Improved color results when shooting RAW

[Dr.Laser]

I usually have the quality option set to RAW + JPG in my Canon 600D.
Recenty I bought 80mW 450nm pointer from laserbtb and I was trying to do some laser sketches.

The color difference between RAW and JPG really surprised me.
The camera actually picks the colors well but it get color, noise, etc.. processed when shooting JPG.


Here is a comparsion between RAW and JPG.

For now I'm limited to 450nm, Hopefully someone with a variety of wavelengths can do more tests.

 

[DJNY]

Never tried out the RAW mode. But after seeing this..


Sony Cybershot F828
ISO64 Program-Modus
Bit rainy outside
3.5W 445nm








Canon EOS 20D
ISO200 Program-Modus
Bit rainy outside
3.5W 445nm

 

[norbyx]

Well it has always been like that JPG compression is a good compromise but raw and Tiff were always better, at the cost of space.
Also a very important thing to say is that every camera, and every brand, has different processing in the JPG compression, so in your case it might have been a big difference, but maybe in the case of a nikon or panasonic the difference might not me like that.

I have to make some tests myself on raw and see if it makes a difference in my case.

 

[grainde]

It depends on what settings you have set in your camera for JPEG' s and how you process the RAW's externally if you choose to do it via a program (Lightroom, Photoshop etc) afterwards. RAW contains more info and will enable you to extract more info from the files when you are converting them to the useable JPEG format. Have a look at white balance if the colours are not true. Often raw files actually look a lot less interesting dull and more grey ie less contrasty than the camera generated JPEG's. This is because your camera automatically adjusts the contrast, levels, white balance, saturation and sharpness to generate the JPEG's.

Essentially there is no difference in the files as RAW's are the unadulterated original camera generated image, which is simply converted in camera to JPEG's. Both originate from the same image so its just a matter of how the image is processed. :beer:

Edit: I always shoot in RAW. RAW's can save your shot if you must eg push the exposure. You can often push RAW's upto or just over 3 stops (depending on the ISO settings and exposure at the time). With JPEG's you might have 1 stop before the photo becomes unusable.

@ DJNY love the 20D! Ive had one since 2002 and its still going strong! I wouldnt recommend much over ISO 200 though or picture quality will really suffer. ISO 100 and a tripod often gives much better results!:beer:

 

[Cyparagon]

They're both clearly .jpg now though. Doesn't that just mean the jpg compression sucks in the camera, but works fine on whatever program you're using on the computer? What's going on here?

 

[grainde]

^^^Exactly. The camera has preset settings and they have converted the RAW images as they wanted in a program. Thats why I wrote this above " RAW contains more info and will enable you to extract more info from the files when you are converting them to the useable JPEG format." :beer:

 

[DJNY]

They're both clearly .jpg now though. Doesn't that just mean the jpg compression sucks in the camera, but works fine on whatever program you're using on the computer? What's going on here?

Yes, I also think that the photoshop converter is better than the one inside of older cameras. Both of my cams were produced in 2003. Don´t think that there is much of a different in picture quality when taking JPEG and RAW pics with an EOS 1D for example. But you have more possibilities for working on RAW pictures after getting them into a image editing program.






The same picture like above in post #2 to see the differences better

JPEG picture as basis and RAW (photoshop compressed JPEG) cuttings overhead. Attachements show more detail.

 

[grainde]

Actually there is still a big difference in the JPEG and RAW from the 1D bodies. I also have a 1D Mk IV and I can make the the lightroom or photoshoped RAW's come out better than the camera JPEG's. :beer:

 

[DJNY]

@ DJNY love the 20D! Ive had one since 2002 and its still going strong! I wouldnt recommend much over ISO 200 though or picture quality will really suffer. ISO 100 and a tripod often gives much better results!:beer:

Thanks, will try out!

Actually there is still a big difference in the JPEG and RAW from the 1D bodies. I also have a 1D Mk IV and I can make the the lightroom or photoshoped RAW's come out better than the camera JPEG's. :beer:

Can you take 1pic with the 1D and post it here as for comparison?

My dad also has the 1D, but no Photoshop and he always take pictures in JPEG mode.

 

[grainde]

Ok but what settings do you want for the in camera processing to JPEG? Maybe just default or with sharpening, contrast and saturation? The biggest difference will be in difficult lighting situations too where parts of the image are slightly blown out or under exposed ie high dynamic range shots. Getting back details in these regions in a JPEG is near impossible, so Ill see what I can figure out... The difference wont be as noticeable at 800 x 600 either, so Ill have to subscribe to photo bucket or something...

P.S tell your Dad to give Lightroom a whirl and shoot in RAW. It will blow him away!

 

[DJNY]

That´s a nice gift idea for his birthday, but I would have to make him a step-by-step tutorial. He is still watching DVDs on a Sony Bravia KDL46HX855

You can send me the pics, without changing anything - just converting to JPEG per mail and I can upload them to my imageshack account and post them here. Send you my mail, just in case :beer:

 

[RA_pierce]

With my Canon 60D, the in-camera jpeg compression is not satisfactory.
I shoot only RAW. All the data in the RAW file means better color, sharpness, and tones and more flexibility with post-processing.

Of course, it's good to get the shot right in the camera, but sometimes a scene calls for a compromise. For example, a high contrast scene might force you to leave some shadows underexposed or highlights overexposed.
If you shoot in jpeg mode, you lose all the data in the highlights and shadows and no matter what you do with Photoshop, you can never bring back detail in those areas.
The RAW file, however, can be manipulated to bring back some detail and get the full range of tones out of the shot.

Compressing to jpeg essentially throws away information. You lose sharpness and information about color and tones.

I think most Canon bodies come with Digital Photo Professional. That is what I use for my basic RAW editing (adjust exposure, white balance, and correct aberrations if present).
Then I convert to 16 bit TIFF and use Photoshop to adjust levels, color, or any other fine tuning to get the shot looking how I want. I then use PS to convert to jpeg for images that go on the web. I'm not really a fan of Lightroom. It's an unnecessary addition to the Adobe suite IMO.

 

[grainde]

Interesting I love the versatility of LR and dont actually use DPP. I use LR to do levels, WB and other minor adjustments. The good thing about it is that its exceptionally well integrated with PS. If Im working on a photo and need PS I just click the button edit in PS and it switches automatically using 16 bit TIFF. When youre finished you save and close the pic and it automatically appears as the modified version in LR. I think you can also move it across as a DNG now, which will open in Adobe camera raw prior to being opened in PS. I havent played with that yet, so Ill have to read up on it, but I believe it omits some of the format conversion losses.

I guess I see DPP as superfluous as LR fills that role for me! :crackup: :beer:

 

[RA_pierce]

Interesting I love the versatility of LR and dont actually use DPP. I use LR to do levels, WB and other minor adjustments. The good thing about it is that its exceptionally well integrated with PS. If Im working on a photo and need PS I just click the button edit in PS and it switches automatically using 16 bit TIFF. When youre finished you save and close the pic and it automatically appears as the modified version in LR. I think you can also move it across as a DNG now, which will open in Adobe camera raw prior to being opened in PS. I havent played with that yet, so Ill have to read up on it, but I believe it omits some of the format conversion losses.

I guess I see DPP as superfluous as LR fills that role for me! :crackup: :beer:

Yeah it's just the workflow that ended up working for me.
I never had LR until recently so it was kinda pointless to switch software.

I might give LR another shot...

I was going to mention Adobe RAW... but I don't know enough about it to say much. I have played with shooting in Adobe RGB (normally I use sRGB) but I could not get the results I wanted. Based on stuff I read a long time ago, some people say the Adobe color space is "better" but other stuff I've read says "it depends."

I try to keep up to date with hardware and software developments as well as processing techniques... but I also try not to let the digital revolution distract from what really matters... getting the shot!

 

[Cyparagon]

JPG compressor: "Okay then, I'm here to make this image smaller in size. Let's see now, where do I start?... I see a purple halo here. Let's change that to a blue halo. That green leaf? Let's make it a cyan leaf while we're here. Nailed it."

 

[LtKernelPanic]

Unless I'm shooting with my Sony P&S or doing astrophotography where I need to fire off 100+ pics in a row without filling the buffer I always shoot in RAW or more precisely RAW+JPG. The jpegs are quite often good enough for when you need quick results while you post process the RAW files. FWIW just about every image I've posted here has had some minor tweaking in Aperture first before getting posted.