Why do my RAW files come out worse than JPEGS?

Sergio - I virtually always shoot jpeg + raw. I take the jpegs and upload them to social media and I take the raw data an massage it when I want a "better" picture, so here are:


1. Straight out of camera jpeg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/585/31...3175276a_h.jpg



2. Edited Raw image

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5485/3...2a888b34_h.jpg


Jpegs use 8-bit data (256 colours per channel) and my camera uses 14-bits per channel (16384 colours per channel). When you convert from raw to jpeg you throw out up to 99.98% of the data that your camera has captured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

After I process my RAW files into images correcting exposure, color balance, etc. etc. but without cropping and without sharpening, I save my RAW files as Photoshop Images (.psd). They I will crop to my needs and sharpen depending on the final product. This way, if I need to go back to my image for another crop, I can revert back to the .psd images and I don't have to reinvent the wheel and start at the RAW file again.

Early in my digital career, I shot in JPEG and would crop and size the images as I liked them. Then, I was asked for a selection of images to use on a calendar. My JPEGS were not the right proportions because some of them were vertical compositions and the calendar needed horizontal images. I didn't have a master image to go back to and I was out of luck...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Sergio - I virtually always shoot jpeg + raw. I take the jpegs and upload them to social media and I take the raw data an massage it when I want a "better" picture, so here are:


1. Straight out of camera jpeg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/585/31...3175276a_h.jpg



2. Edited Raw image

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5485/3...2a888b34_h.jpg


Jpegs use 8-bit data (256 colours per channel) and my camera uses 14-bits per channel (16384 colours per channel). When you convert from raw to jpeg you throw out up to 99.98% of the data that your camera has captured.

---

I don't think this is the right way to explain the differences between raw and jpg. You don't give a tool for self development.
A raw file and a jpg-file so out off the camera will look exactly the same.

Sergio,
The raw and jpg files are disk files . They contain information but no image in the way we can see them through a monitor or printer. I know it's not accepted here, but the image file is a rgb raster image which resides in the memory of the pc. The main question will be: where does that image come from.
If it comes from a raw file, than that file has to be converted to a rgb raster image. That conversion can be done in the camera or external through a range of converters. Every converter will give another result.
If it comes from a jpg, then the rgb raster image has been created before and saved in a compressed way to disk.

I know I don't make friends showing this again, but until now it's the only, simple, representation of the differences between raw and jpg. The sensor data or color filter array is your raw file. And you can see the diffrence between the raw and jpg.
Always keep in mind, where does that rgb raster image comes from. If you do that, a lot of other questions will be answered to, by your self.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Xd...w1280-h1024-no

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

when I try to edit through FastStone my images look grungy afterward.

---

I use FastStone (latest version) too. My RAW edits look fine (at least to me). Are you sure you type 'a' (after the image loads) to get the true RAW image instead of the embedded Jpeg which is loaded by default when you open a RAW file?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DickyOZ

I use FastStone (latest version) too. My RAW edits look fine (at least to me). Are you sure you type 'a' (after the image loads) to get the true RAW image instead of the embedded Jpeg which is loaded by default when you open a RAW file?

---

Hi Richard,

Apparently that is what I was viewing, thanks for the info.

Sergio,

George's diagram shows what Robin, Dan, Dave, and I explained earlier in the thread. Here's his diagram, slightly marked up:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-.../i-9QQxmBR.png

The top circle is the raw image, as your camera saves it to the card. The circle near the bottom right is the rendered image. When you save a jpeg, the camera is providing the conversion from raw and the editing. When you drop the image into a raw converter, it will do some of this, but often not much, and what it does automatically, by default, varies from software to software.

I don't know what George mean t by this:

Quote:

---

A raw file and a jpg-file so out off the camera will look exactly the same.

---

but I think it's misleading. You never see the raw file straight out of the camera. It is ALWAYS converted before you see it. Whether it looks like the jpeg depends on whether the camera and software are applying the same adjustments, and as you found in your example, that is often not the case.

This thread made me think back to my initial attempts at editing photos years ago. Maybe it would help to approach this in a different order. I'm guessing that you are not yet very familiar with editing tools. If you are, ignore what I am writing, but if you aren't, this might help. If you haven't already done this, take some time (it took me quite a bit of time) to learn the basics of editing--various ways to control sharpness, saturation/vibrance, contrast, and so on. Once you have a good feeling for this, you will be able to look at your images and decide, for example, "I think it needs more contrast," "I think the tonal range is too compressed," "the highlights are too bright," or whatever, and you will have some tools for changing those things. And then you will have the skills you need to take advantage of raw captures.

I hope this helps.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Sergio,

George's diagram shows what Robin, Dan, Dave, and I explained earlier in the thread. Here's his diagram, slightly marked up:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-.../i-9QQxmBR.png

The top circle is the raw image, as your camera saves it to the card. The circle near the bottom right is the rendered image. When you save a jpeg, the camera is providing the conversion from raw and the editing. When you drop the image into a raw converter, it will do some of this, but often not much, and what it does automatically, by default, varies from software to software.

I don't know what George mean t by this:



but I think it's misleading. You never see the raw file straight out of the camera. It is ALWAYS converted before you see it. Whether it looks like the jpeg depends on whether the camera and software are applying the same adjustments, and as you found in your example, that is often not the case.



Dan

---

The camera always converts/creates the image to a jpg, to get embedded or/and to be saved as a separate file.
I use Nikon and the Nikon converter CaptureNx2. In this situation the result of the in-camera conversion and the CaptureNx conversion are the same.

And no, you can't see a raw-file. You always see either the embedded jpg or the result of the used converter. I've had to many discussions about that here.

But the most important is the rgb raster image. That's the main file. And hardly ever mentioned. Always ask your self: where does that come from. And in the diagram it's either from a disk file or a converter.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

I don't think this is the right way to explain the differences between raw and jpg. You don't give a tool for self development.
A raw file and a jpg-file so out off the camera will look exactly the same.

Sergio,
The raw and jpg files are disk files . They contain information but no image in the way we can see them through a monitor or printer. I know it's not accepted here, but the image file is a rgb raster image which resides in the memory of the pc. The main question will be: where does that image come from.
If it comes from a raw file, than that file has to be converted to a rgb raster image. That conversion can be done in the camera or external through a range of converters. Every converter will give another result.
If it comes from a jpg, then the rgb raster image has been created before and saved in a compressed way to disk.

I know I don't make friends showing this again, but until now it's the only, simple, representation of the differences between raw and jpg. The sensor data or color filter array is your raw file. And you can see the diffrence between the raw and jpg.
Always keep in mind, where does that rgb raster image comes from. If you do that, a lot of other questions will be answered to, by your self.


George

---

George - you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I am not going to try to get into an argument as to whether you are right or wrong with your response, but would rather ask you to look at the question that was being asked by someone who has just purchased his first DSLR.

Sergio noticed the same thing I did when I was at that stage in my photography - my straight out of camera (SOOC) jpegs looked better than one created from the supposedly superior RAW data. As I am a jpeg + RAW shooter most of the time, I thought it might be interesting to him to compare what came straight out of my camera versus what a couple of minutes in Photoshop can pull out - a bit of straightening, sharpening, boosting contrast and a bit of cloning can do.

Perhaps I did not explain the differences between jpeg and raw in the same way you might have, but what I hope I have demonstrated is that there is a lot more data in a raw file that can be pulled out in PP work. I'll be quite honest, one can make the jpeg look better too, but when I push the jpeg, I am limited by the available data and start to see artifacts / blocking in the sky of this image.