RAW + JPG

[Peterj]

Since I purchased a refurbished Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 I wanted to verify it’s functions and capabilities very quickly. I set up a lens test scenario and discovered a huge difference between raw and jpg. I’m usually not so anal about technical performance in my photographic endeavors and normally just enjoy the artistic aspects.

I need a bit of help understanding the interface between a camera and editing software regarding RAW. I just upgraded my camera to one that has the ability to save both RAW and JPG. It came with a raw processor which is lacking in many respect to ACR which I’ve been using with my JPG files quite successfully.

I evaluated the difference between a raw file developed (set white and black points only) in ACR and the associated jpg file for the same capture. I was astounded at the difference raw was 50 %better at least.

I noticed that Photo 10 was also able to display the undeveloped raw file, but had a barely distinguishable improvement over the associated jpg.

I tried using Shotwell (Linux photo editor) and discovered pretty much the same results as Photo 10 – no difference raw vs jpg.

I assume that most cameras “develop” the raw file to produce the immediately viewable image on it’s LCD, in general do cameras have 2 algorithms: 1 for internal and 1 for external?

[michelb]

Nov 22, 2016 16:17:37 GMT Peterj said:

I assume that most cameras “develop” the raw file to produce the immediately viewable image on it’s LCD, in general do cameras have 2 algorithms: 1 for internal and 1 for external?

The camera must 'develop = convert' the file internally as fast as possible to provide a visible feedback to your display (even if the camera only stores jpegs); there is also a small jpeg 'preview' version which is included in the raw file for quicker browsing.
I remember using two different Canon softwares. One provided exactly the same conversion algorithm of the internal one, the other one was more sophisticated (an a bit slower) like all good raw converters.

[deprosq]

Nov 22, 2016 16:17:37 GMT Peterj said:

.
.
I need a bit of help understanding the interface between a camera and editing software regarding RAW. I just upgraded my camera to one that has the ability to save both RAW and JPG. It came with a raw processor which is lacking in many respect to ACR which I’ve been using with my JPG files quite successfully.
.
.

RAW data is the unprocessed data direct from the camera sensor.

Generally speaking, after a photo is taken the camera will convert the RAW data into RGB values for each pixel using the ISO, White Balance and the "picture style" settings you have set in your camera to display the image on the camera's LCD screen.  The camera will then also use the RGB values for each pixel to create a jpeg file if required by the camera's settings.

Third party RAW processing software, like ACR, allows you total control to manipulate the unprocessed RAW sensor data via various parameter sliders before generating RGB values for each pixel for later editing in an image editor like PSE.

[BuckSkin]

My understanding is that the RAW file includes an "imbedded" jpeg that allows for immediate viewing which is pretty much identical to the "Large jpeg"

Most RAW-capable image viewers/browsers will allow the choice of fast viewing, which displays the imbedded jpeg, or a much slower option that displays the actual RAW image.

Honestly, I have spent hours messing with RAW files and minutes with the same images accompanying Large jpeg and, to my untrained eye, I can see little if any benefit to using the RAW file.

The only times I see a benefit is with pictures taken indoors under weird lighting where it is easier to correct the white-balance using RAW.

But, like I said, my eye is untrained.

[belmore]

Dec 7, 2016 7:19:07 GMT BuckSkin said:

My understanding is that the RAW file includes an "imbedded" jpeg that allows for immediate viewing which is pretty much identical to the "Large jpeg"

Most RAW-capable image viewers/browsers will allow the choice of fast viewing, which displays the imbedded jpeg, or a much slower option that displays the actual RAW image.

Honestly, I have spent hours messing with RAW files and minutes with the same images accompanying Large jpeg and, to my untrained eye, I can see little if any benefit to using the RAW file.

The only times I see a benefit is with pictures taken indoors under weird lighting where it is easier to correct the white-balance using RAW.

But, like I said, my eye is untrained.

Hello Buckskin.  If you're dealing with pretty well correctly exposed images out of the camera and you're creating images for screen displays then RAW files are probably not a huge advantage.  But RAW really comes into play with its flexibility if you have to change the white balance or exposure.


A long time ago I did this little experiment.  I took a correctly exposed photo of a scene.  I then took two more photos of the same scene and overexposed and underexposed by 2 stops.  I then tried to correct the overexposed and underexposed RAW files in ACR.  I found that it was very quick and simple to recover the incorrectly exposed images by using the exposure control in ACR. The corrected RAW images matched perfectly by eye the correctly exposed image.  When I tried to correct the overexposed and underexposed jpegs I found it was much more difficult and couldn't get a good quality exposure correction from the jpegs.  One of the biggest advantages of RAW is that it gives you a really good second chance to recover incorrectly exposed images (within limits of course) to the same point had they been exposed correctly at the time the shot was taken.

When working with jpegs you are starting with something the camera has already processed. With RAW you are working with unprocessed data and you process everything yourself with full control and flexibility.

I always shoot in RAW.  When I have time to set up the shot I always shoot in Manual mode and so I have full control of the exposure and normally get it spot on or pretty close.  If I have to point and shoot (like an an event where there is some action or movement) I use either Shutter or Aperture Priority, depending on which is more important.  The priority modes normally give a correct or pretty close correct exposure but sometimes they don't and so I am very glad of the ability to save shots using RAW files.

Here are 10 Reasons Why You Should Be Shooting RAW  

Also, if you make poster sized or larger prints, then processing in RAW will definitely give you better quality prints - more finer detail and better colour gradients.

And finally, as you pointed out, white balance is a snap to correct on unprocessed RAW data in ACR using either one of the preset values or playing with the temperature and tint controls.  Again, resetting white balance in a RAW image is the same as having it set correctly when the scene was shot.  The same is normally not the case with jpegs and correcting white balance in jpegs can be very problematic depending on the image.

[BuckSkin]

Thanks for the link, belmore; a lot of good reading there; pretty good for a first post.