Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Not necessarily... it depends upon the settings being used to save.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

When you open the raw file in Affinity (or any other program) it is applying some settings. Either default settings of the program or settings you have predetermined. There is no such thing as simply "converting" RAW to JPEG.

Linary Loc: UK

I have just been experimenting with Raw conversion in Affinity and outputting in various formats without any other processing.

My image was a dark blue boat hull, the raw looked good but after exporting in Tiff, png, and jpeg, the hull when viewed in Windows Photo Gallery was very dark - almost black. Opening the same image in a different viewer (Irfanview), the jpg, png and tiff images were great.

I have yet to print these photos, but I do not think there will be a problem.

I urge you to view your raw conversion in a different viewer to the one you are currently using, you may find the stars are still there and visible. the best conversion you could do would be from raw to lossless tiff files. The detail will be there but the files will be large.

Jeffers

First, the downside to PNG. There's no compression so they're big. No problem if you have adequate storage - consider storing them on an external drive. They can be problematic if you try to email too many at once or if you post them on social media. You can get around emailing them by using OneDrive, Google Drive , Drop Box or other media designed to transmit large files. Other than that, I know of no downsides to PNGs. And I use them a lot.

Now the real issue: There are people who take pictures and then there are artists who use photography as their medium. I daresay that most of the people who visit this site are the latter. A RAW image is exactly what the camera sees. It has all the necessary elements for greatness but it's like raw cookie dough. And you wouldn't serve that to your guests. Processing a RAW image brings a great night sky alive, puts the twinkle in your child's eyes. There are several RAW processing applications out there. Learn to use one and use it well. It normally takes me five minutes or less to process a RAW image into something beautiful, using Elements. Scott Kelby produces excellent and easy to use books on how to use Elements. When I finish processing an image in RAW I usually save it as an original PNG. Then if need be, I can make a JPEG copy. But I still have the original and all its beauty.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Yes, PNG does not compress as well, nothing else, the files are larger.

Note that PNG does not have other limitation like size (200kx200k ~ if I recall correctly) and can be up to 48bit vs 8bit JPG. Not surprisingly PNG is used by scientists over any other format.

The PNG on the web is 8 bit usually (I have spotted a couple of 16 bit). The reduction in bit depth can create banding, same as JPG but it is much less visible than the banding created by the JPG compression.

Edit, I verified the PNG maximal file size... 2Billionsx2billions pixels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2^31 "Hello stack overflow!!!'

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Sorry, PNGs are compressed. Try to compare its size to a converted BMP which is a pure bitmap and not compressed (as far as I know).

jwn Loc: SOUTHEAST GEORGIA USA

If you are using Canon, the DPP4 conversion software is a must. Third party software does not bring forward many of the in camera settings to the jpeg. White balance, noise reduction, lens aberration corrections, picture style settings are removed.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The RAW file as you already know is the information recorded in the sensor at the time of the exposure. Special software is needed to bring the file to life. Although it has been always said that the raw data is recorded without the firmware of the camera intervention I am suspecting that certain parameters are incorporated in the files and a small amount of sharpness is one of them but I am sure there are others.

The RAW file is usually a very large file depending on the number of Mp. the camera has. It has 12 bits of information and during editing it is customary to select a wide color space like Adobe RGB. When the file is compressed to a JPEG image now instead of 12 we have 8 bits and the compression takes away lots of pixels and original information. The wide color space is now also compressed to a much smaller color space, sRGB, that has millions of colors that the human eye cannot see. Obviously, we cannot see the RGB colors either. Our monitors see sRGB only but they cannot reproduce the whole gamut of an Adobe RGB file.

If the compression selected to convert to JPEG is not of high quality we even loose more data.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

TY

BebuLamar

And thus if you like what you see when you open the RAW file you can simply save it as JPEG and have the same image.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

How did you view the file after "converting"? Was it in Affinity or some other viewer? The issue may not be with the saved file but with what you are using to view it.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The only time a JPEG loses data is when it is opened, edited in any way, and then saved again. It drops data each time you do this. I'm not sure if this is accurate but it seems to me that when a RAW file is saved to JPEG, the 1st order JPEG file would start with as much data as if it were saved from RAW to a 1st order TIFF file, for example. Maybe not and if so I hope to be corrected. The other complicating factor in your quandary is that what you see on the screen from a RAW file isn't the RAW data, which you can't see. It's the JPEG embedded in the RAW file. Capiche?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Actually you need not to edit to lose data. Open the file and save will generate a new compression so more losses.
Open to view (no save), copy or move does strictly nothing to the JPG.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

JPEG has less data in them than a TIFF

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Affinity must be the problem because when I covert any raw image to jpg, they look identical. The are ALWAYS identical. So it would seem that you have something set in Affinity to make changes before it saves the image as a jpg.

MT was a little vague about his explanation. I think what he meant to say is that ALL raw images requires some editing and that if you are simply converting or saving your raw image as a jpg, you'd be better off just shooting jpg. You see, when you shoot jpg, the camera will do some processing and give you an end result that has a little more contrast, color, saturation, white balance and sharpening. You can also have the camera do other things such as long exposure noise reduction or high ISO noise reduction. But when you shoot raw, YOU are expected to add those touches with your own processing software or the image will not look as good as the jpg the camera would spit out.

Perhaps you need to invest some time and money in a good or better software package or go back to shooting jpg if you don't want to be bothered processing all your images by yourself.