bunuweld Loc: Arizona

I am not sure whether you mean that you do not do any post-processing of the RAW pictures. The unprocessed RAW images will almost always look worse when you simply convert them to JPEG. The camera already does some processing not only by compressing, but by balancing exposure, contrast and black-and-white balance as well before delivering them to you as JPEGs. However, If the RAW picture is post-processed by you, the results ought to be far superior to the camera's JPEGs in most cases. If you do not do any post-processing, you must as well set the camera to take only JPEG, saving card-memory's as well as computer's space.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

It sounds like you're using the wrong color space. When saving or in LR's case, Exporting, you need to make sure you use sRGB for the web or printing. If you are going to edit in another program like CS6, then keep the original color space, probably Adobe RGB, and then convert to sRGB just before you save for web or print.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

[quote=abc1234]I am not happy when exporting RAW's to JPG's. Though I am using Lightroom 4.3, I suspect that this is a general problem and not one specific to LR. The pictures look very good in LR but the resulting JPG's are darker and just do not look good.

I could just make all the RAW's lighter and hope for the best but I do not like guessing. Has anyone else noticed this problem? Am I missing a preset or other setting?



The truth here is that a RAW image contains all the date that your sensor recorded at the time of exposure and you can
do a considerable amount to it without using any of that data.
Jpeg is a file storage format which was developed for purposes such as sending images over the internet. THis usually requires downsizing of the image (loss of data) and image compression (more loss). Although the image is decompressed when you reopen it, the software cannot accurately replace the lost data; it uses a sort of intelligent guesswork to restore the missing pixels to what it 'thinks' they might have been.
My recommendation would be to:

set your camera to save images as RAW files.
convert them to D.n.g. raw, which is a universal RAW format (as opposed to the dozens of manufacturers formats, which vary even from camera to camera model from the same manufacturer) and save these. (D.n.g. converter is a free download from Adobe if you don't have it).
Open the d.n.g.'s in Adobe Camera Raw and process them using the ACR software, then save as Photoshop psd files.
Reopen the psd's for further refinement in Photoshop (tou can't do everything in ACR. Resave as psd.


I know that the saved file sizes will be large, bu you really want to keep as much data as you can. One major advantage of psd is that it saves all your image layers, adjustment layers etc, so that can go back to the image and make further adjustments as you find them to be necessary. If you start to run out of storage space, you can buy an external hard drive ; they are comparatively cheap nowadays.

GHK

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I have been using Picasa which converts, then save as a jpg. Would like to start using DPP. Can you describe easiest way to load then export finished images as jpg's using DPP please? I think this program will be what I am looking for. I am afraid my work flow skills are not the best. Would appreciate any help you could offer.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Bob, you raise a number of good points. I use a Canon 60D. I am not obsessed with Adobe. Having used Adobe and Corel products since 1995, I think the user interface and intuitive feel of Corel has Adobe beat by far. However, the reality is that Adobe owns the American market. I use Adobe in spite of the generally incomprehensible user interfaces because whether you like it or not, it is the standard for those of use who use it professionally. The latest versions of Elements and Lightroom are finally more user-friendly and I am looking forward to CS6. Moreover, you can find so much help for the products in print or on the web, for free or for fee. This help unlocks the power of Adobe products in way the competitors do not.

Having started in the darkroom in 1959, I want the local control that I learned in conventional photography. I do not know if the Canon programs offer it but Adobe and Corel sure do.

I doubt if the camera manufacturers do as good a job writing software as Adobe or Corel. The former is content for providing the basics to casual photographers. The latter reach into many worlds: creative, print, web, movies, digital asset management and more.

Croce Loc: Earth

[quote=GHK]
Hi GHK, I am in agreement with all your points but question one. I prefer to save in TIFF with layers rather than psd. and do not really know why other than the fact that I feel the TIFF is certainly more flexible and not reliant on Photoshop to view or change. Any comment on this point?? Thanks. PS ... I feel TIFF is also good for avoiding the deterioration of repeated saves on JPEG's. If I have a JPEG I feel I may be making an interim change on (sizing, sharpening etc) I convert the save to TIFF to avoid deterioration.

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Firestone does not know my car better but I wouldn't go far without Firestone. It would also be hard to finesse into those delicate parallel parking spaces and those hairpin turns would be almost impossible. I guess it just depends on how far down the road you want to go.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

My usual steps, may need to be altered for your machine ,
#1Zoom browser configured to import and save in date named folder, #2 copy to backup,
#3 Open DPP, navigate to folder, double click on RAW image (JPG also appears), RAW tab adjust white balance, brightness, etc,
#4 RGB tab histogram adjustments, additional brightness color sharpness etc.
#5 NR/ALO tab noise reduction
#6 when satisfied click file, convert and save,
#7 when exiting I NEVER save changes to RAW,

hope this helps, took some trial and error,

Bob.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

GHK[/quote]
Hi GHK, I am in agreement with all your points but question one. I prefer to save in TIFF with layers rather than psd. and do not really know why other than the fact that I feel the TIFF is certainly more flexible and not reliant on Photoshop to view or change. Any comment on this point?? Thanks. PS ... I feel TIFF is also good for avoiding the deterioration of repeated saves on JPEG's. If I have a JPEG I feel I may be making an interim change on (sizing, sharpening etc) I convert the save to TIFF to avoid deterioration.[/quote]

No real disagreement; I process every image using photoshop so it is convenient to save as psd.
I do not use jpg at all, except for projection or transmission over the net; as you say, there is too much loss.

GHK

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

I'm wondering if you see the differences between RAW and JPEG in the printed image. If so it may relate to a calibration of your computer and printer. Just a thought.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Your help is very much appreciated. Going to try in a few minutes with latest card of RAW shots. Thank you for a timely and concise reply.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I use Corel after DPP, DPP is not the total answer, I just feel that the people that wrote the code best know how to adjust it, Adobe puts me off with the complexity and the price, BTW started in the darkroom 61/62, Bob.

PhotoGator Loc: Florida

Interesting article from Scott Kelby's blog about how to save space in camera by only shooting RAW and then using IJFR to extract jpeg from raw.

http://scottkelby.com/2008/its-guest-blog-wednesday-featuring-michael-tapes/

Link to IJFR (Instant JPEG from RAW utility) courtesy of Michael Tapes.
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/MNU13W3DXTs

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Around here Firestone also does repair and maintenance, I know as I do not trust one of the dealers around here.

CanonFire Loc: Phoenixville, PA

I have no clue what might be going wrong with your jpgs. I process my raw files in Lightroom 4.3 and when I export them as jpg they look identical to my processed raw file.

I don't know what preset you could be refering to. Are you perhaps exporting them with a very low quality compression?