Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW : Canon's Raw Image Task matches In cam JPGs

Go to last post
J

Jack_DC

Senior Member
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
I had never really used Canon's Zoom Browser EX with Raw Image Task, but I just noticed the results it gives matches the in camera jpg results exactly.

So if you thinking going to RAW shooting, there is no need ot shoot RAW + JPG while you decide. You can shoot RAW only in camera and get many more shots per card. Then its very quick to process all to see what the in camera jpg would have looked like using Zoom Browser EX.

It's also great to see how the cameras parameter settings would effect the image in real time using Raw Image Task.

You can also compare the results to other raw processors...

Old news to many, but hope it helps some.
 
Thanks for the verification. I thought that should be true, but never tested it, probably because I have never been in a RAW+JPEG mode.
 
Manjade said:
FVU is very similar to RIT
dpp on the other hand is quite different
--
http://www.pbase.com/manjade
Click to expand...
I have not used FVU since my 300D days, RIT seems to match the in camera processing. FVU may too? I think RIT is the updated version of FVU.

RIT seems to be a great way to start with RAW and also to see how the parameter settings in the camera change the image. Great thing about RIT is you can change the parms after taking the shot.

Then once you get a feel for it, move on to DPP or 3rd party RAW processors which have a very different interface but offer much more.

Still Canons processing for images is decent, it keeps the noise down at higher ISOs. RIT is useful if you want to quickly batch convert to jpg. I find 3rd party tools need more tweaking/time to get similar results.
 
Jack_DC said:
Then once you get a feel for it, move on to DPP or 3rd party RAW
processors which have a very different interface but offer much
more.

Still Canons processing for images is decent, it keeps the noise
down at higher ISOs. RIT is useful if you want to quickly batch
convert to jpg. I find 3rd party tools need more tweaking/time to
get similar results.
Click to expand...
See my thread here about Canon and noise at higher ISOs:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=14749281

The test was not scientific at all.. just put the same image through three different processors at their default settings and exported (no tweaking). The differences were quite surprising.

It's good to know the strengths and weakenesses of the software you use to process your images. In my case I use RSE for visibly noisy RAW images and FVU/DPP for all the rest and have been very happy.

--
See my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikef
 
You are correct, of course.

A couple of other points:

1. Unstated, but obvious, not only will RIT replicate the incamera jog but it can enhace it as well (duh).

2. More importantly, there is a (roughly) 1.5mp jpg embedded in the RAW image as stored on your CF card. This can easily be extracted.

All this makes Raw + jpg redundant.

alan.
 
interesting link

one thing to note is that with dpp you have to have sharpness to ZERO when you save, otherwise it does add "noise"
some would argue it is just a unique way of sharpening
nevertheless, i have found similar results as you have demonstrated well there
i find RIT or EVU easiest to use, RSE hardest!
--
http://www.pbase.com/manjade
 
Manjade said:
interesting link
one thing to note is that with dpp you have to have sharpness to
ZERO when you save, otherwise it does add "noise"
some would argue it is just a unique way of sharpening
nevertheless, i have found similar results as you have demonstrated
well there
i find RIT or EVU easiest to use, RSE hardest!
--
Click to expand...
CS2 RAW has the option of sharpening preview only or applying sharpening to the saved image. I too leave it set to only preview and do sharpening later if necessary. High ISO images get noiser if you sharpen them from the RAW converter.

--

 
Over the years I've repeatly seen posts in many different forums from people branding themselves newbies who say that they have finally worked up enough courage to try Raw, but for the time being, "just to be safe" or "in order to see the correct version", they are shooting Raw+Jpg. And many times I have told them, as does Jack the OP, that they can have the Jpg with one click on their mouse, or as Alan says above, that they already have that Jpg embedded in the Raw. Many more times I've thought "To hell with it, somebody else will answer."

But beyond the question of how best to obtain that Jpg, I can't help thinking "why do you want one?" I believe there are two reasons for shooting Raw, often intertwined but not neccessarily; to allow yourself greater creative freedom or to produce a technically better image. So if you seek to make something different than "just" a Jpg, take the leap. You're not really taking away the safety net, the Raw remains pristine unless you delete it. (It's never a case of, "If I louse up the Raw, I"ll still have the Jpg.) If your motive is the first one, well who's to say what creativity is "right". And if your motive is the second, either you will have something technically better today or not. If not, then maybe next week, month or year. Or maybe you'll decide that it's beyond your ability, means and/or time-budget. Either way the Raw will be there waiting.
Elie
 
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