Some thoughts on Canon CR2 RAW versus out of camera JPEG

I have gone through "phases" where I've shot almost exclusively JPEG, and then times when I have shot only RAW. With my T6S, which replaced my old 40D, I always found the OOC JPEG product to be very pleasing. Using a reduction of in-camera contrast, and being careful with the sharpening and saturation settings, I found that I was very happy with what I was getting. In camera sharpening did leave some halo effect around edges, so I have done most of my JPEG sharpening in post processing.

I recently finished a 10 week photography class with a noted New Hampshire professional photographer. During one session, when he was printing some of the class photos, he asked me if I had all my shots converted to a JPEG format for printing. My response was that I was just shooting in JPEG now. He looked at me with a puzzled expression on his face and said, "Why?" We had a long discussion after that and he convinced me to at least try shooting some RAW files and do a comparison. I had done this quite some time ago, and had shot mostly RAW, but that was a long time ago. So, I agreed to at least temporarily go back to RAW.

I have a Mac running OS X Sierra, and had not downloaded RAW files to this computer before. That turned out to be nothing, since the Mac recognizes CR2 files and displays them with no problems at all. Photos will work fine with the CR2 format, and I was able to do my basic editing no differently than with JPEG files. Conversion from RAW to JPEG simply involved setting up a desktop folder that I could export to. When there, I can simply drag or export the files back to Photos as JPEG's. (Alternately, images can be dragged to the desktop directly from Photos, then back to Photos for a quick conversion.) The only issue I have encountered is when my Mac, which is connected to my iPhone and iPad through a shared iCloud account, shares the pictures with my other devices. Those other devices are set to "optimize storage," so they automatically get a smaller JPEG version of the CR2 files that sit on the Mac. OS X keeps a CR2 marker in the JPEG file so, if requested, the file can revert to its original RAW configuration. If I try to upload that file to DPR, it is rejected as a forbidden file type, which means that DPR sees that CR2 marker as a RAW file. The workaround is simply to open and save it as a copy in any photo editor. That copy will not contain the CR2 marker.

My first test was to shoot a series in both RAW and JPEG ... same scenes and same settings. Every shot contained a bright sky, plus some foreground detail in shadows. I was able to recover some sky detail with the JPEG files, but always lost some shadow detail in the process. With the RAW files, I was able to bring back all the blown sky detail while maintaining a decent level of shadow detail. In some cases the difference was extreme, in others not so much.

Since then, I have been shooting RAW almost exclusively. The exception was when I shot some stuff for friends who just wanted some pictures for Facebook. I have noticed a few things. These observations are anecdotal, so they may not be totally factual ... but they are what I'm seeing.

First, and surprisingly, I find that many of my RAW files need very little processing to come up with a nice final image. I do my first edits in Photos, then fine tune in DPP or Polarr if needed. Polarr, a $20 app, features a variety of brushes which I like for working on small sections of an image. It also functions as an extension within Photos, which DPP does not. I'm not sure why, but my images hold up better to cropping in RAW versus JPEG. I realize I'm cropping a 30mp image rather than a 5-9mp one, but I am still surprised. Images seem crisper in RAW as well. Colors are very accurate and typically require nothing more than an adjustment of saturation. Lighting benefits from some work with highlights, shadows, contrast, etc., but again I find I usually need to do less than I would have expected.

For viewing images on my computer, iPhone, or iPad, my workflow has not changed at all. For files I need to upload to some online sites or print, it is simple to come up with a JPEG file ... but most of my CR2 files do not need conversion. Even Facebook will accept and convert a CR2 file. For email or messaging, the Mac will automatically send a JPEG file in a choice of preset sizes ... or even the original CR2 file if selected. A large format will take a 30mp RAW file down to about 200kb.

I still think that Canon's out of camera JPEG processing is quite good and perfectly usable. I have countless beautiful, and very high quality, images shot in JPEG. The limitations become apparent if you need to recover over or under exposed parts of an image. For me, there seems to be a real difference in the quality of cropped images as well. I can sharpen without the dreaded halo effect creeping in. I guess I'm back to shooting RAW again. There are few downsides, and the potential for some significant upsides. The bottom line is that I now have a higher percentage of "keepers" than I did before.

Those are my thoughts based on my personal experiences and observations. Please feel free to agree or disagree.

Mecca66 wrote:

Stan in NH wrote:

The limitations become apparent if you need to recover over or under exposed parts of an image. For me, there seems to be a real difference in the quality of cropped images as well. I can sharpen without the dreaded halo effect creeping in. I guess I'm back to shooting RAW again. There are few downsides, and the potential for some significant upsides. The bottom line is that I now have a higher percentage of "keepers" than I did before.

Your paragraph above says it all.

exactly,

the cameras are very smart and can produce a good or great image all by their self, but sometimes the camera doesn't make the best decisions, if you shoot JPEG only, you don't get to add that data back.

as cheap as memory cards are RAW+JPEG is the way to go, in my humble opinion

Stan in NH wrote:

I always found the OOC JPEG product to be very pleasing.

That's the gold standard. You should never have to apologize for it.

...OS X keeps a CR2 marker in the JPEG file so, if requested, the file can revert to its original RAW configuration.

Not exactly.  A jpeg is a much smaller file, so it cannot contain nearly as much information.  It is not possible to convert a jpeg file back into the original raw file.  It's possible that your computer is still storing the raw file and is smart enough to make the substitution, or it may be just tricking you.  Beware of devices that do conversions without telling you.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

Stan in NH wrote:

I always found the OOC JPEG product to be very pleasing.

That's the gold standard. You should never have to apologize for it.

...OS X keeps a CR2 marker in the JPEG file so, if requested, the file can revert to its original RAW configuration.

Not exactly. A jpeg is a much smaller file, so it cannot contain nearly as much information. It is not possible to convert a jpeg file back into the original raw file. It's possible that your computer is still storing the raw file and is smart enough to make the substitution, or it may be just tricking you. Beware of devices that do conversions without telling you.

Photos will store the original RAW file in iCloud.  The revert function will download that original file even if the file on the device has been converted to JPEG.  Unless the original image file, RAW or JPEG, has been deleted by the user, the original file is stored on the ICloud account.

I think raw versus jpeg comes down to:

* How good the camera does jpeg processing (most of the modern Canon's are quite good)

* How carefully you have optimized your settings in camera for SOOC jpegs

* How much free time you have for post processing.  I really don't have any...so, I'm back to jpeg.

* How much you print and how much you care about getting max dynamic range ....I might print once/month and I'm mostly happy with the DR of SOOC jpegs.

* How well the camera adjusts jpeg noise reduction to ISO levels and how well the SOOC sharpening is.  If you have to run the images you care about through neatimage for denoising and extra sharpening..you might wonder why you shouldn't just go all the way and do RAW processing.    This is really the most significant issue for me on the 80D.

My normal process is to setup camera for shots, take photos, import into tablet and tablet automatically syncs to amazon drive.   Later when I get home, I review photos on the desktop and decide which are the keepers.

Occasionally, I have to bring the keepers into ACDsee for tweaking, but mostly they are fine unless I want to print them.  If I'm going to print, I have to run them through neat image to get optimal denoise and sharpening.

My camera jpeg settings include low denoise and moderate sharpening.  This works fine for most ISO levels, but not so well on the higher ISO.   This is where I definitely need to use neat image or set the camera denoise to standard which I think overdoes it.