Why do my RAW files come out worse than JPEGS?

[SergeTheBlerge]

I've been shooting for a while, but only recently got myself a DSLR (Canon Rebel T6i) and took some snowy shots early yesterday morning, all set to RAW. I noticed when uploading that they all look significantly worse than when I just shoot JPEG. Lots of grain and just dirtier overall. Now, it may be due to the fact that the T6i isn't exactly known for stellar low light shooting, but these pics look somewhat worse. Just very soft and grainy. I was using PhotoScape X afterwards to try and remedy it but still not entirely happy.
So even though RAW is giving me more detail than JPEG technically, I'm not as of now seeing the incentive if my shots are just going to come out looking poorer overall. Here are a few examples and I set the upload to 17" screen so part may be cut off but you get the idea.....


RAW file unedited:

[IMG][/IMG]


RAW file edited using PhotoScape X:

[IMG][/IMG]


Another shot RAW unedited:

[IMG][/IMG]


Any tips on what I can do with this or how to better utilize RAW data please let me know. Thanks again!

[Shadowman]

Couple of things, are you sure the Xmas files weren't switched, the lettering in the first looks sharper. If you are viewing each through RawTherapee that could be part of reason one file looks better than the other. I use FastStone sometimes and with that program RAW files look better than DNG files, however, when I try to edit through FastStone my images look grungy afterward. While RawTherapee will read and convert RAW files, I think the algorithms used lose some of the details.

[Black Pearl]

JPEG files are fully processed and finalised in the camera either with the default setting from the factory or via basic user defined parameters. They may have colours altered, curves applied, noise reduced, sharpening applied, the white balance will have been set and many other 'tweaks' included in their creation.

Raw files are just that - raw data that needs to be 'finalised' using software by the user and to the users preferences. You as the photographer needs to decided what needs to be done to suit the end result you want.

[Mike Buckley]

You're comparing raw files to JPEGs, so it would be helpful if you would shoot raw+JPEG and upload both images unedited of the same scene so we can see the same comparison you're seeing.

[SergeTheBlerge]

You're comparing raw files to JPEGs, so it would be helpful if you would shoot raw+JPEG and upload both images unedited of the same scene so we can see the same comparison you're seeing.

Yes my camera has a setting to do both RAW + JPEGS. I only had my camera set to RAW yesterday.

[SergeTheBlerge]

Couple of things, are you sure the Xmas files weren't switched, the lettering in the first looks sharper. If you are viewing each through RawTherapee that could be part of reason one file looks better than the other. I use FastStone sometimes and with that program RAW files look better than DNG files, however, when I try to edit through FastStone my images look grungy afterward. While RawTherapee will read and convert RAW files, I think the algorithms used lose some of the details.

Actually, I probably shouldn't have posted the edited version. I actually did that "blur" effect myself. I was trying to really focus on the sharpness (or lack thereof) of the "Merry Christmas" lettering as that is in the foreground.
I understand your explanation of what RAW files are composed of. I think I should start shooting with both RAW + JPEG and see how I like the "feel" of editing each one. Thanks

[SergeTheBlerge]

Couple of things, are you sure the Xmas files weren't switched, the lettering in the first looks sharper. If you are viewing each through RawTherapee that could be part of reason one file looks better than the other. I use FastStone sometimes and with that program RAW files look better than DNG files, however, when I try to edit through FastStone my images look grungy afterward. While RawTherapee will read and convert RAW files, I think the algorithms used lose some of the details.

I'm only using Photoscape right now. It also will read and convert RAW files.

[NorthernFocus]

Robin explained it. Jpegs are processed in-camera whereas you have to process the RAW files on your computer. Not sure with Canon but with Nikon you see essentially the same results if you open the RAW files with Nikon viewing/editing software because it can read the proprietary camera settings imbedded in the file. Third party RAW converters can't/don't read the proprietary information so use their own algorithm to make a basic conversion of the RAW image. As Robin indicated it's up to you to finish processing the image.

If you haven't yet learned to process RAW files you may be best served to shoot RAW plus JPEG for a while so you can see the comparison with your own processing.

[DanK]

It might help to go back one step farther than Robin and Dan.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can think of the raw capture as an undeveloped negative. It has to be processed. When you shoot a jpeg in camera, it is doing that processing for you, based on a set of parameters selected by the manufacturer. This processing renders the image viewable and, as Robin said, does a lot of adjusting--color balance, saturation, contrast, sharpening, and noise reduction.

When you shoot raw, none of this is done for you. The point of shooting raw is NOT that the camera or software will generate a better image than the camera's processing algorithm. The point is to give YOU control of the processing so that you can produce a better image. To do that, you need to know, first, what you want the image to look like, and second, how to make the processing tools you have produce that.

When you read an image into raw processing software, it will give you an initial rendering of the image. As Dan pointed out, some software will read the exif data and produce what the camera would have given you. Other software will start with its own default rendering, or give you a choice of starting points. In all cases, this is just a starting point, to give you an image that you can process however you want.

It's not surprising at all that the jpeg showed less noise. The noise was originally there, but the in-camera processing applied noise reduction.

If you haven't yet learned to process RAW files you may be best served to shoot RAW plus JPEG for a while so you can see the comparison with your own processing.

I agree with Dan that this may be helpful at first, but keep in mind that the point of raw captures is to let you produce something different from what the camera's processing would produce. So I would treat the comparison with in-camera jpegs not as a goal, but just as a teaching tool.

[chauncey]

Sergio, should you decide to delve much more seriously into this absurd hobby, consider this:
It ain't cheap, computer gear is a couple grand, as is camera stuff.
Should you get really serious, Photoshop skills take years to properly develop.
You will loose the naivety rather quickly.

[mknittle]

Be sure to make a copy to work on and save the original. I sometimes make copys at different points during the process to experiment with in different ways. that way I don't have to start from scratch later on.

[SergeTheBlerge]

Sergio, should you decide to delve much more seriously into this absurd hobby, consider this:
It ain't cheap, computer gear is a couple grand, as is camera stuff.
Should you get really serious, Photoshop skills take years to properly develop.
You will loose the naivety rather quickly.

This response made me laugh, I have to say, LOL!!! Yes it does seem to get VERY techy and for the past 5ish or more years I just shot what I shot without worry about JPEGS and RAW files. I see extremely gorgeous shots taken by others and have this (probably very unhealthy) desire to compare myself to everyone, but it would also be a great thing to get my pics as stellar as I see some of these shared here. It's just difficult to get images as sharp as I want them

[SergeTheBlerge]

Thanks to everyone else who responded (or will respond). I'm definitely am taking your words to heart and mind.

I simply want to improve my shots to the best I can to hopefully at some point make this more than a hobby.

[xpatUSA]

I'm only using Photoscape right now. It also will read and convert RAW files.

Often, non-proprietary editors such as Photoscape conveniently use DCraw (an open-source converter) which often does not do as well as the proprietary converter. Certainly true for my cameras.

[SergeTheBlerge]

Often, non-proprietary editors such as Photoscape conveniently use DCraw (an open-source converter) which often does not do as well as the proprietary converter. Certainly true for my cameras.

Honestly I'm not too well trained on the techy lingo. What post processing editor would u recommend with raw or even jpeg shots taken by my rebel t6i?

[Mike Buckley]

to hopefully at some point make this more than a hobby.

My hunch is that the quickest, easiest path to that with regard to post-processing is to use one of the de facto standard products or at least one that is a strong #2 or #3 in the market. Tutorials and other information about such widely adopted products are much more readily available whether as a formal educational process or when picking up tips and tid bits at places such as here at CiC.

[Davejl]

Hi Sergio,

Did your Canon SLR not come supplied with "free" DPP, Canon's own raw converter? This loads pictures really quickly and automatically coverts them. You can then either take the file as DPP presents it to you, and save as a TIFF or JPEG for further editing in e.g. Photoshop, or you can change the settings as many times as you like without degrading the raw "negative". It isn't very intuitive to use but if you have it, it isn't too bad once you get used to it (and mine came with a sizeable user manual).

Dave

[Manfred M]

Sergio - the three "best" commercial raw converters out there are generally viewed as being:

1. Adobe raw convertor - which comes packaged with Photoshop and Lightroom. Integration with the Adobe products is excellent and it is a very good converter.

2. Phase One Capture One - this is the raw converter that a lot of high end pros use. Phase One is the producer of high end medium format digital backs and cameras. Their raw converter uses industry standard icc profiles (the photographers who use their cameras and backs tend to work for companies that are looking at print and electronic publications, so the compliance to these standards makes sense. It has many of the features that are similar to Lightroom and the consensus is that the Phase One raw convertor is probably a bit better if you are shooting high end cameras from any manufacturer.

3. DxO Optics Pro - this company was the market leader in both having a high quality convertor and creating high quality camera / lens profiles for a long time before Adobe got there. They still have a excellent product that does a better job than Adobe for critical applications. Their noise reduction is superb.

None of these packages are inexpensive and I would suggest that you not get too wrapped up in this part of post-processing until you are ready to.

[xpatUSA]

Honestly I'm not too well trained on the techy lingo. What post processing editor would u recommend with raw or even jpeg shots taken by my rebel t6i?

Sorry, I am not a Canon owner - please see posts #16, 17 and 18 which should help you better than I could.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sergio,

Can I pick up on something you have said here a couple of times.

What post processing editor would u recommend with raw or even jpeg shots taken by my rebel t6i?

A RAW file is like the ingredients for a recipe, perhaps a burger in a bun; so you get an uncooked burger, a bap/bun, some salad stuff and some sauce.

If you don't properly process the RAW (or cook and assemble the burger), you can imagine what it'll taste like

However, editing a jpg is akin to buying a complete, cooked and assembled burger at McDonald's, then trying to re-arrange the bits to make it better - your options are rather limited!

So don't think that you'll be regularly editing jpgs or RAWs, most people, once they know how to cook (or process RAW) prefer to do it how they like it and don't take the pre-cooked option - except when it suits them.

Cheers, Dave