<JPG from RAW> vs. <JPG only>

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by MJL Photo, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. MJL Photo

    MJL Photo Guest

    Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg
    from that vs. shooting jpg directly?

    I understand RAW is superior in image quality and manipulation, but I am
    only concerned with jpg format in this question now.

    Thanks,
    ML
     
    MJL Photo, Nov 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. MJL Photo

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Is there a difference in image quality from shooting RAW and making a jpg
    Only in how the RAW data is converted. Sometimes the camera makes pretty
    decent decisions as to how to render the JPG, but often you can make a
    better decision, or at least a more informed one.

    Also, presumably you're importing at more than 8 bits into your photo
    editing program, and in a larger color space than sRGB - so your editing and
    manipulations are much less likely to result in various technical
    deficiencies than if you performed them on the JPG.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Nov 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. MJL Photo

    Martin Brown Guest

    If they were converted using the same fundamental parameter settings
    they would be the same. There is no doubt that on high contrast scenes
    the default camera settings for JPEG conversion are sub-optimal.

    But most of the posts saying in camera JPEG is rubbish appear to have
    the aggressive conversion settings posterising the in camera image. It
    isn't fair to compare radically different conversion strategies and then
    blame the file storage format for the differences!

    Incidentally sharper does not alway mean better. Conversion software
    often oversharpens images knowing that this scores extra points in
    benchmarks and product reviews. Look for ringing on edge transitions.

    There is no reason at all why a JPEG should be visibly less sharp than a
    native raw image. It will necessarily have compromised dynamic range
    compared to a 12bit native raw image but even that can be managed.

    RAW is ideal when you know you have a high dynamic range subject where
    highlight or shadow detail will be a problem. The camera has to make a
    compromise when making its JPEG and doesn't always choose wisely.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Nov 28, 2005
    #3
  4. MJL Photo

    kctan Guest

    All digital images are taken in raw form initially. They got to be converted
    into image format like jpeg or tiff. The question is who is converting. You
    or the camera.
    If it's the latter, then you have to choose an image format and its pixel
    dimensions and compression degree. You are under the mercy of the camera
    irreversible automation conversion by the built-in processor and raw
    conversion software. If you understand things like white balance, luminance,
    gamma, color depth, noise etc...you may want to shoot in raw and manipulate
    those mentioned by a good raw converter to bring out the best image quality.
    Therefore it not raw is superior but your skill to make it superior by
    manipulation and develop into a format of yours (jpeg or tiff).

    http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kcpps
     
    kctan, Nov 28, 2005
    #4
  5. MJL Photo

    kctan Guest

    I forgot one important issue to mention and that is a calibrated monitor is
    essentially needed for any image adjustment and manipulation.
     
    kctan, Nov 28, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.