RAW and JPEG

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:28:05 -0800, Conrad wrote
> (in article <1170340085.050990.163950.RemoveThis@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
>>(350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
>>picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
>>touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
>>for some images, JPEG looked better.
>>I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
>>or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
>>results coming from initial camera transfer.
>
>
> The JPEG images should generally look better. RAW files have not been
> processed by the camera software and generally need some editing.

Seconded. Depending on the settings, the camera will do some sharpening and
brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments and most importantly, apply the
white-balance settings to the picture when creating the JPEG. The RAW data has
no adjustments until YOU do them in software.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
> (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
> picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
> touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
> for some images, JPEG looked better.
> I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
> or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
> results coming from initial camera transfer.
>
> Best,
>
> Conrad
>
Considering that the hardware was the same for each version of each
picture, that really shouldn't be too surprising. In most cases, 16 bit
values for each pixel aren't necessary, or even noticeable. Of course,
it you want the very best the camera can deliver, then RAW is the way to go.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

On Feb 1, 8:28 am, "Conrad" <cweil... DeleteThis @mac.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
> (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
> picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
> touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
> for some images, JPEG looked better.
> I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
> or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
> results coming from initial camera transfer.
>
> Best,
>
> Conrad

Consider that both prints and most monitors only have a dynamic range
limited to less than eight bit equivalent.

This is similar to film and printing paper. The negs used to have far
more DR than printing paper. This allowed you to print shots where
exposure was off a bit.

Same thing for RAW and jpeg. If the shot were perfectly exposed,
there is little advantage to raw unless you actually want to alter
color or exposure (say create a fake "moonlit" shot.

It is almost impossible to find a way to actually view a 16 bit (or
even 12 bit) image and see ALL the range that is in the image.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:30:56 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Matt Ion
> <soundy106.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Seconded. Depending on the settings, the camera will do some sharpening and
>>brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments and most importantly, apply the
>>white-balance settings to the picture when creating the JPEG. The RAW data has
>>no adjustments until YOU do them in software.
>
>
> Well not necessarily, no? I mean most all the raw converters I used set
> their own automatic settings or use the as shot values as their defaults
> (Nikon Capture) when you open up the image. ACR and RSE all start out at
> various levels of tweaking with no user intervention at all.

True, the software may or may not automatically apply the captured WB
settings... there's still the other processed settings the camera does, as I
noted above.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

"Conrad" <cweiler1 DeleteThis @mac.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
> (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
> picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
> touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
> for some images, JPEG looked better.
> I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
> or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
> results coming from initial camera transfer.

While your RAW editor may be 16-bit, I relieve most cameras RAW images are only
12-bits (possibily with some of the Fuji cameras being the exception).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews DeleteThis @the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

Michael Meissner <meissner.TakeThisOut@the-meissners.org> wrote:
>"Conrad" <cweiler1.TakeThisOut@mac.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
>> (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
>> picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
>> touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
>> for some images, JPEG looked better.
>> I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
>> or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
>> results coming from initial camera transfer.
>
>While your RAW editor may be 16-bit, I relieve most cameras RAW images are only
>12-bits (possibily with some of the Fuji cameras being the exception).

The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an
image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or
otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked
better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must*
be processed into an image format (such as JPEG).

The significant point is that shooting RAW means one *must* do
postprocessing external to the camera. Shooting JPEG merely
means in camera processing, and you cannot adjust the process
and try it again until it is best; which is precisely the
advantage of shooting RAW.

The fact that post processing defaults are *different* than in
camera processing is not at all surprising. The fact that two
different processing defaults would produce differently
optimized results, some images looking better from one and some
looking better from the other, is not even slightly amazing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM.DeleteThis@theknack.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an
>> image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or
>> otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked
>> better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must*
>> be processed into an image format (such as JPEG).
>
>That statement doesn't mean anything. No computer data is
>viewable until it's decoded. If anything, the encoding of jpeg
>is MORE obscured than RAW.

JPEG data defines specific image, pixel by pixel.

The sensor data does not do that. The values from multiple
sensor sites are used to generate each pixel when that data is
processed to make an image. Which sensors, and now they are
evaluated to make each pixel, is not defined by the RAW file
data.

We are not talking about "decoded" data. That is what you do to
view a JPEG image. Raw sensor data has to be *processed*, and
then *encoded* into an image format (which is then decoded for
viewing).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> The RAW file contains 12 bit *sensor data*. It is *not* an
> image file. There is no such thing as a "RAW editor", 16-bit or
> otherwise. And it is not possible that "RAW images looked
> better", because RAW data is not viewable. The RAW data *must*
> be processed into an image format (such as JPEG).

That statement doesn't mean anything. No computer data is viewable
until it's decoded. If anything, the encoding of jpeg is MORE obscured
than RAW.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG 

Hi,

> > Interesting thing yesterday shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel
> > (350XT). I used settings for both RAW (CR2) and JPEG capture for each
> > picture. Visually, looking at the results and comparing (without any
> > touchup) each picture, some RAW images looked better from camera and
> > for some images, JPEG looked better.
> > I realize that RAW images are 16-bit vs. 8-bit JPEG images and either
> > or both may be adjusted in Photoshop, but i was surprised at the
> > results coming from initial camera transfer.

I used RAW and L (best res JPEG) with 350XT camera. Used Bridge
program (from CS2 package) to initialy view each shot (RAW and L).

Best,

Conrad
 >> Stay informed about: RAW and JPEG