RAW vs JPEG (PIC)

[Jimdetinman9]

not practical. If one wants to, one can yank the JPEGs out of the RAW images for web display, but keep the RAW images (most RAW processors do not eliminate the RAW image when you "convert" them to TIFF or JPEG, but preserve the RAW). But for print-outs, possibly for live gallery display or gifts, etc., the RAW image will produce the best results. RAW=top quality, TIFF=pretty good and JPEG=good for most normal purposes, including Web display, snapshot reproduction, yada yada. jim

--
Being a photographer is easy; just take lots and lots of pictures.

 

[T3]

so can EVU extract the embedded large fine jpg from the RAW (when
you choose this in teh custom feature) exactly as the digi
processor would do it? is it exactly the same?

The 20D and XT don't use embedded JPEGs. The 10D did. If you want the JPEG exactly as it would have come out of the camera, just do the conversion in EVU using the "As Shot" settings recorded in each file.

 

[Anthony de Vries]

no way to extract the .jpg from the raw or convert the raw to get
the exact same thing as the digi or Digi II does?

That's anybodies guess... Only Canon knows exactly what is going on in-camera.

Im sure that in one of the countless RAW converters, you can find a setting in a RAW converter that gives the exact same thing. But the default settings clearly don't, not even on Canon's RAW converters.

NB: I'm not saying that you can't get the same result. Just that the default settings in the RAW converters won't give the same result.

 

[T3]

no way to extract the .jpg from the raw or convert the raw to get
the exact same thing as the digi or Digi II does?

Shoot a RAW + Large JPEG. Convert the RAW in EVU using the "As Shot" settings, converting to a Large JPEG. Compare the converted Large JPEG to the out-of-camera Large JPEG. That will tell you how closely or different each process is from one another.

 

[Daniella68313]

so if the embeded jpg is extracted it gives the exact same result as in-camera conversion. but if the raw is converted with EVU it does not give the same results as the in-camera raw conversion..is that right?

The embeded JPEG is exactly the same image you'd get if you had
selected that size JPEG only image. The camera processes this image
before it saves it, extracting this does not change it at all...

I can not vouch for what happesns when you choose 'covert and save'
'jpeg' option from within EVU or FVU with the 'in camera' settings.
I beleive it is very close, if not identical, but I can't say that
with any real authority.

although I tried to extract and save the jpg but the feature is grayed out and disabled. what gives?

so can EVU extract the embedded large fine jpg from the RAW (when
you choose this in teh custom feature) exactly as the digi
processor would do it? is it exactly the same?

ok now that's good to know. I will test that and if it works I
will not shoot RAW + jpg anymore. if it can just do the same job
as the digi II. I have not tried that one yet.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

not practical. If one wants to, one can yank the JPEGs out of the
RAW images for web display, but keep the RAW images (most RAW
processors do not eliminate the RAW image when you "convert" them
to TIFF or JPEG, but preserve the RAW). But for print-outs,
possibly for live gallery display or gifts, etc., the RAW image
will produce the best results. RAW=top quality, TIFF=pretty good
and JPEG=good for most normal purposes, including Web display,
snapshot reproduction, yada yada. jim

I use the yada yada yada for prints that I sell at 16 x 20 and they come out just as good though. beside, it is not possible to print a raw file directly where I go but need to be in an image format, tiff, jpg or whatever.

you say RAW = top and Tiff = pretty good, but Tiff is an uncompressed format as well.

live gallery display? have you exposed in a gallery?

--
Being a photographer is easy; just take lots and lots of pictures.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

so can EVU extract the embedded large fine jpg from the RAW (when
you choose this in teh custom feature) exactly as the digi
processor would do it? is it exactly the same?

The 20D and XT don't use embedded JPEGs. The 10D did. If you want
the JPEG exactly as it would have come out of the camera, just do
the conversion in EVU using the "As Shot" settings recorded in each
file.

dunno..I tried DPP and it did not gave me good results. I will try the converpart of EVU for the XT raw and see if I get the same.

I just tried EVU for the 300d files and it seems to work. I have the hack and so I set RAW + large fine in the custom features and it worked. I could extract the large fine jpg from teh RAW file..mind you the raw file is 10 megs.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

I have to do more test with red colour and especialy yellow but so far blue and green seems to be exactly the same. so it seems to work with EVU and the embedded large file jpg.

no way to extract the .jpg from the raw or convert the raw to get
the exact same thing as the digi or Digi II does?

Shoot a RAW + Large JPEG. Convert the RAW in EVU using the "As
Shot" settings, converting to a Large JPEG. Compare the converted
Large JPEG to the out-of-camera Large JPEG. That will tell you how
closely or different each process is from one another.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

and if you have the hack, go to custom function 08 and set the value to RAW + large fine jpg and then use EVU and "extract and save" the jpg..shoudl give you exactly what the digi processor would have come up with. you can also shot a .jpg as well if you want to compare colour, but so far from the brief test taht I have done it works fine.

without the hack you are stuck with the medium file I think. and with the hack you can also select jpg small instead of medium or large and get smaller raw that way if you don't care to have the jpg.

 

[T3]

dunno..I tried DPP and it did not gave me good results. I will try
the converpart of EVU for the XT raw and see if I get the same.

EVU and DPP give me very different results. I really wish that Canon would put the EVU conversion engine into DPP's option package. I much prefer EVU's conversion (it looks more like what you get from in-camera).

 

[Daniella68313]

ok I cannot get the same thing with the XT files though...and EVU does not see the raw files of the XT. photo professional does not output the .jpg anywhere near what I get with the in-camera settings.

I used the default settings as I cannot see where to set "as shot" settigns?

dunno..I tried DPP and it did not gave me good results. I will try
the converpart of EVU for the XT raw and see if I get the same.

EVU and DPP give me very different results. I really wish that
Canon would put the EVU conversion engine into DPP's option
package. I much prefer EVU's conversion (it looks more like what
you get from in-camera).

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[LeeBase]

Lee, many people argue that you get more resolution and better
detail with the raw..problem is, they failed to prove it.

Any test that runs a raw converter with "no parameter changes" against a jpg is NOT going to show any supeority to the RAW format. You do realize that ALL photos start out as RAW -- even the in camera jpg's.

So if you don't change any parameters you are only comparing the in camera converter to the one on the computer. Not the "raw format" vs. the JPG format.

I think we all agree that when there is a problem in exposure, then
the RAW would give better latitude to save it. We all know that
too.

Yep. And we all know how hard it is to nail every exposure. I was once a confirmed jpg shooter...I shot 50,000 some jpg photos and worked very hard to master custom WB and exposure and can get good photos right out of the camera.

I do occassionally shoot jpg -- usually when I don't really care about any particular photo, and when I'm going to be shooting many hundreds, and when the web is the target destination.

However I now shoot RAW most of the time because I can get better photos quicker with a RAW converter than with opening jpg's.

I guess what I and a few other people are trying to find out is, is
there a real advantage to shoot raw for a well exposed
pics..meaning is there a read advantages for each photos that we
shoot, not only the bad ones?

Alright -- we've at least conceeded that when there's WB or exposure issues, RAW is really your friend.

Now let's talk about color space. The sRGB color space is a lot smaller than so Adobe Pro RGB. Have you noticed, if you use ACR or any tool that shows histograms in each channel, that the reds blow out long before the other colors do? By switching to a larger color space -- and a 16bit one at that (jpg is 8 bit), photos where a color is blown out, all fo a sudden fit.

You won't notice this when you convert your RAW to jpg, because once you do you've lost the 16bit color advantage completely. Too see the superior photo you NEVER convert to jpg....you convert to a 16bit TIFF or photoshop file format.

Next -- consider a file that "needs work". The more work you do on a file the quicker it degrades....16bit files are much more robust. There's a better explaination for this in the Adobe Camera Raw book.

I'm not one at all who things that if you shoot jpg, your photos are going to look like garbage. Nor do I think that someone is inferior in any way for choosing jpg. I get annoyed by some of the RAW enthusiasts who treat this issue as some kind of religion.

There is, though, real merrit to the fact that having a RAW file gives you MUCH more lattitude for bringing out the best in a photo than a jpg file. And while the advantage isn't QUITE as obvious when you start with a perfectly exposed and wb'd jpg file -- such perfect exposure are not THAT easy to come by

Lee

 

[Glenn W.]

I'm not clear if your using your 300D or the 350D. I'm also not sure what the 350D does with JPEG and RAW, my understanding is that maybe it saves the RAW and the JPEG as two totaly seperate files, rather then actualy 'embeding' the JPEG in the .CRW file like is done on the 300D. If it doesn't actualy embed the JPEG, then all you should have to do is open the JPEG...

If your using the 300D and/or trying to extract the JPEG from a .CRW file, then make sure you have the camera selected properly in FileViewerUtility. It seems EOSViewer regognizes that the .CRW file is what it is, and/or doesn't need to select the camera type, etc...

The only way I'd know if it worked by converting, would be to do it and look... Honestly I've never tried to exactly duplicate a JPEG from a RAW... I generaly like my RAW converted images better, so I've never tried to duplicate the JPEG.

The embeded JPEG is exactly the same image you'd get if you had
selected that size JPEG only image. The camera processes this image
before it saves it, extracting this does not change it at all...

I can not vouch for what happesns when you choose 'covert and save'
'jpeg' option from within EVU or FVU with the 'in camera' settings.
I beleive it is very close, if not identical, but I can't say that
with any real authority.

although I tried to extract and save the jpg but the feature is
grayed out and disabled. what gives?

so can EVU extract the embedded large fine jpg from the RAW (when
you choose this in teh custom feature) exactly as the digi
processor would do it? is it exactly the same?

ok now that's good to know. I will test that and if it works I
will not shoot RAW + jpg anymore. if it can just do the same job
as the digi II. I have not tried that one yet.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Phil214757]

I don't get this thread at all.

All we can be comparing is Photoshop’s reduction from a 16 bit format (TIFF) to an 8 bit format (JPEG) vs. the on-board DIGICHIP II conversion to an 8 bit format (JPEG).

JPEG is pretty old standard so I would expect no one is making blatant mistakes so one is as good as another is all I see going on here.

No mater how the sample were labeled everything provided was a JPEG.
--
Phil Agur

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon from sailing the tropics below.

 

[Daniella68313]

I still have the 300d so I could test the EVU and the new DPP..the new DPP suck big time...or I don't know how to use it..if I use settigns "as shot" I get horrible results..dull, flat and lifeless with almost no color saturation..it's really bad and nothing compared to the in-camera raw conversion

here it is..first a 300d file extracted from the raw, that was embedded with large file jpg instead of medium one, compared to the XT software DPP conversion of that same file "as shot" you can see the green color is dull, same for the blue with teh dpp:



Then with a XT file, a in-camera jpg vs the RAW converted with as shot settings, nothing else changed..again you can see how dull it came out comapre to the in-camera conversion:



these are resized shots, not 100% crops, just to show the colours rendition.

if there is a way to convert with DPP exactly the same as in-camera conversion, then I have no idea how to do that..any hint?

I'm not clear if your using your 300D or the 350D. I'm also not
sure what the 350D does with JPEG and RAW, my understanding is that
maybe it saves the RAW and the JPEG as two totaly seperate files,

yes it does. it save both a RAW and a jpg large file on the card.

rather then actualy 'embeding' the JPEG in the .CRW file like is
done on the 300D. If it doesn't actualy embed the JPEG, then all
you should have to do is open the JPEG...

right, it does not embed and there is no need for extraction. but my reason for wanting to find that out is that if I could shoot .jpg only and convert the raw file and get exactly the same thing as the in-camera conversion, then I would not shoot raw + jpg but I woudl shoot RAW only and then convert the RAW "as shot" but it just don't seem to work that way.

If your using the 300D and/or trying to extract the JPEG from a
.CRW file, then make sure you have the camera selected properly in
FileViewerUtility. It seems EOSViewer regognizes that the .CRW file
is what it is, and/or doesn't need to select the camera type, etc...

yes I found that and that seems to do the job very well. problem is..it does not see the xt raw files.

The only way I'd know if it worked by converting, would be to do it
and look... Honestly I've never tried to exactly duplicate a JPEG
from a RAW... I generaly like my RAW converted images better, so
I've never tried to duplicate the JPEG.

I can't say the same

 

[Daniella68313]

I don't get this thread at all.

All we can be comparing is Photoshop’s reduction from a 16 bit
format (TIFF) to an 8 bit format (JPEG) vs. the on-board DIGICHIP
II conversion to an 8 bit format (JPEG).

JPEG is pretty old standard so I would expect no one is making
blatant mistakes so one is as good as another is all I see going on
here.

No mater how the sample were labeled everything provided was a JPEG.

you could still see the color difference or the difference in resolution and detail if there was one, even in the .jpg resaved file.

here for exemple is a comparison between the in camera jpg and the DPP conversion using "as shot" settings..as you can see, as shot seems to mean different thing to the software than it does to the DIGI II. Even though both are output to .jpg at the end..the difference is major and clear as cystal.

--
Phil Agur

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon from sailing
the tropics below.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Glenn W.]

DPP doesn't really have 'as shot' settings for everything... So, I'm not at all surprized you can't get exactly the same when using DPP.

DPP is perticularly differnt from the other Canon software tools when you compare sharpening... DPP's sharperning is totaly unique, some folks see it's sharpening as adding noise, others see it as more detail, but this doesn't matter in your test shots I don't think... but just keep in mind that DPP is totaly differnt at sharpening.

Color... I haven't played with DPP's color/tint settings enough to know what it might take to get the same outcome as the others and/or as DIGI II...

However in your second shot... I thought the green looked better in the DPP processed image, but then I don't know what it turely looked like in real life... In the first shot the green did seem a little pale... but again I don't know what it looks like in real life.

Bottom line for DPP is... I don't think you'll ever get DPP to look exactly like the DIGI II image... However I think you should be able to get it close, and in manyways, I personaly actualy like DPP... mostly because of the way it's controls work, not because of how much better job it does at processing RAW...(but I do think it works slightly better then PSE3).

 

[Daniella68313]

Lee, many people argue that you get more resolution and better
detail with the raw..problem is, they failed to prove it.

Any test that runs a raw converter with "no parameter changes"
against a jpg is NOT going to show any supeority to the RAW format.
You do realize that ALL photos start out as RAW -- even the in
camera jpg's.

yes we know that

So if you don't change any parameters you are only comparing the in
camera converter to the one on the computer. Not the "raw format"
vs. the JPG format.

I think that's obvious too, although if the raw format had much more resolution it would show up right there.

Yep. And we all know how hard it is to nail every exposure. I was
once a confirmed jpg shooter...I shot 50,000 some jpg photos and
worked very hard to master custom WB and exposure and can get good
photos right out of the camera.

I can't say that nailing the exposure is my main problem in the conditions I shoot.

I do occassionally shoot jpg -- usually when I don't really care
about any particular photo, and when I'm going to be shooting many
hundreds, and when the web is the target destination.

the funny thing about raw advocates is that they make it sound like .jpg is an inferior format only good for resizing small image for the web..well it is not. I print at large enough format with .jpg and get superb results. I dropped the RAW when I could not see a difference in print so it was not worth all the trouble. But I don,t find nailing the exposure that hard, at least not in the situations I shoot the most.

Now I wish really hard to see an advantage to shoot RAW in every day life situations, but I cannot see it.

If there is no way to see that advantage when the file is converted to .jpg and viewed at 100%, then it is not a major adavantage.

when I got the 300d at the begining I was shooting RAW and printing RAW..then I started to shoot both to compare and had a few prints done with both foramt. I really wanted to get the best quality because I was starting to sell prints...no difference in detail and they both looked good. so either I have no clue how to process a raw, or the advantage of the RAW is greatly over amphased.

Alright -- we've at least conceeded that when there's WB or
exposure issues, RAW is really your friend.

Of course..this is a real advantage of the RAW. the only reason I woudl use raw.

Now let's talk about color space. The sRGB color space is a lot
smaller than so Adobe Pro RGB. Have you noticed, if you use ACR or
any tool that shows histograms in each channel, that the reds blow
out long before the other colors do? By switching to a larger
color space -- and a 16bit one at that (jpg is 8 bit), photos where
a color is blown out, all fo a sudden fit.

Never really had problem with that either though. the jpg files that I get out of the camera usualy have very pleasant colours, nothing peaking out of the way. If I was to shoot red flowers, I would probably shoot RAW + jpg because red as a little tendency to go overboard if overexposed.

You won't notice this when you convert your RAW to jpg, because
once you do you've lost the 16bit color advantage completely. Too
see the superior photo you NEVER convert to jpg....you convert to a
16bit TIFF or photoshop file format.

before I convert them to .jpg though, you do see them in a lossless temporary file. but can you honestly say that the difference is major? have you really compared both in prints?

Next -- consider a file that "needs work". The more work you do on
a file the quicker it degrades....16bit files are much more robust.
There's a better explaination for this in the Adobe Camera Raw book.

yes but that is good for a file that need major work. again the exposure and wrong WB come to mind..otherwise if those are good then there is not much to do on the .jpg file.

I'm not one at all who things that if you shoot jpg, your photos
are going to look like garbage.

really? that's the impression that I got from reading your post at the beginging

Nor do I think that someone is

inferior in any way for choosing jpg.

interesting that you mention it, because that was my next impression

I get annoyed by some of the

RAW enthusiasts who treat this issue as some kind of religion.

ahh..that makes 2 of us!

There is, though, real merrit to the fact that having a RAW file
gives you MUCH more lattitude for bringing out the best in a photo
than a jpg file.

there is in deed, but I woudl not give up the .jpg for the raw..If I ever start to shoot RAW, I will still shot the RAW + jpg to get both of them. If only there was a way to convert the raw exactly as the in-camera jpg, I woudl stop shooting .jpg but so far no luck.

And while the advantage isn't QUITE as obvious

when you start with a perfectly exposed and wb'd jpg file -- such
perfect exposure are not THAT easy to come by

I guess it depend on your shooting conditions. I shoot the in the same lighting pretty much so it is quite predictable.

Lee

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Daniella68313]

Color... I haven't played with DPP's color/tint settings enough to
know what it might take to get the same outcome as the others
and/or as DIGI II...

the problem is that if you only shoot RAW with the XT, you forever loose the DIGI II conversion. no way to get it back..you can try to process the raw as best as you can..you can think that it is the greatest conversion ever, but unless you have that original in-camera conversion, you will never know just how far you are.

However in your second shot... I thought the green looked better in
the DPP processed image, but then I don't know what it turely
looked like in real life... In the first shot the green did seem a
little pale... but again I don't know what it looks like in real
life.

the point is that it does not give the same result as the in-camera conversion. I really dont, like the colour from the DPP though..matter of personal taste the colours from the .jpg are a bit warmer because I had the hue adjutment when I shot it. but then the DPP should have taken this into consideration when the as shot.

it seems that all it is taking in consideration is the the in-camera WB and that's about it. It does not seem to take into consideration the in-camera sharpness, colour saturation, hue etc..

Bottom line for DPP is... I don't think you'll ever get DPP to look
exactly like the DIGI II image... However I think you should be
able to get it close, and in manyways,

unless you actualy have the original jpg as reference, it will be a hit and miss and guess.

I personaly actualy like

DPP... mostly because of the way it's controls work, not because of
how much better job it does at processing RAW...(but I do think it
works slightly better then PSE3).

if only I would be happy withthe RAW conversion that I can acheive..I am not and that bugs me.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

 

[Phil214757]

You are getting superb results using JPEG out of the camera, there's no doubt about that but once you convert to all JPEG to compare results the images are flattened to the same level of definition.

Thus the question of being able to see the difference between 16 bit color depth and 8 bit color depth is kind of lost. Heck half the folks commenting could be doing so after viewing on an 8 bit (16.7 million color) video card.

The test would have to be taking a image of great tonal range like some of your Big Sir water fall shots in both RAW to TIFF and large fine JPEG and send them for professional printing at a vendor who can work in 16 bit.

My normal photo processor only works JPEG so even that's not a good test.

You'd have to know how the D to A conversion is going to done going to the paper before you would know the test is good.

The fact that the professional reviews but the DIGI II output #2 behind the PSCS2 conversion but ahead of the next 3 RAW converters should be enough for anyone.

It says unless there is a specific reason like WB correction issues one is better off using the JPEG unless you've invested in PSC2, and even then you may not see why you are using the more complex work flow except on rare occasions.

A more useful thread would be to explore 8 bit vs 16 bit definnition for various output applications. Or maybe "Is seeing a JPEG like listening to music on AM radio?"
--
Phil Agur

350D - Full equipment list in profile, taste in neon from sailing the tropics below.