bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

JPEG vs RAW gets A LOT of discussion here.

JPEG, straight out of the camera, can be the finished image with the camera applying contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. Time need not be spent on post processing.

RAW has all the data, but may be flat without any contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. RAWs are not finished, and deserve some work. Post processing can be time consuming.

RAWs have more light data in them than JPEGs.

Can you have "developed" RAWs as quickly as JPEGs? Will they be "better" than the JPEG with the lost data? Can current versions of artificial intelligence do more to a RAW than a camera can do making a JPEG?

I picked an image with nasty light and a variety of color. The camera was set to RAW+JPEG. The first is the straight out of the camera JPEG. The second is the straight out of the camera, unprocessed RAW. The third is the RAW automatically processed with Adobe's latest and greatest Sensai A.I. processing. (To post here, the RAWs had to be converted to JPEGs, so here all are technically JPEGs.)

The "Auto Develop" can be applied to an entire Import batch. No post processing work or time required. In both cases, a machine is doing the post processing.

When might it make sense to rely on Auto adjust on Import instead of JPEGs?

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

blackest Loc: Ireland

Well the first seems to have patches of green instead of yellow on the boat but much less grain , 2 and 3 don't have the green but a lot more grain and 3 has lightened the shadows.

3 is probably best of the 3 there is no exif but i'd guess it's from a canon dslr.

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

I wonder if this presentation reveals what's being done in each photo. For example, the second, straight out of the camera, is also a rendering by some intermediate process, else it would be just digits.
I don't know if one can post a raw "photo" for others to experiment with, but that might be a learning experience.

BebuLamar

My RAW looks exactly the same as my JPEG before I make any adjustment.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It is not possible to tell from just one isolated image. But if the goal is quick and dirty, nothing beats a SOOC jpeg. If the goal is something better, nothing beats the process raw - even if you do some autoprocessing, then finishing in Photoshop. If you apply artistic interpretation, then jpegs and generally useless.

Sensai A.I. processing only addresses tone, exposure, contrast, black/white and some clarity and vibrance/saturation - it does not address sharpening or noise reduction. My guess is that the camera was set to remove noise. This is another factor that prevents this from being a fair or representative comparison.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I always shoot raw and nowdays try auto develop (after zeroing any other changes LR made during import). It sometimes makes a good start and sometimes it is enough, except sharpening.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The raw sensor data cannot be viewed directly, so any image viewer that appears to show it to you is actually showing the embedded preview jpeg image. That of course is exactly the same jpeg as the camera outputs as a jpeg file.

They appear to be exactly the same because they are exactly the same!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

If you were half as smart as you think you are you would have downloaded the originals and noticed the differences but then again....

If you are simply addressing the JPG and the raw's thumbnail I would agree with you.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

One can argue blue in the face and die of high blood pressure in this type of thread...

If you save both raw + JPG initially using a simple viewer the two images will be the same as the viewer will read the raw embedded JPG which is the same as the JPG created in camera. Try using different quality of JPG setting (compression) and you will notice the similarity*.

No auto convert... It depends of what software you use. The reason is simple. You can use any program (as well as the camera) to create your JPG. The difference between them will depend of what is considered good by the guy who created the software - in or out of camera. There is no way around that. Which is better? A matter of taste, nothing more.

What I do not understand is why would someone shoot raw, a format that offer full control of the sensor output in PP, and then relinquish the opportunity to exploit the capture potential in order to create a 'canned' output....

-----
* ACDSee by example allows a choice - View the raw output (conversion that can take a few seconds - bitmap w/o compression) or the thumbnail (instant).

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Not a Canon. It was a Panasonic M4/3.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Hooray for jpeg. No. One wins

BebuLamar

It's not an embedded JPEG. It's a converted image from the RAW using the exact same settings as in the camera.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

This is your SOOC JPG with a quick adjustment which could have been done in camera before the shot?

(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If I'm using a picture for anything important (or semi important), I'll process it, whether it's raw or JPEG. I take a lot of pictures of projects I'm working on just to show how to put something back together again. Those don't need processing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

They are not the same. Even the thumbnails are different. Obviously, the question went right over your head. The “unprocessed raw” shows the difference between the camra’s default processing and the computer’s.