Is there a visible difference between a raw file and a JPG?
Mar 30, 2018 13:12:54 #
Brent Rowlett wrote:
I simply stated the recommendations of Scott Kelby... (show quote)
Brent, my main point is that you are expressing a highly personal perspective which is not representative of many people on UHH. There are many that do not use Adobe products, nor have the type of professional business that you do. I'm glad that you do so well, as I'm sure others are, but some people earn at least as much as you do and just treat photography as a hobby or side line. The choice of tools will vary depending upon the needs, but I'm not aware of many raw processors that are not capable of producing JPEG and 8bit or 16bit TIFF files, which means that many people could deliver files of publication quality in the required formats. Also, those tools will normally track the edits and allow reversion to earlier stages of the image, and it is very clear that any image at whatever version level results from editing needs to be saved.
Mar 30, 2018 13:24:21 #
mgoldfield wrote:
No Raw file has jpeg embedded in it. br br Raw f... (show quote)
Brent Rowlett wrote:
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.👍
Brent, you may be a good photographer, and a perfectly adequate professional running a business, but your understanding of computer technology - either cameras or computers appears somewhat limited.
Now, I do agree that one should always save raw files for future projects. Software improves, and, in some cases, people's skills improve.
However, many, if not most or all raw files contain a JPEG embedded in them.
Brent, you are adding much value to the discussion, but at the same time demonstrating your highly personalized opinions together with a degree of ignorance.
Capiche?
Mar 30, 2018 18:47:20 #
Mar 30, 2018 19:06:22 #
Peterff wrote:
Just a bit of information might be useful here. The embedded jpeg is not intended to be used for printing or for publication. It is a fairly low resolution image for software applications to be able to quickly extract an image that is good enough for image identification. These embedded jpg images are not adequate for many other purposes.Brent, you may be a good photographer, and a perf... (show quote)
Mar 31, 2018 01:10:12 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Yes, ACDSee uses its own parameters. Strangely enough, these are more accurate since I have photographed the original I can tell which is better interpretation. I have not seen any way in ACR to neutralize Adobe interpretation other than a work around.
This in case you have paid attention this is about the visual differences, not about potential or any other difference between the two formats.
This in case you have paid attention this is about the visual differences, not about potential or any other difference between the two formats.
Getting back to your original topic, I see differences when viewing raw files depending on software. I screen files on my Mac Pro using finder and preview. These show as nearly completely flat. When viewing raw files with DPP, NXD or Darktable the images look very similar to a JPEG from either my Canon or Nikon Cameras. Just my 2 cents
Mar 31, 2018 03:30:24 #
pecohen wrote:
Just a bit of information might be useful here. The embedded jpeg is not intended to be used for printing or for publication. It is a fairly low resolution image for software applications to be able to quickly extract an image that is good enough for image identification. These embedded jpg images are not adequate for many other purposes.
Agreed. There is (usually) an embedded JPEG a raw file, but it is not of the highest quality. It can be extracted, but to what purpose?
Apr 1, 2018 05:16:36 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.