RAW vs JPG quality on a cloudy day
May 12, 2019 21:02:32 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
buckscop wrote:
Amateur. Canon T7i, Canon EF-S18-135. Shot RAW+J... (show quote)
Liking your JPEGs better than RAW... Then go with the JPEGS...
Cheers!
May 12, 2019 21:48:05 #
buckscop wrote:
Amateur. Canon T7i, Canon EF-S18-135. Shot RAW+J... (show quote)
When you have spent more time with your camera you'll discover that raw offers more post processing options. Camera may be producing less noisy images, but only because the noise reduction is on. You can certainly have more control over noise/sharpness/clarity/micocontrast/detail retention when you adjust the raw file. My guess is that you'll need to spend more time shooting and processing raw. If you feel more comfortable shooting jpegs, fine. But I think on close examination your jpegs may have less noise but also less fine detail.
Reversing a crop in a raw converter is a simple matter of resetting the crop tool to no crop or a different crop.
Keep in mind that even if you edit your raw file, you may still need/want Photoshop to do the finalizing of the image. Adobe Camera Raw is a fine proofing tool, but falls short on finishing.
May 12, 2019 21:56:03 #
Sounds like you already found the answer - the higher shutter speed and lower light in the afternoon using auto ISO pushed the ISO up to where the noise became objectionable. If you’re going to push your crop body beyond ISO 3200, you’re probably going to need to utilize some noise reduction PP to get an acceptable level, and even then, I think ISO 6400 is as far as you’re going to want to go (and lower is better). You didn’t say what aperture you were using, but if you’re not close to wide open, you might try shooting at a wider aperture if available. You’ll need to be precise with your focus, but if a wider aperture is available, it will help to isolate your subject from the background and allow you to lower your ISO. If you’re already wide open or close to it, your only other alternative is maybe backing off the shutter speed a little. Those are your options unless you’re willing to move to full frame or a faster lens.
May 13, 2019 00:39:04 #
RAW is NOT an image format, it is unprocessed data. The RAW data file has an embedded JPEG thumbnail so you may view the image. The IQ of a thumbnail is no where near as good as a full blown JPEG image file so, the RAW file image (which is simply a thumbnail) will always be a poorer quality image than a processed JPEG.
May 13, 2019 06:23:40 #
tommy2
Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
This thread is what I like about this forum.
Been wondering about some of this info but didn't know how to ask. Thank you!
Been wondering about some of this info but didn't know how to ask. Thank you!
May 13, 2019 07:15:57 #
Heather Iles
Loc: UK, Somerset
tommy2 wrote:
This thread is what I like about this forum.
Been wondering about some of this info but didn't know how to ask. Thank you!
Been wondering about some of this info but didn't know how to ask. Thank you!
My sentiments too, which prove to those that give up their valuable time to explain how things are done are not wasting their time. As I said before, we are watching and learning, so folks without mentioning any names, you are all appreciated.
H
May 13, 2019 07:30:42 #
This seems to have been covered above, but I'll add my two cents.
JPEG is the camera's attempt to give you the best picture it can. Raw is everything the sensor captured, but it "raw," like a raw steak. It actually requires processing to make it look good. Nothing you post here is actually in raw format because this site requires JPEG. Try to post a raw file, and the site will either convert or reject it - I forget which.
JPEG is the camera's attempt to give you the best picture it can. Raw is everything the sensor captured, but it "raw," like a raw steak. It actually requires processing to make it look good. Nothing you post here is actually in raw format because this site requires JPEG. Try to post a raw file, and the site will either convert or reject it - I forget which.
May 13, 2019 07:36:20 #
jerryc41 wrote:
This seems to have been covered above, but I'll add my two cents.
JPEG is the camera's attempt to give you the best picture it can. Raw is everything the sensor captured, but it "raw," like a raw steak. It actually requires processing to make it look good. Nothing you post here is actually in raw format because this site requires JPEG. Try to post a raw file, and the site will either convert or reject it - I forget which.
JPEG is the camera's attempt to give you the best picture it can. Raw is everything the sensor captured, but it "raw," like a raw steak. It actually requires processing to make it look good. Nothing you post here is actually in raw format because this site requires JPEG. Try to post a raw file, and the site will either convert or reject it - I forget which.
Someone did successfully posted RAW files. I don't know how he did it but it display in the post as only a download link and no image. But when I clicked on it I can download the RAW files.
May 13, 2019 07:49:44 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Any file can be posted; it's the file size that is the issue. As Bebu says, you will see a download link, not a thumbnail. Word docs, pdf's, raw, dng and tif have all been posted.Nothing you post here is actually in raw format because this site requires JPEG.
May 13, 2019 08:11:04 #
thumbnails. i only use thumbnails to pick the keepers, it was when I open them in RAW that I noticed the grain. Linda..... the ISO range of the good am shots were 600-1200, pm shots 2000-5000 and higher. As a hobbyist, my main question was because I shot RAW/jpg, why was the RAW more grainy in the poorer light than the matching jpg was. With my limited knowledge I would have thought it would be worse than the same RAW image.
May 13, 2019 08:25:19 #
buckscop wrote:
thumbnails. i only use thumbnails to pick the keepers, it was when I open them in RAW that I noticed the grain. Linda..... the ISO range of the good am shots were 600-1200, pm shots 2000-5000 and higher. As a hobbyist, my main question was because I shot RAW/jpg, why was the RAW more grainy in the poorer light than the matching jpg was. With my limited knowledge I would have thought it would be worse than the same RAW image.
The question asked has now been answered by multiple respondents.
May 13, 2019 08:25:24 #
May 13, 2019 09:03:16 #
Heather Iles
Loc: UK, Somerset
buckscop wrote:
thumbnails. i only use thumbnails to pick the keepers, it was when I open them in RAW that I noticed the grain. Linda..... the ISO range of the good am shots were 600-1200, pm shots 2000-5000 and higher. As a hobbyist, my main question was because I shot RAW/jpg, why was the RAW more grainy in the poorer light than the matching jpg was. With my limited knowledge I would have thought it would be worse than the same RAW image.
I will try to see if I can help as I don't know much more than you do, but this is how it works. In RAW the camera captures the details only and nothing is done to it so if the light is bad, it is going to be worse or a bad picture. With RAW all the details are captured but they have to be brought out in processing. For that reason that is why your RAW photos were not as acceptable to you.
With the camera takes a picture in JPEG it processes it the best it can so that the photo is as good or a reasonably good picture. If the light was good you will get what looks like a perfect picture. If the light was poor it will still look good, but not as good.
I hope that helps. I am sure that the others will try and help you further.
May 13, 2019 10:23:32 #
Thanks everyone for your answers. I certainly learned more about RAW and about camera software re: working the image it takes.
Thanks again!!
Thanks again!!
May 13, 2019 12:25:41 #
buckscop wrote:
Thanks everyone for your answers. I certainly learned more about RAW and about camera software re: working the image it takes.
Thanks again!!
Thanks again!!
I run into this white balance issue a lot when shooting high school sports. When it gets cloudy, you can switch to the "cloudy" setting on your white balance. If it's not satisfactory to you, then try the "shade" setting. Either of these will warm up the shots and take away the bluish tint. That's what I see in your am and pm shots--a tinge of blue in the grass and skin. Whenever I know that I will be shooting late into the day or early evening, I will take my D3s to cover the higher iso range.
As others have mentioned, when the lighting drops off, open up your f-stop to keep the iso down. Normally I shoot at f/5.6, but when it gets cloudy and my D500 creeps up to iso 1600, I'll keep increasing the aperture to try to hold down the iso. I crop tightly a lot of the times to get facial expressions and elbow/shoving in soccer, so I hate noise. Noise is a problem on crop-sensor cameras and you'll see it every time the iso climbs above 800.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.