blackest Loc: Ireland

[quote=Delderby][quote=Bobbee]

Also, if I did not want to edit the RAW, I could.......just go into PS, click the Image Processor button, and boom, I have JPGS.

I shoot raw and jpeg, but I could just shoot raw and still be able to get exactly the same jpeg image that I would have got minutes or months or years later.

There is a menu item on the camera which says develop this image and I can choose which jpeg variation the camera will process to, there is a huge number of variations, e.g natural, vivid, black & white...
Then there are sub categories e.g filters, red yellow, blue, green, infra red. Then there is sharpening coarse and fine (-5 to +5), noise reduction similar variations, white balance (several preset + custom) and a whole bunch of other variations.

Do you see now that the in camera jpeg depends on the settings you put into the camera maybe months or years earlier, maybe you just left everything at the factory default settings. There is no "only one true jpeg".

To be fair, I might be giving the camera less work to do if I just shot raw only it would still record my default jpeg parameters/ settings and just write the buffer contents to the card.

Rather than having to process the image in a fraction of a second with my default jpeg settings and compress it which is what it does every time I press the shutter and get it to write a jpeg to my card. That is very impressive when you consider how much longer it takes a PC or Mac to do the same job.

If you think about it just shooting jpeg is the digital equivalent of getting your films developed at walmart, for most people the only choice they made was 24 or 36 exposures, most places didn't even process black & white! Prints were just prints no dodging or burning applied no pushing the process.

If walmart style, one size fits all processing suits your needs, your welcome to it.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The "thumbnail JPG" in a CR2 file is not a "little thumbnail". There are actually two, one is full size and the other is half size.


There are no programs that can directly show you the raw sensor image from the CR2 file in any form that looks like a regular image. None. All of them do one of two things, they either show the embedded JPEG made by the camera, or they convert the raw sensor data to an RGB image and display that. If they convert to RGB, there are multiple possible defaults for the configuration. One is the basic set of defaults of the RAW converter, another is the camera configuration as embedded in the Exif data, and a third is some other default, such as using the last set of parameters used and saved for converting another RAW file.

Obviously you need to determine exactly what you are looking at to make a comparison, and in no case are you ever able to compare anything to a "bare RAW file".

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You are telling us what most Hogs know already.
The conversation was about a JPG developed from RAW in an editing prog without making any adjustments, which, depending on which prog is used, could well mean that the RAW, viewed say, in Canon's proprietary editor - is not RAW at all - but the JPG embedded in the RAW. :-)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You're pretty close, but there are some other very significant ramifications to your points too!

First, the camera does make the JPEG image even if you just shoot in RAW. That JPEG is embedded in the RAW file, and used for display on the camera's LCD screen.

The only time saved by not using RAW+JPEG is the time required to write the data to a separate file. Shoot JPEG and it doesn't write the RAW file, shoot RAW and it doesn't write the JPEG file. It does, in any case, have all of the data for each of the files in memory.

But your casual mention of how fast the camera converts raw sensor data to JPEG compared to what it takes on an external computer is really interesting. The reason the camera is fast is because the camera is crude. I mean really crude!

One example that is easy to demonstrate is that a Nikon D800 JPEG produced by the camera is 7360x4912 pixels. Which is 36.152 MP. But note that the specifications say the "effective" pixel count is 36.3 MP, and in the NEF file, in the Exif data says there are 7424x4924 pixels! That is in fact 36.555776 MP! (Not all the pixels
on a horizontal row are image pixels. Some 46 columns are not image pixels, and some of them are actually covered up to provide a "black" reference.)

That's confusing. But we can un-confuse it at least a little. If we use an external RAW converter, other than those from Nikon, they will produce a JPEG that is 7378x4924 (36.3 MP). The difference is because it takes a very complex, and thus very slow, algorithm to utilize the outer edges of the sensor.

In addition, the noise reduction algorithms used by the camera are just as crude for the same reason. Also the camera has increments for each parameter from -5 to +5, while the computer program goes from -6.00 to +6.00 in 1/100ths of unit for brightness, and 0 to 100 for contrast in 1/100ths of a unit, and has similarly finer granularity for every other adjustment. Color Balance multipliers are in 1/1000th, for example.

There is just no comparison! The camera is super fast and is not at all precise. The computer program is very precise and not fast at all.

I want a camera that operates fast. But I want images produced by precise configuration. I shoot RAW, and use an external converter.


Well said!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

YES some professions use jpeg exclusively for professional constraints or requirements but FINE ART Professionals who print 40 x 60 prints, and and larger are working from RAW not jpeg. I mentioned earlier that some professions need to work in jpeg due to the nature of their work. That is fine. The best image optimization comes from RAW not jpeg.

I don't sell, I teach it and love it. I am a College Professor, with a BFA and MFA. What are your credentials?? That $2300 wouldn't pay rent in California. But I am glad you are making it work for you. BUT is is just you not others and not a majority of ART professionals . Sports photographers, jpeg - sure. BUT that is a niche of the photographic world, it is not the majority.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Not to confuse the issue but many sports photographers for Sports Ilustrated, ESPN and other outlets where speed can matter due to publishing constraints and internet display. Nikon ( and I am pretty sure Canon) have ethernet and wireless ethernet (and I don't mean wi-fi cards) that connect to servers placed in arena locals for their use. What happens is that when they take a photo at an NBA Playoff game, NFL Playoff, College bowl game, Olympics, or other major event, their images are immediately offloaded from the camera to the server. There, the editing staff has imediate access to the photos for uploading to webpages or planning for publications. This gives the editors who are located in NYC, Connecticut or where ever immediate access to photos being taken in LA, Miami, or anywhere in the world via wide area networking. Often times, these images are both jpg and RAW in order to give the editors the widest choice of how they will present the images. Also, this is how the still cameras that are setup to shoot remotely, like above the backboard at a basketball game or other places where having a photographer would be impratical or unsafe are taken. This is another reason why many sports photographers shoot Raw + Jpg. It gives the editing staff choices on the fly.

HarryBinNC Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA

I have had 4 Nikon DSLRs over the years, and have always shot RAW + Large Fine JPG. Until my last (and I do mean my last) DSLR, a D800, I had to color correct and do significant sharpening on just about every image. With the D800, I rarely sharpen (except for pre-print) but still have to correct for the slight yellowish cast typical of OOC Nikon images. Since I always have RAW images to work with, I just automatically do my post-processing with them for the highest possible quality.

Now that I have both Fuji X and Lumix MFT system cameras, both of which have amazingly good colors and sharpness OOC, I rarely do much post-processing at all, and even more rarely resort to the RAW images.

Finally, for what it's worth, I can't see myself EVER buying another DSLR, not when superb mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X APS (1.5 crop just like most of the crop sensor SLRs) and MFTs from Panasonic and Olympus are available.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I have JPGs that get up into the 30 MB range. They are panoramas that I create using Photoshop's Photomerge function. My largest was 72 inches long by 30 inches high. It was a picture of a unique house here in San Diego that I created from 16 individual pictures. Also sold it to the owner of the house for $6,000; it hangs in his great room.

I have never used Canon's RAW program because I've been using Photoshop, Photo-Paint, and PaintShop Pro since their first versions many years ago.

When I take a RAW file of any type into Photoshop, I believe (I could be wrong) that it is the "real RAW" since the file name is in the menu bar and always ends in the name of the RAW file (DNG, CR2, etc.). Of course, one could adjust it in Bridge before it gets to Photoshop but if I simply accept the Bridge defaults and go to Photoshop and compare the files side by side, the DNG file is always flatter than the camera maker's files.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Ah-ha! I finally got you to admit that your over generalization is not true.


Again, it's good to see you admit that you over generalized.

As my wise old grandmother used to say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

That is great - nothing like a satisfied customer. :thumbup:

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

LOL and those who cant teach either coach or administer teachers to be better administrators or coaches.. :D

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Actually if you even read my ALL of my posts in this forum, I agree to specific needs such as photojournalists, sports (due to submission time constraints for publications) and wedding photographers (some not all). BUT, these people are not putting the best image forward and they do it by choice. They are not optimizing the jpeg. Let me REPEAT, they are not optimizing the jpeg. Optimization is BEST done from a RAW image.

What is your argument and provide me with your qualifications..

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is true and it is very relevant to the discussion.

And it is as opposed to the example of a school photographer that shoots in JPEG mode for thousands of shots, but all with precisely identical lighting. The camera is carefully configured to optimize exactly that setup, and no exposures are randomly different.

Which is very different than shooting a wedding or general purpose photojournalism. A lot of sports though might be virtually the same, and JPEG is wonderful there too.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

You portray everything that is wrong with teachers.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

That's not what 4000 students that I have taught over the last 20+ years have said and recorded nor any of my peer reviews in digital image editing and photography across multiple disciplines including animation and illustration. I am sorry you misunderstood and did not comprehend. Have a great day...