Camera profile
Aug 11, 2017 14:15:05 #
Maybe the answer is so basic and obvious that I am missing it but I will ask anyway.... assume one is shooting Raw and Jpeg onto the card. In ACR I have the camera profile mode set to the same as the camera... Is the projected Jpeg image I see when processing the RAW image the same as the Jpeg saved to the card ? To make a long story short, if one has set up camera profile why not just shoot in RAW and forego Jpeg as it is always available from the RAW image ? I have done a comparison but can see no diff. in the 2 Jpegs...am I missing something ?
Aug 11, 2017 14:30:09 #
The only time when I shoot RAW and jpeg together is when I'm shooting something that might be focus stacked because Zerene (which I love) does not accept RAW images and converting to TIFFs does not improve the final image IMO. I'm not sure exactly how my camera is set up, but when downloaded, the RAW and jpeg images look quite a bit different from each other. Not that one is better than the other, just different.
Aug 11, 2017 14:40:45 #
I believe the jpeg imbedded in the raw image file is much smaller than your standard jpeg.
Aug 11, 2017 15:24:09 #
The fingers overloaded the brain in my orig post... RAW is NOT an Image; sorry.
Aug 11, 2017 16:50:01 #
Aug 11, 2017 19:41:51 #
A JPEG is a standard image format file. It is not an image itself. Browsers, word processors, and various other software know how to process and display the information (data) in the file as an image.
A RAW file is pure image data from the camera (with a ton of other camera information), it is not an image, just data. RAW editors know how to process the data to display an image. The image you see in a RAW editor is not a JPEG, it is a display of the interpolated data from the RAW file. (Looks just like a JPEG though, doesn't it?) That's why one of the save options is "save as JPEG". The editor converts the image data to JPEG format (or .PNG, etc.).
RAW files are unique to the camera manufacturer. Any editor that can display Canon, Nikon, etc. RAW files contains the software necessary to process each manufacturer's RAW data. So, my Canon .RAW editor cannot display a Nikon .NEF file. Browsers do not know how to display RAW files. That's why when people post a .NEF file, there is no image, just a link to the file.
A RAW file is pure image data from the camera (with a ton of other camera information), it is not an image, just data. RAW editors know how to process the data to display an image. The image you see in a RAW editor is not a JPEG, it is a display of the interpolated data from the RAW file. (Looks just like a JPEG though, doesn't it?) That's why one of the save options is "save as JPEG". The editor converts the image data to JPEG format (or .PNG, etc.).
RAW files are unique to the camera manufacturer. Any editor that can display Canon, Nikon, etc. RAW files contains the software necessary to process each manufacturer's RAW data. So, my Canon .RAW editor cannot display a Nikon .NEF file. Browsers do not know how to display RAW files. That's why when people post a .NEF file, there is no image, just a link to the file.
Aug 11, 2017 23:16:57 #
Does that interpolated data that you see in the RAW editor when saved as a JPEG and using the same camera profile as used in camera result in the same JPEG as the camera records.... Shoot "RAW plus JPEG " has always been the mantra and I was just wondering why, if indeed that same JPEG can be saved from the RAW editor. Thanks for info.....
Aug 12, 2017 05:58:53 #
Aug 12, 2017 07:15:41 #
Thanks guys... the question arose after reading a little in Kelby's book on Photoshop and camera profiles...
Aug 12, 2017 08:01:21 #
cthahn wrote:
No advantage to shooting RAW and JPEG
Wrong. However there is no advantage in reading your posts!
Aug 12, 2017 08:16:57 #
MrBob wrote:
Does that interpolated data that you see in the RAW editor when saved as a JPEG and using the same camera profile as used in camera result in the same JPEG as the camera records.... Shoot "RAW plus JPEG " has always been the mantra and I was just wondering why, if indeed that same JPEG can be saved from the RAW editor. Thanks for info.....
The most accurate answer is no, not exactly the same. It depends upon the software used and the settings chosen. Canon DPP software does a pretty good job of importing a raw file and applying the in camera settings, but when converting to a jpeg the compression levels may not be the same as in the camera. A small difference, but not identical.
Aug 12, 2017 09:04:53 #
Peterff wrote:
The most accurate answer is no, not exactly the same. It depends upon the software used and the settings chosen. Canon DPP software does a pretty good job of importing a raw file and applying the in camera settings, but when converting to a jpeg the compression levels may not be the same as in the camera. A small difference, but not identical.
A good experiment would be to open the RAW file in DPP (a RAW editor) and save it as a JPEG without making any changes, then compare the two file sizes.
Aug 12, 2017 09:08:11 #
cthahn wrote:
No advantage to shooting RAW and JPEG
Well, there is for me.
I get to peruse all images in Windows Explorer without opening an editor to view them.
A simpler convenience for me.
Aug 12, 2017 09:16:10 #
cthahn wrote:
There is for me. I use the SOOC JPEG unless it reveals a reason for me to process the raw file myself. Automation is good.No advantage to shooting RAW and JPEG
Aug 12, 2017 09:29:38 #
Longshadow wrote:
A good experiment would be to open the RAW file in DPP (a RAW editor) and save it as a JPEG without making any changes, then compare the two file sizes.
A good experiment would be to open the RAW file in DPP (a RAW editor) and save it as a JPEG without making any changes, then compare the two file sizes.
I've done that and posted the results previously. 5MB from the camera, 10MB converted from raw, 3MB for embedded JPEG extracted from raw.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.