Is there a visible difference between a raw file and a JPG? (Page 6): So Photoshop works differently than gimp?? With gimp, exporting a JPEG doesn't change data in the software, so you...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Brent Rowlett wrote:

No you always convert your file to a DNG or PSD. They you can go back and change your edit if you wish. Converting the image to JPEG stops the process, and you must start all over again from the original image. And save the RAW image with it.

So Photoshop works differently than gimp?? With gimp, exporting a JPEG doesn't change data in the software, so you can just continue editing if you want to.

But that wasn't my original question. I don't understand why creating a JPEG is needed to see if you like the image as edited. With my monitor, displaying a JPEG image looks just like what I remember seeing on the monitor before I exported the JPEG file.

BTW - we are on page 6 now.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Incorrect. It's best to push the exposure to the right, not left. Additionally, underexposure is as bad as overexposure. Once one under or over exposes, data is lost. The correct method is to use additional exposure, but limit it to just under where overexposure happens.

That point is best determined by testing the camera one is using. All of my photos for the past 2-3 years have used ETTR/EBTR techniques for the initial exposure. There is a definite improvement in what one captures.

Oh, this applies to RAW only. And, yes, my jpg previews look like crap.
--Bob

Brent Rowlett wrote:

Shooting RAW, always underexpose the image by one f stop. From experience you will never be sorry when capturing detail is important. Overexposed is trash. You should never have a noise issue with an ISO of 400 and below. If you do, trash your camera and start over with a decent model. Good pros will bracket 3 rapid flash images. This is done to eliminate a blink rather than exposure, but it works for both.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, don't believe that.
--Bob

johnec wrote:

Didn't know that. Thanks

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

rehess wrote:

So Photoshop works differently than gimp?? With gimp, exporting a JPEG doesn't change data in the software, so you can just continue editing if you want to.

But that wasn't my original question. I don't understand why creating a JPEG is needed to see if you like the image as edited. With my monitor, displaying a JPEG image looks just like what I remember seeing on the monitor before I exported the JPEG file.

BTW - we are on page 6 now.

Well do you want to save the file or not? Just turn your computer off and you lose everything. Does that answer your question? You're going in circles, friend.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Brent Rowlett wrote:

Well do you want to save the file or not? Just turn your computer off and you lose everything. Does that answer your question? You're going in circles, friend.

Brent, I think you are both incorrect and expressing a highly personalized view of the world.

A JPEG is not required in the process if printing oneself. One does not always save to DNG or PSD. I can if I wish to, but there are many other formats which may be superior in some instances. Regardless of what you believe works for you, your workflow is neither the only one available, nor is it necessarily better than the many others available.

So long as the original detail and the edits are preserved by the software in use, GIMP, PSP, DPP, or others, one can complete the work at high quality, save the work without losing anything, and never need to use JPEG, DNG, or PSD formats.

All formats have their place in the world, but by making the kind of statements like the one above you merely demonstrate the limitations of your own knowledge and experience.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Brent Rowlett wrote:

Well do you want to save the file or not? Just turn your computer off and you lose everything. Does that answer your question? You're going in circles, friend.

To refresh your memory, I was responding to the question

Catnlion wrote:

So if I shoot RAW and do something in PP to it then do I have to make a JPEG out of it to see what the finished product looks like then delete, reprocess, recovert until I save a JPEG I like?

There was nothing in this question defining 'finished product'.

You seem to assume it is a print. I believe that is doubtful; Catnlion hasn't returned to confirm or deny that, but if it were a print, there would be no reason to save the file when printing from the same system, and not necessarily a reason to save as a JPEG if printing from another system.

I think it is more likely that the JPEG file itself is the 'finished product' - but that is not relevant to my question, which was "why can't you tell from the screen in front of your nose that the JPEG is good?", thinking that a cycle of 'create JPEG', inspect, rinse, repeat is not very efficient. My question, not directed at you, was addressing that issue.

Maybe I'm unusual, but virtually never do I return to a project once I've exported a JPEG, and I hate to litter my file system with XCF {gimp equivalent of PSD} files, so your repeated focusing on PSD was a detour of a detour, and not something I was interested in pursuing.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Running circles about the initial post....

ACR interpret a raw file as Nikon: Too warm, regardless of setting used.
ACDSee does not interpret anything and just uses the raw for display IF instructed to do so.

The proof lies when converting raw to a TIFF file. No change.
ACR on the other hand, if you are not careful will use Nikon default setting AND adds sharpening.

Once you aware of what ACR does you can correct this but if you do not, good luck.

Catnlion Loc: Arizona City, Arizona

rehess wrote:

There was nothing in this question defining 'finis... (show quote)

I'm back!

You are correct. To me JPEG if the finished product. I rarely print anything. I do this for fun and Facebook.

The reason I asked is I've never worked with RAW. While I understand the reasoning, since I have reduced color vision to the point I dress funny, I tend to trust Nikon's software more than my eyes. While there are things in this world that I may not be good at that does not mean that I don't want to understand even screw around with it. I'll just never try to make a living at it.

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

Peterff wrote:

Brent, I think you are both incorrect and expressi... (show quote)

I simply stated the recommendations of Scott Kelby and company. Using Adobe products, I have no idea what GIMP, DPP formats are, nor do I need them. If you submit photos for publication the required format is usually TIFF or JPEG. Saving files to that format discards all other unused data from a RAW file. Saving finished files with layers in Photoshop allows us pros to return to the image, make adjustments to repurpose the image in other projects. No...you don't have to save a file to press print with your personal printer, but if you want to print your adjustments next week, you better save your file to some format. And yes, I assume people will print files in the future to make money.

I acknowledge there are many formats to use for their intended purposes, but to store maximum data, I use PSD and TIFF.

So with my limited knowledge, I continually make 6 figure annual incomes. With your plethora of knowledge, an Ink Jet print may be your final goal. Life just isn't fair is it? Sometimes the dumbest people fall on success. Maybe it is just good marketing.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Catnlion wrote:

I'm back! br br You are correct. To me JPEG if t... (show quote)

Brent Rowlett wrote:

I simply stated the recommendations of Scott Kelby... (show quote)

Looking at the post above, your words are indeed irrelevant to the subdiscussion that you inserted yourself into, so I have no intention of continuing this detour detour.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Catnlion wrote:

I'm back! br br You are correct. To me JPEG if t... (show quote)

To be completely honest with you, I normally accept what my Pentax provides. In your situation I think you're completely justified in using the JPEGs created by Nikon expertise, regardless of what preening pros may say.

mgoldfield

No Raw file has jpeg embedded in it.

Raw files contain ALL the information captured by the sensor when an exposure is taken. The camera's software creates a JPEG from that data and applies what it "thinks" is the best looking corrections and compresses the result.

The detail removed in the process can never be recovered from the jpeg.

Post processing software can also apply correction and compression to a RAW file to create a jpeg.

All jpegs are created with lossy compression!

Mark L

Bill_de wrote:

Won't the raw file look however it does based on the defaults in the software used to view it? It is often said that a raw file is not an image. If that's true then the data it contains has to be interpreted. So aren't you seeing what the software decides to show you, not necessarily the way it looked in the viewfinder?

--

That's true, and each software company has their own interpretation of a good starting point for a raw image from a given camera. What is nice with raw images though, is that there are usually different profiles built into the software that you can try out instead of their default profile. Some have more contrast or color, some with more shadow detail, and then there's usually also the linear profile, which is quite flat and desaturated to start with (somewhat like s-log with video).

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

mgoldfield wrote:

No Raw file has jpeg embedded in it. br br Raw f... (show quote)

Thank you! Another photographer that knows his stuff. Always save the RAW file for future projects. Ditto for PSD files if you wish to make future adjustments like skin tones for different settings.👍

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

mgoldfield wrote:

No Raw file has jpeg embedded in it. br br Raw f... (show quote)

Unfortunately, that is incorrect.