JPEG vs Auto Developed RAW
Nov 27, 2018 08:31:29 #
blackest wrote:
Well the first seems to have patches of green instead of yellow on the boat but much less grain , 2 and 3 don't have the green but a lot more grain and 3 has lightened the shadows.
3 is probably best of the 3 there is no exif but i'd guess it's from a canon dslr.
3 is probably best of the 3 there is no exif but i'd guess it's from a canon dslr.
Wrong! here is the basic Exif :
Camera: Panasonic DMC-GX8
Lens: LEICA DG 100-400mm F4-6.3
Shot at 200 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Shutter priority AE, 1/1,300 sec, f/10, ISO 1600
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: Auto, Continuous
AF Area Mode: 49-area
Focus point highlight: [ click to hide ]
Date: May 27, 2017 3:49:59PM (timezone not specified)
(1 year, 5 months, 30 days, 12 hours, 34 minutes, 57 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)
File: 5,184 × 3,888 JPEG (20.2 megapixels)
7,856,128 bytes (7.5 megabytes)
If you want the entire Exif data please let me know.
Nov 27, 2018 08:38:39 #
I doubt that I would ever use such a thing. One of the aspects I love about photography (besides capturing the data) is processing that data into something I interpret to be the best rendition of the image "to my liking". Just as I did during my wet chemistry days. I know that there are those who don't like to take the time. But for me taking the time is part of the enjoyment and satisfaction. Just me.
Nov 27, 2018 08:51:54 #
BebuLamar wrote:
It's not an embedded JPEG. It's a converted image from the RAW using the exact same settings as in the camera.
Why take the time to produce an image identical to one that already exists. RAW files do have an embedded jpeg for previewing.
Nov 27, 2018 08:55:27 #
selmslie wrote:
They are not the same. Even the thumbnails are different. Obviously, the question went right over your head. The “unprocessed raw” shows the difference between the camra’s default processing and the computer’s.
There is an embedded image (there may be more than one) that is exactly the same.
Nov 27, 2018 09:02:23 #
bsprague wrote:
JPEG vs RAW gets A LOT of discussion here. br b... (show quote)
Shoot and process JPEGS - concentrate on this and your life will be simpler !
Nov 27, 2018 09:11:17 #
Apaflo wrote:
Why take the time to produce an image identical to one that already exists. RAW files do have an embedded jpeg for previewing.
Don't create anything. When I open the NEF in the RAW converter the image is automatically converted to and image that is exactly same as the JPEG. So if I like it's OK. Often I don't like it so I make some changes. What I meant to tell those that say that I must make adjustment to the RAW otherwise I would end up an image that is flat and not as good as the JPEG. When I shoot RAW I started with an image exactly the same as the JPEG and go from there.
Nov 27, 2018 09:13:08 #
Rongnongno wrote:
If you were half as smart as you think you are you would have downloaded the originals and noticed the differences but then again....
If you are simply addressing the JPG and the raw's thumbnail I would agree with you.
If you are simply addressing the JPG and the raw's thumbnail I would agree with you.
If you were half as smart as you think you are ????????? I guess this comment goes both ways. Why don't you ditch the attitude?
Nov 27, 2018 09:29:24 #
BebuLamar wrote:
... When I open the NEF in the RAW converter the image is automatically converted to and image that is exactly same as the JPEG. ...
Not true with any RAW converter. If no changes are made only the embedded jpeg is extracted. It is almost instantanious.
If you then do make changes the raw sensor data is downloaded and appropriately converted. That takes several seconds.
Nov 27, 2018 09:55:17 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
Nalu wrote:
I doubt that I would ever use such a thing. One of the aspects I love about photography (besides capturing the data) is processing that data into something I interpret to be the best rendition of the image "to my liking". Just as I did during my wet chemistry days. I know that there are those who don't like to take the time. But for me taking the time is part of the enjoyment and satisfaction. Just me.
I like to take the time I always post process my jpegs! Sweet
Nov 27, 2018 09:59:33 #
Anyway.... IMO future discussions about in camera processed JPEGs vs manually computer processed RAWs will include the third choice of automatically processed RAWs.
Nov 27, 2018 10:01:10 #
johneccles wrote:
Wrong! here is the basic Exif : br br Camera: Pan... (show quote)
Yes, that's one of my current favorite cameras and lenses!
Nov 27, 2018 10:04:29 #
Apaflo wrote:
Not true with any RAW converter. If no changes are made only the embedded jpeg is extracted. It is almost instantanious.
If you then do make changes the raw sensor data is downloaded and appropriately converted. That takes several seconds.
If you then do make changes the raw sensor data is downloaded and appropriately converted. That takes several seconds.
That's true! Some RAW converter would apply a default settings and not the settings from the camera.
Nov 27, 2018 10:12:23 #
Apaflo wrote:
There is an embedded image (there may be more than one) that is exactly the same.
The second image is clearly different (take a closer look) from any image embedded in the raw file. The computer did not use the same software to do the raw conversion as the camera. One program is proprietary to the converter installed on the computer and the other is proprietary to the camera's manufacturer.
There is no point in embedding more than one identical JPEG image in the raw file. That would be a silly waste of space. There may be others with different sizes to speed up thumbnail displays but they obviously can't be identical.
Nov 27, 2018 10:18:02 #
BebuLamar wrote:
... When I open the NEF in the RAW converter the image is automatically converted to and image that is exactly same as the JPEG. ....
It's not exactly the same.
For example, the JPEG from the camera might have been created using a manufacturer's adjustment like Active-D Lighting or a conversion to B&W. The software on your computer might attempt to duplicate those adjustments but, since the camera uses a different program, the results will never be identical.
Nov 27, 2018 10:29:11 #
Non professional opinion, 3rd is best as what I note a brighter/clearer image of RAW after processing.
See lots of interesting opinions/technical info, but just looking tells me which I like best.....
See lots of interesting opinions/technical info, but just looking tells me which I like best.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.