Using the Embedded JPEG from SRW files

So after reading this post , I got to thinking about the JPEG file embedded in SRW files.

Sometimes I just don't need/want to go through the effort of a full PP workflow for some shots so I'm fine with just using a JPEG the way the camera formatted it. I set my NX500 to RAW+Super Fine for some shots at a racetrack today, and when I got home I tried running some comparisons between the JPEG that the camera made (hereafter referred to as the "normal" JPEG) vs. the JPEG I extracted from the SRW using this tool (hereafter referred to as the "embedded" JPEG).

So, from a pure file format perspective the only difference I can see is some EXIF information is missing and the DPI is slightly lower in the embedded JPEG (350DPI vs 300DPI, resulting in a slightly smaller file). Like, that's it. The colour grading seems the same, the actual dimensions of the file are the same (though the larger DPI file is slightly bigger on disk), everything seems like they go through the exact same process upon creation.

The dedicated JPEG the camera generates (my apologies for the focus issues; not really a pro at action shooting yet):

JPEG created at NX500's "Superfine" quality alongside a RAW

...and now for the embedded JPEG:

JPEG extracted from the SRW RAW file

To my non-pixel-peeping-experienced eye, these look pretty bloody similar. That missing 50DPI isn't going to make much difference in my life, and knowing that could always just extract a fully-processed JPEG from a SRW file with a couple of clicks is tremendously appealing (both from a storage space perspective and also a file-management perspective - one file to worry about instead of two, though Lightroom does make managing these scenarios easier).

Can anyone let me know if they think I'll run into problems in future if I go this route? Thanks!

...and just for the sake of completeness, the Lightroom-converted JPEG that comes from the SRW file.

Slight crop, a touch darker than the first two, and an almost 50% increase in file size with lower DPI? Whatever.

Interestingly, the DPI drops to 240 (when exported at 100% JPEG quality) and something else is going on too... I didn't manually apply the 50-200mm lens profile in LR6, but still the image has slightly reduced distortion and is a touch darker than the other two JPEGs. I've got plenty to learn about Lightroom yet.  

Thanks for the reply, and sorry - I should have explained where I'm coming from in more detail. Let's say I go on a trip - I take a thousand photos, purge half once I get home and then of the remaining 500 have like 10 I would ever want to actually output anything from. The other 490 are fine for viewing on a computer to remind me of things I've done, but I'll likely never do any PP on them.

So, I have RAWs for everything, but they're a pain to share around. I honestly don't think I'm gaining much by batch processing all 500 in LR into JPEGs judging from the results above since there will be tremendous variety between shots... at least, not without investing a bunch of time I'd rather use taking more trips.  

Do I lose anything by just extracting the JPEGs from the SRW files when needed, as opposed to using the RAW+Superfine setting in-camera?

There is a more simple way. Use IrfanView. I can read embedded JPEG, so you will see in-camera settings on your monitor. And you can save it as JPEG anytime. So, no need to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode, fill your card faster and slow down your camera. Batch RAW -> JPEG processing is also simple and fast if you won't need RAWs but want just to keep photos.

I must say thank you!

A very useful tool.

I did my test on my NX1100 and althrough there is a slight dfifference in size, i did not see difference in quality.

So i will stop using raw+jpg and use the tool to extract jpg later. I dont see reason to not do this way!

I think the two of you (dmp. .. and spaceman) are slightly missing the point. This isn't about Raw and jpeg, but about jpeg and jpeg and whether or not it's worth having the second slightly better set of jpegs around. He will have his raw files to do as he wishes with later in both scenarios.

LR is not the end all be all of raw editors, perhaps especially in the case of Samsung (and others like X-trans). Also, you don't have to compress again after editing, one could export to a lossless format.

Thanks - you're right, this was a little more what I was going for; I just did a crappy job of describing what I meant.

At any rate, nobody's come up with a reason why extracting the JPEG is a bad way to go so I think I'll be using that workflow in future when I need to, and just shoot RAW only.

I agree - I was interested to find that the JPEG included in the SRW was full-size, rather than crippled in some way. Since it's primarily used for review on the touchscreen which is only capable of so much resolution, I was surprised.

I'd also find some value in knowing if LR could apply the default in-camera JPEG processing, though from what I've read this isn't possible - the suggestion is that vendors want to protect their "special sauce" from third-party reproduction, ergo these settings aren't available in other products. I can get that for a company like Fuji which has spent a ton of time getting their processing to look like their older film stocks.