JPG vs. RAW (Page 36): I don't understand what that tells us.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

therwol wrote:

I just went out with my Nikon D850 and took a pict... (show quote)

I don't understand what that tells us.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Blink test to compare images. Looks like there is some lens correction being applied.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

DirtFarmer wrote:

Blink test to compare images. Looks like there is some lens correction being applied.

They are all JPEGs. There are no raw files there.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Blenheim Orange wrote:

They are all JPEGs. There are no raw files there.

According to the poster, they are screen shots

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

therwol wrote:

I just went out with my Nikon D850 and took a picture of a tree, RAW +JPEG. Same with my car. When viewed in a simple photo viewer like MS Photos, the pictures look different. I think that better or worse would be a crapshoot. ...

It's not a matter of better or worse. It depends on how the camera is set up to make its JPEG.

The manufacturer has a collection of subjects and tries to pick settings (sharpness, tonality, saturation, etc.) that makes the majority of images look best.

If you pick a specific scene it might not be different enough from the average to look bad. On the other hand, it might.

It's like the difference between a dumb bomb and a smart bomb. Making adjustments after the bomb is released makes it easier to hit the target.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

selmslie wrote:

...It's like the difference between a dumb bomb and a smart bomb. Making adjustments after the bomb is released makes it easier to hit the target.

Someone (not I) came up with the comparison:

It's the difference between fast food and home cooking. Home cooking is always better as long as you know how to cook.

Bill_de Loc: US

I always get confused with this type of comparison. As far as I know, whatever we are looking at here is a JPG ???

What am I missing?

---

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Bill_de wrote:

I always get confused with this type of comparison. As far as I know, whatever we are looking at here is a JPG ???

What am I missing?

---

If you’re looking at it, it’s a jpg. You can’t really look at the raw data. The question is: is the jpg directly from the camera, the preview extracted from the raw file, or a jpg from an editor?

I would guess the sooc and the preview would look the same since they were both generated in the camera.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Bill_de wrote:

I always get confused with this type of comparison. As far as I know, whatever we are looking at here is a JPG ???

What am I missing?

---

Simple, the difference between the two images viewed.

Bill_de Loc: US

DirtFarmer wrote:

If you’re looking at it, it’s a jpg. You can’t really look at the raw data. The question is: is the jpg directly from the camera, the preview extracted from the raw file, or a jpg from an editor?

I would guess the sooc and the preview would look the same since they were both generated in the camera.

What I can't grasp:

We post a jpg, which is process in or out of camera. Either way there are setting that determine what we see.

A raw file also has to have settings applied, or we couldn't view them. What stops the settings applied to the raw file matching what we see in the jpg.

After all, what we see on screen, if I'm not mistaken, is a jpg.

I may have to sit on the sideline until AI does it all for me.

---

therwol Loc: USA

Bill_de wrote:

I always get confused with this type of comparison. As far as I know, whatever we are looking at here is a JPG ???

What am I missing?

---

You are looking at screenshots that show a different rendering of jpegs versus RAW files on my computer monitor. The jpegs and RAW files were taken simultaneously by my camera. The screenshots were converted to jpegs for the purpose of posting.

Bill_de Loc: US

therwol wrote:

You are looking at screenshots that show a different rendering of jpegs versus RAW files on my computer monitor. The jpegs and RAW files were taken simultaneously by my camera. The screenshots were converted to jpegs for the purpose of posting.

Are there any adjustable settings when converting from raw to jpg, or is everything baked into the cake?

---

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Bill_de wrote:

What I can't grasp:

We post a jpg, which is process in or out of camera. Either way there are setting that determine what we see.

A raw file also has to have settings applied, or we couldn't view them. What stops the settings applied to the raw file matching what we see in the jpg.

1. The camera maker may or may not make the camera applied process settings available for you to apply to the raw file outside of the camera.

2. The processing you apply to the raw file outside of the camera may not be available to apply in the camera.

As a result (make/model dependent) you may or may not be able to use the same settings to process a raw file outside the camera that were used by the camera to create the SOOC JPEG.

For example I can apply different noise filtering to a raw file than is available to apply in the camera resulting in different final images.

Bill_de wrote:

After all, what we see on screen, if I'm not mistaken, is a jpg.

I may have to sit on the sideline until AI does it all for me.

---

If you download the image below what you see will not be a JPEG -- it's a PNG. And the downloaded image has never been a JPEG at any time in it's transition from camera to posting here on UHH.

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Bill_de wrote:

Are there any adjustable settings when converting from raw to jpg, or is everything baked into the cake?

---

Yes, many but not all camera settings that affect the output JPEG are user adjustable. The same goes for processing a raw file using a computer and raw conversion software. They're just not identical in the results they produce.

Bill_de Loc: US

Ysarex wrote:

Yes, many but not all camera settings that affect the output JPEG are user adjustable. The same goes for processing a raw file using a computer and raw conversion software. They're just not identical in the results they produce.

Thanks VERY MUCH for both of your replies!

___