEG the colour of photos will be better in contrast, color etc?

 

[ExplorerZ]

depends on ur RAW converter settings...

 

[xxrenxx]

depends on ur RAW converter settings...

erm sorry, mind enlighten me on this?:dunno:

 

[ExplorerZ]

erm sorry, mind enlighten me on this?:dunno:

since u have used CS5 to process RAW, u should have seen all the brightness, contrast, saturation settings right?

 

[xxrenxx]

since u have used CS5 to process RAW, u should have seen all the brightness, contrast, saturation settings right?

oh! i nv do anything to it just save to jpeg after i open my file at camera raw

 

[Octarine]

RAW data are not image data in what your computer can display, they are of what all the light sensors have measured. These measurements need to be converted, that's what the RAW converter in the camera and in software like Photoshop, Lightroom etc is doing. This conversion is not just a simple 'left to right' but also an interpretation of data based on sensor characteristics. So there are a lot of factors that influence the way the image is created that you will see on your screen. These factors can be adjusted. In Lightroom it is done in the functions of "Camera Calibration", Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW have similar functions.
The question is not whether the colours are better when using software. Using RAW gives you more possibilities in editing your images because RAW contains ALL details the sensor has captured. Every pixel still has all data. In contrast, JPG is a compression algorithm that deletes information which are not required to reproduce the image on a computer screen. As a result, these details are deleted during the in-camera conversion, irretrievable. The level of data loss depends on the compression settings and the Picture Style. Extreme example: Take a picture with setting your camera to B/W. All colours are gone in the JPG file, no chance to retrieve them. Use RAW and all data are still there, only the embedded JPG image will show the B/W image.

 

[Octarine]

oh! i nv do anything to it just save to jpeg after i open my file at camera raw

Then why are you suing RAW in the first place? :dunno: If you just apply some defaults then your camera can do the job on the fly, no point using RAW and some software.

 

[xxrenxx]

RAW data are not image data in what your computer can display, they are of what all the light sensors have measured. These measurements need to be converted, that's what the RAW converter in the camera and in software like Photoshop, Lightroom etc is doing. This conversion is not just a simple 'left to right' but also an interpretation of data based on sensor characteristics. So there are a lot of factors that influence the way the image is created that you will see on your screen. These factors can be adjusted. In Lightroom it is done in the functions of "Camera Calibration", Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW have similar functions.
The question is not whether the colours are better when using software. Using RAW gives you more possibilities in editing your images because RAW contains ALL details the sensor has captured. Every pixel still has all data. In contrast, JPG is a compression algorithm that deletes information which are not required to reproduce the image on a computer screen. As a result, these details are deleted during the in-camera conversion, irretrievable. The level of data loss depends on the compression settings and the Picture Style. Extreme example: Take a picture with setting your camera to B/W. All colours are gone in the JPG file, no chance to retrieve them. Use RAW and all data are still there, only the embedded JPG image will show the B/W image.

Erm, correct me if i'm wrong. If i were to take an photo in RAW+, camera will save both RAW and JPEG. For JPEG file its already been converted in-camera. If i use a software on the RAW file and convert to JPEG(no edition is done), there will be lesser data loss as compare to in-camera convertion?

Then why are you suing RAW in the first place? :dunno: If you just apply some defaults then your camera can do the job on the fly, no point using RAW and some software.

Oh, cause i'm facing some problem just now and have found an solution to it. But when i compare photo side by side with JPEG(from camera) and RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW with default setting), i notice there's a slight different as RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW) had a richer color.

Reason i do this is to test out the solution i state above.

 

[daredevil123]

Erm, correct me if i'm wrong. If i were to take an photo in RAW+, camera will save both RAW and JPEG. For JPEG file its already been converted in-camera. If i use a software on the RAW file and convert to JPEG(no edition is done), there will be lesser data loss as compare to in-camera convertion?



Oh, cause i'm facing some problem just now and have found an solution to it. But when i compare photo side by side with JPEG(from camera) and RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW with default setting), i notice there's a slight different as RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW) had a richer color.

Reason i do this is to test out the solution i state above.

The only reason why you want to use a RAW file is so you can make changes to the image before exporting to JPEG. This will enable you to change some things easily (or drastically) without impacting quality. One of these settings is WB.

If you are not going to do any PP to the image, no need to use RAW. Just use the JPEG SOOC.

 

[xxrenxx]

The only reason why you want to use a RAW file is so you can make changes to the image before exporting to JPEG. This will enable you to change some things easily (or drastically) without impacting quality. One of these settings is WB.

If you are not going to do any PP to the image, no need to use RAW. Just use the JPEG SOOC.

Yupyup. i know. At 1st when i wanted to do a re-processing as the previous was not good, but when i open the RAW file again, Camera raw remembers the adjusment parameters and re-apply them to the image when opened when i wanted the default image.
Do not know how to revert back to the default image and finally found the "button" to revert it back but in order to determine that it was the correct default image i need to re-save into JPEG and compare with the JPEG SOOC. During comparing i notice re-save image had a richer color then SOOC(a slight different). So here i'm wondering its normal right?

 

[Octarine]

Erm, correct me if i'm wrong. If i were to take an photo in RAW+, camera will save both RAW and JPEG. For JPEG file its already been converted in-camera. If i use a software on the RAW file and convert to JPEG(no edition is done), there will be lesser data loss as compare to in-camera convertion?

See ExplorerZ:

depends on ur RAW converter settings...

It's not about the total amount of data loss, it's about which data are lost. Using software it is your decision and if the result is not satisfying you are able to redo the whole process. You can also save the image in the lossless TIF format. But be prepared for files the size of 20+MB. The in-camera process cannot be redone, the RAW image is deleted after the JPG is written to card.

Oh, cause i'm facing some problem just now and have found an solution to it. But when i compare photo side by side with JPEG(from camera) and RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW with default setting), i notice there's a slight different as RAW(converted to JPEG using camera RAW) had a richer color.

Then this shows the difference of both RAW converters. Now the question is: does this slight difference justify the workflow? Would a slight adjustment of camera settings give the same result?
Back top your initial problem stated in the other thread: I'm not familiar with Photoshop and handling RAW images. But I suspect it should be similar to other Adobe products. Lightroom offers you an easy way to use one RAW image and create multiple copies (called virtual copies) where each copy can be edited and tweaked as you like. The editing is just a stack of commands stored next to the image file. The RAW file itself is never touched or changed. At the end of all editing you just export the result to JPG and that's it. If you want to return to the RAW as it was before all editing you can either delete the changes made (Reset Development Settings) or you just create another virtual copy and start from scratch again. Maybe you should have a look at LR? If required you can easily 'step aside' to use Photoshop, using the lossless TIF format as intermediate format.

 

[xxrenxx]

See ExplorerZ:
It's not about the total amount of data loss, it's about which data are lost. Using software it is your decision and if the result is not satisfying you are able to redo the whole process. You can also save the image in the lossless TIF format. But be prepared for files the size of 20+MB. The in-camera process cannot be redone, the RAW image is deleted after the JPG is written to card.


Then this shows the difference of both RAW converters. Now the question is: does this slight difference justify the workflow? Would a slight adjustment of camera settings give the same result?
Back top your initial problem stated in the other thread: I'm not familiar with Photoshop and handling RAW images. But I suspect it should be similar to other Adobe products. Lightroom offers you an easy way to use one RAW image and create multiple copies (called virtual copies) where each copy can be edited and tweaked as you like. The editing is just a stack of commands stored next to the image file. The RAW file itself is never touched or changed. At the end of all editing you just export the result to JPG and that's it. If you want to return to the RAW as it was before all editing you can either delete the changes made (Reset Development Settings) or you just create another virtual copy and start from scratch again. Maybe you should have a look at LR? If required you can easily 'step aside' to use Photoshop, using the lossless TIF format as intermediate format.

Alright! thanks for the enlighten bro! appreciate it
I have tried Lightroom but i find camera raw at photoshop more user-friendly. And i always open the image as a smart object into photoshop and save it without overwriting the original RAW file.

 

[HELLOSTEVEN]

See ExplorerZ:
It's not about the total amount of data loss, it's about which data are lost. Using software it is your decision and if the result is not satisfying you are able to redo the whole process. You can also save the image in the lossless TIF format. But be prepared for files the size of 20+MB. The in-camera process cannot be redone, the RAW image is deleted after the JPG is written to card.


Then this shows the difference of both RAW converters. Now the question is: does this slight difference justify the workflow? Would a slight adjustment of camera settings give the same result?
Back top your initial problem stated in the other thread: I'm not familiar with Photoshop and handling RAW images. But I suspect it should be similar to other Adobe products. Lightroom offers you an easy way to use one RAW image and create multiple copies (called virtual copies) where each copy can be edited and tweaked as you like. The editing is just a stack of commands stored next to the image file. The RAW file itself is never touched or changed. At the end of all editing you just export the result to JPG and that's it. If you want to return to the RAW as it was before all editing you can either delete the changes made (Reset Development Settings) or you just create another virtual copy and start from scratch again. Maybe you should have a look at LR? If required you can easily 'step aside' to use Photoshop, using the lossless TIF format as intermediate format.

If I save the image to TIF, can I print the photo at any shop outside or i need to save to JPG..:embrass:

 

[daredevil123]

Yupyup. i know. At 1st when i wanted to do a re-processing as the previous was not good, but when i open the RAW file again, Camera raw remembers the adjusment parameters and re-apply them to the image when opened when i wanted the default image.
Do not know how to revert back to the default image and finally found the "button" to revert it back but in order to determine that it was the correct default image i need to re-save into JPEG and compare with the JPEG SOOC. During comparing i notice re-save image had a richer color then SOOC(a slight different). So here i'm wondering its normal right?

Just take note that ACR or lightroom do not apply all in-camera settings at default. And they always start at brightness +50 and contrast +25.

If you want a real test. For canon use DPP, and for Nikon use ViewNX2. Then you will see, there will not be much difference at all from the JPEG.

 

[xxrenxx]

Just take note that ACR or lightroom do not apply all in-camera settings at default. And they always start at brightness +50 and contrast +25.

If you want a real test. For canon use DPP, and for Nikon use ViewNX2. Then you will see, there will not be much difference at all from the JPEG.

OIC! Thanks! So if i use the Pentax program (forgot wads the name) i will get the same image as the JPEG from camera. Thanks!

 

[Octarine]

If I save the image to TIF, can I print the photo at any shop outside or i need to save to JPG..:embrass:

Ask the shops. But I think most of the small print shops will only take JPG. TIF and other formats are more common in professional printing. Do remind the lab not to change any parameter, otherwise all your editing was useless if the shops runs the 'standard holiday snapshot' corrections.

 

[wcljack]

good.... thanks