How RAW is RAW (Page 2): So ... when the camera/PC software makes a visual of RAW for me to edit, will that JPG have the parameters I set for the "original" JPG as generated by the...

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

rook2c4 wrote:

This is something that many photographers, particularly beginners, fail to understand. Obviously RAW editors need to display an image (based on default settings) to facilitate making adjustments - without some sort of visual reference this would be nearly impossible, like working in the dark. The starting point may or may not be based on camera settings; a good RAW editor will give the user this option in its settings menu.

So ... when the camera/PC software makes a visual of RAW for me to edit, will that JPG have the parameters I set for the "original" JPG as generated by the camera OR will it use some other "starting point" for White Balance, Sharpness, Color, etc?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

johngault007 wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I save RAW+JPEG only for the ease of viewing the JPEG in Windows Explorer. I don't use a cataloger. I peruse the JPEGs and then edit the RAW for ones I want to work with. If I save only RAW, my burst capability goes from maybe four to maybe nine. I do this sometimes to get the higher burst rate when needed, like ocean waves. Most of my postings are not the full-size JPEG, don't need that for a good viewing rendition on a computer, or printing 4x6s.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Longshadow wrote:

I save RAW+JPEG only for the ease of viewing the JPEG in Windows Explorer. I don't use a cataloger. I peruse the JPEGs and then edit the RAW for ones I want to work with. If I save only RAW, my burst capability goes from maybe four to maybe nine. I do this sometimes to get the higher burst rate when needed, like ocean waves. Most of my postings are not the full-size JPEG, don't need that for a good viewing rendition on a computer, or printing 4x6s.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

cameraf4 wrote:

So ... when the camera/PC software makes a visual of RAW for me to edit, will that JPG have the parameters I set for the "original" JPG as generated by the camera OR will it use some other "starting point" for White Balance, Sharpness, Color, etc?

If you use computer software supplied by your camera manufacturer then you may have the option to get a starting point that's the same as the settings you used on the camera to create the camera JPEG. If you use any other software then you will get a starting point provided by the engineers who created that software along with any options in the software you may have selected.

Joe

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

cameraf4 wrote:

So ... when the camera/PC software makes a visual of RAW for me to edit, will that JPG have the parameters I set for the "original" JPG as generated by the camera OR will it use some other "starting point" for White Balance, Sharpness, Color, etc?

In most instances, the camera generated JPEG will be created with the parameters that are set in the camera. With my Canon, those parameters are in something called a "style". I can use different styles or create three of my own.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

If you use computer software supplied by your camera manufacturer then you may have the option to get a starting point that's the same as the settings you used on the camera to create the camera JPEG. If you use any other software then you will get a starting point provided by the engineers who created that software along with any options in the software you may have selected.

Joe

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

"Yep, I've done that. The JPEGs that our Nikon cameras create are very good. Given the original raw file I will always beat the camera and deliver an final photo with better overall IQ."

Thanks, Joe, I have been very pleased with the FINE-STAR JPGs that I get, especially those from my D850. But I'm not sure what you mean here by "...I will always beat the camera..." Are we talkin' buggy-whip here or what?

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Longshadow wrote:

What you see in the RAW editor is not a JPEG, it is a rendering by the editor of the RAW data for one to view.
Notice that one of the save options is "Save as JPEG"? The editor has to convert the rendered "image" you are viewing to save it as a JPEG.

Now when my PC displays this "rendering" on screen for me to see,Bill, is the rendering displayed as a JPG, a Bitmap, or some other "whatever"?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

cameraf4 wrote:

"Yep, I've done that. The JPEGs that our Nikon cameras create are very good. Given the original raw file I will always beat the camera and deliver an final photo with better overall IQ."

Thanks, Joe, I have been very pleased with the FINE-STAR JPGs that I get, especially those from my D850. But I'm not sure what you mean here by "...I will always beat the camera..." Are we talkin' buggy-whip here or what?

I will always produce a final image with superior IQ (image quality).

Joe

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

johngault007 wrote:

...I know that in DarkTable, there are 4-6 modules that have to process the RAW data before it's in a viewable state to continue post processing.

Thanks, John. Never heard of "DarkTable" before. Sounds like something from the SiFi Channel.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

cameraf4 wrote:

Now when my PC displays this "rendering" on screen for me to see,Bill, is the rendering displayed as a JPG, a Bitmap, or some other "whatever"?

It's displayed as an RGB image.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-630446-1.html#10911723

Joe

IDguy Loc: Idaho

cameraf4 wrote:

Thanks, John. Never heard of "DarkTable" before. Sounds like something from the SiFi Channel.

Free competitor to Lightroom. Looks quite good but I haven’t learned it. I’m sticking with Lightroom.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

cameraf4 wrote:

Now when my PC displays this "rendering" on screen for me to see,Bill, is the rendering displayed as a JPG, a Bitmap, or some other "whatever"?

No, it's displayed as an "image", it's a rendering. It is not a JPEG.

(I know.... looks like a JPEG looks, but it's a rendering. A JPEG is one type of rendering that is transportable and viewable because it is a standard format.)

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

cameraf4 wrote:

Thanks, John. Never heard of "DarkTable" before. Sounds like something from the SiFi Channel.

LOL, that's pretty funny!

It's just my preference, but I truly believe everyone uses what fits their needs and gets them the results they like.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

IDguy wrote:

Free competitor to Lightroom. Looks quite good but I haven’t learned it. I’m sticking with Lightroom.

I wouldn't say competitor. It's free, and is post processing software. And yes, sticking with what works and you are comfortable with is always best, and will net the best results.

I only mentioned it to demonstrate to how RAW data is displayed for me, and that there has to be some translation of data to get a visual representation on screen.