twosummers Loc: Melbourne Australia or Lincolnshire England

Hey experts, here's a question you don't see every day - how do I convert a RAW file to a JPEG image with no adjustments whatsoever, zero, zilch, nada, nil. I think all of my "processing apps" do some adjustments when loading a RAW file for processing.

My reasoning is that I wanted to illustrate a "before" and "after" image showing the power of post-processing. I know that RAW images are a bit flat but I need to show that but need to have a useable file in JPEG or similar format.

Many thanks

James

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

What software are you using?
In Lightroom I use a preset that removes all adjusments that LR makes when importing the raw file.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

I downloaded a program called "Instant JPEG from Raw". I believe it was a free program. It produces two jpegs from the raw file. I needed it to view all the RAW files in a folder. It can put the jpegs in another folder separate from the RAW or in the same folder beside each Raw file.

BebuLamar

I think other manufacturers do the same but with Nikon if you do the conversion using their free software it would be exactly the same as the in camera JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yes, it depends on the editor.

I'd set all the sliders in Canon's DPP editor to center (neutral), then save as a JPEG.
My Canon can have the sliders set differently for various modes in the camera.
I might not have a "neutral" one set.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Your camera probably has an option in the menu to allow you shoot a pic and have it saved as both a jpeg and RAW file.
When you download the pics these will be side by side---the as shot RAW and the jpg.
Hope this is what you are looking for.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Depends on if his camera has "presets" set for different modes.
The in-camera JPEG is saved using the preset (slider) settings.

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

This is not as easy as it sounds. It has been tried many times on this and other forums with mixed results.

Your best bet is either to save raw+jpg or to use the manufacturer's software to convert raw to jpg, but to illustrate differences convincingly you will have to pick special cases such as high dynamic range or bad exposure.

I'm a proponent of shooting raw, but I agree with the jpg shooters that for many shots, the jpg can do just fine as long as it is properly exposed and white balanced. I think that creative effects would be better done starting with the raw file, but for ordinary photos the jpg can do it.

I shoot raw only because it forces me to run the image file through processing to get a jpg. Since I use Lightroom, that puts all my images into a DAM. At my age, the DAM is the only way I can find things. I also enjoy being able to port an image to Photoshop and back into the DAM when it comes to stacking, panoramas, or creative transmogrification.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

It is more than a bit, RAW must be processed or they look like S***! Stop with over thinking it or making excuses. Even all Raw files are not identical. Cameras have different sensors, different processors, different factory spec., Fuji Sensors are very different from most other brands of Sensors such as Sony (used in Sony, Nikon, Pentax cameras), or Canon (they make their own). So every possible image of a real object is "processed" in some way to some extent.

"I think all of my "processing apps" do some adjustments when loading a RAW file for processing."

Yes, and quite likely JPGs as well. The only thing pure it likely a RAW in the camera, once it is copied or moved it is likely "interpreted" in some ways.

As like using different films, and the same film shot at different ISOs (ASAs), and developed differently. Also everyone's monitor shows a file slightly differently. So in a sense there is no point to what you are trying to "show". Sorry, but the entire topic is not that original. Though, you may get some amusing replies. Lets see if the arguments go on for 15 pages.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

".....how do I convert a RAW file to a JPEG image with no adjustments whatsoever"

You can't. A RAW file is the bits of zeros and ones that make up data. To be visible it has to be processed by something, even anything.

If you want to demonstrate the power of RAW shooting you have to find a scene that has a brightness (or other component) that ranges beyond "normal". Take a RAW shot and a JPEG shot. Then demonstrate what moving the adjustment tools can do.

TBerwick Loc: Houston, Texas

I use Luminar and you can easily set it up so that no filters or effects are applied when you open a RAW file.

BebuLamar

JPEG files are also bits of zeros and ones that make up the data two. In fact all computer files are zeros and ones.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

True. Unprocessed RAW images do not even show up in my "Pictures" files. Must be worked on in some way.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Your camera has settings that need to be set to 0.This will screw up your jpeg if shooting raw+jpeg
You need to use your camera manufacturer's raw processor (available to download) as all programs display raw files differently.
saving as a jpg will alter how the raw file looks on screen, but this is as near as you can get.

If your purpose is to show 'differences' as a teaching aid....then as others have suggested, 'Represent' it by exaggerating the 'problems' in camera settings 'as jpegs' and take a similar shot using raw so that you can 'compensate' with some success.

to be honest, raw compensation at the extreme, should be taught as being a 'settings' fault rather than suggesting PP as a 'get out of jail' token fix.

have fun

I use a variety of post processing....I understand that images are 'corrected' to my choices alone....it does not make a bad image 'perfect'.