Reading mode: Light Dark

.raw vs .jpg on FZ1000

Go to last post
chezchuck

chezchuck

Well-known member
Messages
101
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7
Location
Melbourne, FL, US
Help out a new FZ1000 user:

I shot a picture of a scene including a car in jpeg + RAW, then imported into my macbook pro's Photo application and cropped both versions down to one wheel of the car. The cropped version looks considerably sharper in the jpeg version. Plus, when I imported the two photos onto my desktop the RAW version was transformed into a jpeg. Since I've never used RAW, can anyone tell me what's going on? The saved desktop photos are below, both with a .jpg extension. While in the photo editor application, they appear just like they look below.

.jpg version
.jpg version

.raw version
.raw version
 
Last edited:
In both cases you started out with A RAW file.

In the jpeg it was converted in camera with some to considerable sharpening (among other

things)

The one you describe as RAW was converted in your RAW processing software (whether that be

Lightroom or something else) probably with little to no sharpening done. You have to

process to get the look you want - IE adding sharpening, changing saturation, WB or many

other things. You can't change the RAW file so once done & you save it , it will be converted

to a JPEG or TIFF file or a few other choices
 
Raw is what it says, you have to do all the image processing to your taste, that includes sharpening and noise reduction. jpeg is what the camera decides you want and is pretty well fixed.
 
I'm not a Mac user, but unless you specifically processed the RAW file, you are probably viewing the embedded JPEG thumbnail.

--
Phil
 
Last edited:
chezchuck said:
Actually, the Photo app on the Mac gives you the option of editing the .raw file as well as the .jpg. It's only when you move the edited file to the desktop or other location that it becomes a .jpg. But you can view it in the editor as .raw before it leaves Photo.
Click to expand...
Then, what processing parameters did you apply to the RAW file?
 
Both images far too small to do any evaluation, but the RAW JPG image appears as if the OOC RAW image saved without any editing/ processing.

You need to see (Google search) if any user manuals and/ or online help on using the Macbook Pro's Photo Application; unless some here is familiar with the Macbook Pro's Photo Application.
 
The .rw2 contains a quarter-resolution (0.5 H x 0.5V) low-quality JPG within it, and I wonder if you've saved that as your "raw output JPG".

An easy way to tell what's going on is to take a picture with the [Photo Style] set to Monochrome.

Anything you see in monochrome is the JPG (even if you're looking at the .RW2). Only if you see the .RW2 in color (when the JPG is monochrome) will you know you're actually viewing/processing the raw data.
 
chezchuck said:
Since I've never used RAW, can anyone tell me what's going on?
Click to expand...
I find this to be a common issue. People are convinced to shoot RAW without understanding that they must process/edit the RAW file to get the final image.

You must sharpen it, you must color correct it, you must adjust the exposure, you must reduce the noise... you must take it into your editing software and process it. When shooting RAW, what comes out of your camera is NOT the final image. Even if you just use auto settings in your software, you must take that extra step and edit the RAW file on your computer.

On the other hand, JPEG's, as a previous poster pointed out, are processed inside the camera at the time the image is taken. The camera processes the image by applying the settings you have made in the camera's menu for sharpness, color, noise reduction, etc., etc. In the case of JPEG's, what comes out of the camera can be the final image, however, most of the time, even those JPEG's can benefit from some tweaking on the computer using your editing software. And JPEG's do respond very well to processing.

HTH
 
Hi chezchuck! I am a relatively new RAW shooter. For many years I was happy with shooting jpeg. I had little experience with computers, my rig was not the best or fastest, etc... I know have good equipment, and started the adventure into RAW. I wish I had been doing this from the beginning, if for no other reason than I could now go back to the saved RAW images, and redo them, using the much better processing I have available today. The RAW image contains all the data that goes into creating the image you are making. The jpeg is the result of the development done by the small, sophisticated computer in the camera. Your computer, with appropriate software is much more capable than the one in the camera. If you only save jpegs you will not be able, in the future, to do a great deal with them. The RAW file has everything in it that was captured by the camera, and can be redeveloped over and over without loss. So if you decide to go JPEG I would encourage you to at least shoot RAW/JPEG whenever possible, so that you can save the RAW. On the other hand you can take the plunge into RAW now. There are some great software programs that make it easy, and for a guy with your background it would be a no brainer:-). I am currently learning DxO with Viewpoint. There are others!

Good luck, and have fun with whatever you do!

Warmest regards,
 
sherman_levine said:
The .rw2 contains a quarter-resolution (0.5 H x 0.5V) low-quality JPG within it, and I wonder if you've saved that as your "raw output JPG".

An easy way to tell what's going on is to take a picture with the [Photo Style] set to Monochrome.

Anything you see in monochrome is the JPG (even if you're looking at the .RW2). Only if you see the .RW2 in color (when the JPG is monochrome) will you know you're actually viewing/processing the raw data.

--
Sherm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/sets/
Click to expand...
Sherm, I took your suggestion and shot a pic with RAW + JPG, with the JPG shot in monochrome. I duplicated it in my Macbook Photo editor so that I could open them separately, one as .jpg and the other as .raw to compare. The only editing I did was to drastically crop these down to one letter. Since I have not made any changes to the "Photo Style" settings for JPG (accepting the default zero adjustments), would I be right expect these to look the same (except for one being in color, of course)? They pretty much do. Or, are there other changes that the .jpg makes to the file that differentiate it from the .raw? See the comparison below. Nice experiment, thanks for the suggestion.

.jpg file, shot in monochrome, cropped and saved as .jpg image
.jpg file, shot in monochrome, cropped and saved as .jpg image

same image in .raw file, cropped and saved as .jpg image
same image in .raw file, cropped and saved as .jpg image
 
Last edited:
old jim said:
Hi chezchuck! I am a relatively new RAW shooter. For many years I was happy with shooting jpeg. I had little experience with computers, my rig was not the best or fastest, etc... I know have good equipment, and started the adventure into RAW. I wish I had been doing this from the beginning, if for no other reason than I could now go back to the saved RAW images, and redo them, using the much better processing I have available today. The RAW image contains all the data that goes into creating the image you are making. The jpeg is the result of the development done by the small, sophisticated computer in the camera. Your computer, with appropriate software is much more capable than the one in the camera. If you only save jpegs you will not be able, in the future, to do a great deal with them. The RAW file has everything in it that was captured by the camera, and can be redeveloped over and over without loss. So if you decide to go JPEG I would encourage you to at least shoot RAW/JPEG whenever possible, so that you can save the RAW. On the other hand you can take the plunge into RAW now. There are some great software programs that make it easy, and for a guy with your background it would be a no brainer:-). I am currently learning DxO with Viewpoint. There are others!

Good luck, and have fun with whatever you do!

Warmest regards,
Click to expand...
 
chezchuck said:
Thanks Jim. I know that makes sense, it's just getting used to the idea of having to process each picture I take. Probably RAW + JPG is my way to go, then I can choose to edit or accept what .jpg gives me. See Sherm's post above, and my little experiment in reply.
Click to expand...
Do what makes you happy my friend!! That's what hobbies are for, and that's what I do:-). Personally, I still suspect the color picture is somehow a saved copy of the embedded jpeg. I have no real explanation of why I think this, other then, in my brief experience, the developed RAW, done with a good RAW converter, is easily seen as better than the jpeg picture. I remember, some time ago, working with what I thought were RAW conversions in FastStone. It turned out they were the embedded jpeg! I was wrong then, and no doubt, could be wrong now!

I will also tell you that I have seen absolutely gorgeous FZ1000 Jpegs, in these forums. The skill of the person behind the camera makes all the difference, especially if shooting Jpegs. Settings and Skill prevail!!!!!

Warmest regards,

p.s. I don't know how to, but others do batch processing of RAW conversions. I like playing with each one, especially because I cannot get around as much as I used to:-(.

--
DP Review - Where else?
Old Jim ;-)
 
Last edited:
old jim said:
chezchuck said:
Thanks Jim. I know that makes sense, it's just getting used to the idea of having to process each picture I take. Probably RAW + JPG is my way to go, then I can choose to edit or accept what .jpg gives me. See Sherm's post above, and my little experiment in reply.
Click to expand...
Do what makes you happy my friend!! That's what hobbies are for, and that's what I do:-). Personally, I still suspect the color picture is somehow a saved copy of the embedded jpeg. I have no real explanation of why I think this, other then, in my brief experience, the developed RAW, done with a good RAW converter, is easily seen as better than the jpeg picture. I remember, some time ago, working with what I thought were RAW conversions in FastStone. It turned out they were the embedded jpeg! I was wrong then, and no doubt, could be wrong now!

I will also tell you that I have seen absolutely gorgeous FZ1000 Jpegs, in these forums. The skill of the person behind the camera makes all the difference, especially if shooting Jpegs. Settings and Skill prevail!!!!!

Warmest regards,

p.s. I don't know how to, but others do batch processing of RAW conversions. I like playing with each one, especially because I cannot get around as much as I used to:-(.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the link Sherm!! I think I get it. I Think? :-).

Warmest regards,
 
I loaded the Silkypix software that came with the camera and played around with the .raw image. Below is the comparison (HIGHLY cropped) between what I was able to do with .raw as compared with what the camera put out as .jpg with a pic shot in RAW + JPG. The .raw one was saved as a jpg, or course, after processing. I'm convinced now.



c amera-processed .jpg image
c amera-processed .jpg image



Silkypix-processed raw image (same photo)
Silkypix-processed raw image (same photo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top