waremick Loc: New Hampshire

Thanks tainkc your explanation of the practical use of jpg and raw is very informative. I often have had this question when post processing but I didn't think of shooting raw when my image is in a challenging lighting environment for better control after the fact.
Bill R.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I am glad I was of some help. The a77 is a great camera by the way!

Tom

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

First off, you must have accidently uploaded two identical images - both raw.

Second - yes, the raw image will look bland compared to a jpg. Why you ask? Because your camera processes the jpg by adding contrast, sharpening and much more. The raw image has absolutely no processing. It is exactly how the sensor sees the light. That said, here's an article on why and how a raw is better than a jpg. But if you can't be troubled with processing raw images, then we will understand. raw isn't for everybody. It means extra work to get those better results.

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Quite simple; the JPEGs are already processed as an image; the RAW files are not. If you wish to shoot in RAW mode, YOU have to do the work !

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Actually, you prove my point, not yours. Adobe DNG is a processed file, while NEF is a capture format, completely unprocessed. To prove this, try converting an Adobe DNG to NEF or any other raw capture format. That process cannot be accomplished. Once a raw image has been processed, even to Adobe DNG, you cannot 'uncook' it back to a raw capture format. NEF, or any raw capture format, will convert to Adobe DNG, but the reverse is impossible.

Only digital cameras and document scanners can generate original raw format files, which are completely unprocessed. An Adobe DNG file is processed from raw capture format, no matter the nomenclature:
Canon (.CRW, .CR2)
Casio (.RAW)
Fuji (.RAF)
Hasselblad (.3FR)
Kodak (.DCR, .KDC)
Leica (.DNG and .RAW)
Minolta (.MRW)
Nikon (.NEF, .NRW)
Olympus (.ORF)
Panasonic (.RAW, .RW2)
Pentax (.PEF)
Ricoh (.DNG)
Samsung (.DNG)
Sigma (.X3F)
Sony (.SRF,.SR2)

And Casio .RAW is not the same as Panosonic .RAW; just as Ricoh .DNG is not the same as Samsung .DNG, nor Adobe .DNG.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Oops! Double post.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

You posted:


to contrast my post:



I disagree with your statement that RAW files are completely unprocessed. They are, in fact, minimally processed as I described. Please refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

You also prove my point by citing multiple RAW capture formats, each being a bit different from the other, due to minimal in camera processing.

There are a number of cameras that output Adobe DNG as their RAW file output. Among them are Pentax, Casio, Ricoh, Samsung, Leica, etc. You are wrong when you say that Adobe DNG is not a RAW file format.

I noticed that you are exact in the definition of macro photography and adamant in the defense of that position but not so with other subjects.

snapshotsandy Loc: Snoqualmie Valley, WA

All cameras will deliver a JPEC file that is created with the settings you chose in the camera. All RAW files will only show the settings when properly converted by the software delivered with your camera, or not so good in LightRoom or other 3rd party RAW file converters. Let me know how it works out for you after you run the RAW versions through the Sony software. By the way, photoshop does not convert, just in case you were wondering. Once you get the converted file, usually a TIFF, then you can edit it in whatever software you choose. SnapShotSandy.com

snapshotsandy Loc: Snoqualmie Valley, WA

DNG is not the ideal file from a RAW file. Good but not what the manufacturer suggests.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Please define "ideal file from a RAW file".

Digital Negative (DNG) is an open lossless RAW image format written by Adobe used for digital photography.

Also, to which manufacturer are you referring....Sony, Adobe or? I don't recall seeing a suggestion or recommendation one way or another from Sony with respect to DNG.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I'd have to agree with Robert on this. They are all raw image files. It's just that all the image files that "aren't" dng, "are" proprietary raw files that do in fact hold extra data that only the camera manufacturers software can reveal and manipulate. The Adobe dng conversions are the exact raw image data less this extra data code.

I couldn't really say that dng is good or bad but for those that can't afford the latest raw imaging software converting to dng can be the answer. For those people that worry that a company like Canon or Nikon etc., could go out of business and stop supporting their proprietary raw image format then dng could be the answer. But for those people that have software that works good on proprietary raw files and are pretty secure about the future of large camera manufacturers, converting files to dng doesn't make sense to me. It's very time consuming to do this and you get the same results. I believe that if a company did go out of business then there'd always be some internet support for file conversion unless we get bombed back into the stone ages.

snapshotsandy Loc: Snoqualmie Valley, WA

The RAW file has an additional file, let's call it a "side car" file, that carries information about various settings, i.e., "Picture Style", settings and others on how the photo was taken by the camera. That "side care" file is "BEST" read by the camera manufacturer's conversion software. Hence the BEST conversion of a RAW file vs DNG which is not camera or camera manufacturer specific and produces a file that is not "Ideal". When I take serious photos, I make as many editing choices I can within the camera and set the file setting for RAW. To recover all of those in-camera settings, I use the Canon Digital Photo Professional software to convert to TIFF and then I can see all of the results of my in-camera editing. Then, I can take it into PS or LR and tinker with it if necessary, knowing that I have 100% of all the settings and data. I understand if some folks don't agree, maybe because they don't use the camera as the primary editing device and rely on computer software to make corrections. Not wrong, but don't bother using the in-camera settings if that's what you want to do.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

From your referenced Wiki article: "A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image scanner, or motion picture film scanner. Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor." The 'minimal processing' mentioned in the first sentence is simply the conversion from sensor electrons to digital 0s & 1s for memory storage or transfer. It is not referring to any type of file processing. The second sentence is self-explanatory, especially the underlined section.

From Digital Negative (DNG) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29 :
"DNG is both a raw image format and a format that supports "non-raw", or partly processed, images. The latter (non-raw) format is known as 'Linear DNG'." Clearly DNG is more than a simple capture raw format, such as NEF.

While I do concede that Adobe DNG format is consistent, I do not believe that a DNG file on a memory card from a Panasonic camera, can be be read by a Sony or any other DNG format camera.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Nikonian,
A further read of my referenced article under "Standardization" would bring you to:
Providing a detailed and concise description of the content of raw files is highly problematic. There is no single raw format; formats can be similar or radically different. Different manufacturers use their own proprietary and typically undocumented formats, which are collectively known as raw format. Often they also change the format from one camera model to the next. Several major camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon and Sony, encrypt portions of the file in an attempt to prevent third-party tools from accessing them.

Unfortunately (or depending on your viewpoint..fortunately) camera manufacturers want their systems to be proprietary even when using an open source RAW format such as DNG.

NEF is not a "simple capture raw format" as you posted but is one of those proprietary and typically undocumented formats.

There is nothing wrong with those proprietary formats as they often offer advantages such as indicated in snapshotsandy's post when using a camera manufacturer's proprietary RAW conversion software.

bugguy Loc: midwest

Thanks so much for all of the informative replies. Sorry that I could not download pics properly. Computer in shop now this post is from another one. I wasn't concerned as much with the color/lighting in regards to raw vs jpeg but the sharpness. The jpegs appeared clearer, small details like the leaves on trees seemed clearer on the jpegs. But due to the post I understand now.