RAW Images

I decided on a Canon XTi (400D) and am loving it. I am noticing that my pictures are much sharper when I shoot RAW. They loose quality if I shoot JPEG or convert from RAW. Is this normal? How can I get a RAW image printed?

I understand that JPEG compression is going to loose quality. My question is this: Is there a way to preserve the RAW quality for print?

Here is a for instance. This shot of my son is studio quality sharp in RAW. This is a picture of the JPEG that has been reduced for the bandwidth conscious. To a less critical eye there may be little to no difference. But I want to utilize the full potential and print the studio quality image!



Critiques on the image itself are welcome as I am not a professional and don't claim to be one, but I am really looking for a RAW quality printing answer.

-Doug

If you save using the TIFF file format, or if you use Adobe, save as PSD (Adobe's native format). Either of these should not lose detail.

There are other lossless file formats too.

I never save as JPG, unless I am making a WEB image, or something similar.

Also for direct RAW, you can print RAW's from QImage Studio version

ddisoftware dot com

The difference is in the picture editing settings.

A RAW is simply the data captured from the sensor. That data must be interpreted and converted into a picture image.

If the RAW is sharper, then the RAW developer has some strong sharpening settings applied. Those should be user adjustable.

All other picture forms are converted from a RAW. They are either converted in the camera or by a picture editing pogram. If the JPG's are not as sharp, then they just have not been processed the same way.

To get consistent results, you have to get to the root cause.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/show_case
.

Why would shooting raw make a difference? I was always under the assumption that you needed to sharpen any raw files as part of your workflow anyways.

I've decided against using raw files just because I don't have the time although I have developed this extreme liking for Photoshop CS3 and its smart sharpen feature. I just shoot jpg and live with its limitations and have to admit the pictures turn out great for me.

--
Min

http://picasaweb.google.com/mishnogram

Thanks for the quick responses.

-mishnogram

Shooting in RAW makes the PP time MUCH shorter and easier, try not to think of it as another step but rather a step that reduces several steps. Changing the WB alone can save you lots of time if your colors are off.

-Citylights

So your saying that if my RAW images are consistantly sharper SOOC than my JPEG images are SOOC I should increase my in camera sharpness?

-RonFlash

I understand that JPEG is a lossy compression and that TIFF and PSD are not. Even when I convert to TIFF I loose sharpness and the color isn't quite the same. I'm not looking to find a way to keep my images safe from computer altrication, I'm looking to find a way to be able to have prints made with the same quality as the RAW file.

-Doug

COAmature said:

-Citylights
So your saying that if my RAW images are consistantly sharper SOOC
than my JPEG images are SOOC I should increase my in camera sharpness?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

The camera applies the exact same amount of sharpening to every picture depending on your sharpness setting. This might be the right amount of sharpening for a landscape, but may be very wrong for a portrait.

Post processing software is "smart" it can apply a different amount of sharpening to each picture as determined by the program. Even a different amount of sharpening to various parts of the picture.

It is generally accepted "good practice" to do a minimum amount of sharpening in the camera and custom sharpen each picture to the optimum in post process. This is because sharpening is a destructive process. It alters pixels and can not be undone.

Your RAW developer, if it is "smart" may be doing some of this custom sharpening for you. (I don't know what RAW developer you are using, but I do know that the camera JPG sharpening is not smart).

I do a minimum of sharpening in the camera. I custom adjust the sharpening in the RAW developer, and then in final post process.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/show_case
.

Have you actually printed any of your photos at a professional lab? I shoot 100% RAW and take them to the printers in either Jpeg or Tiff. I can't see any difference between the two after they are printed. Now then, I also find that my photos actually look sharper in print than they do on the screen. I mostly print at 8x10 and use the 8 meg XT.

But CL in all fairness, you should add that when shooting RAW it does not matter where any of the in camera setting are because in RAW they are not permanent and completely reversible at any time. You can have the sharpness, contrast and or saturation set to high in the cam and then drop it to low once you download the pic.

CityLights said:

CityLights said:

-Citylights
So your saying that if my RAW images are consistantly sharper SOOC
than my JPEG images are SOOC I should increase my in camera sharpness?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

The camera applies the exact same amount of sharpening to every
picture depending on your sharpness setting. This might be the right
amount of sharpening for a landscape, but may be very wrong for a
portrait.

Post processing software is "smart" it can apply a different amount
of sharpening to each picture as determined by the program. Even a
different amount of sharpening to various parts of the picture.

It is generally accepted "good practice" to do a minimum amount of
sharpening in the camera and custom sharpen each picture to the
optimum in post process. This is because sharpening is a destructive
process. It alters pixels and can not be undone.

Your RAW developer, if it is "smart" may be doing some of this custom
sharpening for you. (I don't know what RAW developer you are using,
but I do know that the camera JPG sharpening is not smart).

I do a minimum of sharpening in the camera. I custom adjust the
sharpening in the RAW developer, and then in final post process.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/show_case
.

Click to expand...

sparkey2 said:

But CL in all fairness, you should add that when shooting RAW it does
not matter where any of the in camera setting are because in RAW they
are not permanent and completely reversible at any time. You can have
the sharpness, contrast and or saturation set to high in the cam and
then drop it to low once you download the pic.

Click to expand...

You are correct. If you are shooting RAW the only difference is that most RAW editors use the camera settings as a starting point. For that reason alone, I set the camera settings as close as possible to what I want.

If shooting JPG it makes all the difference.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/show_case
.

sparkey2 said:

Have you actually printed any of your photos at a professional lab?

Click to expand...

Funny you should ask. This is when I noticed the problem. When viewing the original still in RAW format it is a better overall and a sharper image then the compressed JPEG. Well, of course it is right? The lab printed JPEG looks very, very good but not equal to the original RAW which I feel is studio quality good. This is what spurred my interest. How can I print that studio quality image? To a less trained eye most would not be able to see the difference but I do!

-Doug

You are most likely seeing the difference between your monitor and what is printed and not the fact that a JPG is printed. In order to judge appropriately you'd have to print RAW and JPG at same lab and compare. I've tried several labs and results vary greatly. By the way, what raw converter are you using?
--
BrianH

I second what you say about varying results at different labs. I almost regurgitated when I picked up my prints at CVS, soft and flat. I had similar results at Walgreen's. A little better but not acceptable and it was covered with finger prints. How am I supposed to sell a 8x10 full of finger prints from the developer? I have never been disappointed with Sam's club photos except for the exposure levels and I have learned to increase my brightness slightly before I take them to print.

I've tried several labs and results vary greatly. By the

BrianHuffman said:

way, what raw converter are you using?
--
BrianH

Click to expand...

I could be wrong here but a RAW image is the raw data captured by the Camera which includes all the dots + all the camera settings at the time of shooting. A RAW image cannot be viewed as it isn't really an image, it is just a bunch data ready for processing like a film roll with one picture on.

What you see on the screen is not the raw image, you are seeing a representation of the raw image i.e. all the dots with camera settings applied = an image. Most software will use some form of image viewer to present the raw image on your screen which may mean that the RAW image is converted to a JPEG or TIFF on the fly i.e. as you change the settings. This is why your PC takes a little while to redisplay images when you change a setting ... because it has to generate a new image.

The difference between shooting in RAW and JPEG is fundamental. If you shoot in RAW with the wrong camera settings (except for ISO/focus/aperture/shutter speed - the fundamental optics settings) they can be corrected/changed without any detriment to the output image (i.e. white balance, shot style etc. - just like the chance to shoot the shot again later on). If you shoot in JPEG you WILL lose quality in your post-processing work - much like trying to do fancy processing on the output of one of those instant polaroid cameras rather than working with a film roll.

I am only a relative newbie to photography but I know lots about computers. On my first trip out with my 400D I shot all 960 shots in 3 weeks in JPEG format and made lots of mistakes in camera settings. When I got home I had to correct lots of the photos and I learnt:
1. You lose quality messing with JPEG's
2. It takes longer to post-process with JPEG's.

3. Having JPEG's as your master copy creates an organisational nightmare where you easily overwrite your master copy by mistake.

If you shoot in RAW and can't be bothered with post processing DPP will allow you to just download the shots out of the camera and create vanilla JPEG's on a directory by directory basis. Then if at any stage in the future you want to do a high quality print you can go back to the raw image and do some fancy stuff just for your print.