Why are RAW processed files into JPEG better looking than JPEGs?

Started Mar 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Makinations
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,688Gear list
Like?
Better noise reduction, sharpening, demosaic algorithms, etc.
In reply to YeoHoon Bae, Mar 10, 2013

YeoHoon Bae wrote:

Never really thought about this before. I always take RAW when I feel the condition is going to be challenging for the camera. I understand that RAW can store more info than JPEG files so I understand the quality of RAW will be better than JPEG.

But, once converted into JPEG, why would it be any better than camera in-processed JPEGs?

A curious person wanting to know more....

Assuming you know what you're doing, software matters.  If you don't know what you're doing it doesn't matter.  But even if current software isn't better than the camera's, the next rev of software might be.  What LR 4 did for some of my photos is amazing.

Of course a lot of images aren't improved even if you know what you're doing.  They're just different.

-- hide signature --

This never would have happened if Tedolf was still alive.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smrlabs/

 Makinations's gear list:Makinations's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 40D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow