Convert from RAW?

[sheldonc]

I took over 200 photos last night at a party for my father which I shot in RAW & JPEG at the same time. I don't think he needs me to post process every shot but on 1st & 2nd viewing most the shots look better in RAW than the JPEG which I just assume was caused mainly by the White Balance settings.

This might be a daft question but If I convert the RAW shots to JPEG's will they look the same? Even dafter - how do I convert them - do I just save them as JPEG?

Thanks for your advice in advance

[kirbinster]

You need raw converter software, probably came with your camera. If not I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom. I Don't know what you are using to view the unprocessed raw photos, but I find it hard to believe they look better than the jpegs. The reason is raw has not been processed and the saturation may not be right, there is no sharpness applied, etc...

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by sheldonc

most the shots look better in RAW

A photo doesn't "look" like anything in Raw. A Raw file is just the original sensor data. It's not an image. You use software to convert the Raw data to an image.

If I convert the RAW shots to JPEG's will they look the same?

The same as… what? Presumably you're using a Raw converter program of some sort to look at them. The Raw converter shows you a preview of what you would get if you converted with your current choice of settings. So yes, if you convert the Raw data to a JPEG image, you'll get what the Raw converter was showing you.

how do I convert them - do I just save them as JPEG?

Yes, speaking generally. The only minor complication is that each Raw converter has its own terminology. It could be called "convert", it could be called "save" or "save as", or whatever. But anything that will let you produce a JPEG from your Raw file will do the job.

One caveat, though: there are a few programs—notably IrfanView—that misleadingly use the term "convert" to mean "extract the preview JPEG from the Raw file". If you're not given any controls for adjusting the conversion, it's not really a conversion.

[sheldonc]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

A photo doesn't "look" like anything in Raw. A Raw file is just the original sensor data. It's not an image. You use software to convert the Raw data to an image.

Ok understood - sorry for my lack of comprehension

The same as… what? Presumably you're using a Raw converter program of some sort to look at them. The Raw converter shows you a preview of what you would get if you converted with your current choice of settings. So yes, if you convert the Raw data to a JPEG image, you'll get what the Raw converter was showing you.

I'm using Iphoto on a MAC and with your comments now see / understand what it is doing

Yes, speaking generally. The only minor complication is that each Raw converter has its own terminology. It could be called "convert", it could be called "save" or "save as", or whatever. But anything that will let you produce a JPEG from your Raw file will do the job.

One caveat, though: there are a few programs—notably IrfanView—that misleadingly use the term "convert" to mean "extract the preview JPEG from the Raw file". If you're not given any controls for adjusting the conversion, it's not really a conversion.

Originally Posted by kirbinster

You need raw converter software, probably came with your camera. If not I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom. I Don't know what you are using to view the unprocessed raw photos, but I find it hard to believe they look better than the jpegs. The reason is raw has not been processed and the saturation may not be right, there is no sharpness applied, etc...

So does that mean the converted files I'm looking at have been changed by Iphoto or just that the settings I was using were not particularly good. Having reviewed them briefly again I'd take a rough guess that the outdoor images are better in the JPEG's but a large amount of the indoor images look better in the converted RAW images

The lighting was very odd inside as the venue is a very cavernous area with large windows that let in a lot of light so I left WB on Auto as I had no idea what would have been the correct setting

Thanks for your comments

Sheldon

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

A photo doesn't "look" like anything in Raw. A Raw file is just the original sensor data. It's not an image. You use software to convert the Raw data to an image.

I'm going to disagree with this point. I shoot strictly in RAW, and my photos staright from the camera, before any PP or converting, often look fantastic in their RAW format.

A photo looks like a photo in RAW. You see what you shot.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A photo looks like a photo in RAW. You see what you shot.

You are not seeing the Raw data. You are seeing an image that was produced by analyzing the Raw data. Most cameras include a "preview JPEG" in the Raw file that can be used for various purposes which don't require the flexibility of Raw adjustments.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

You are not seeing the Raw data. You are seeing an image that was produced by analyzing the Raw data. Most cameras include a "preview JPEG" in the Raw file that can be used for various purposes which don't require the flexibility of Raw adjustments.

I'm not talking in camera. I have taken many images that look excellent prior to any processing or converting on computer..

[Galiven]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I'm not talking in camera. I have taken many images that look excellent prior to any processing or converting on computer..

I think the point he is trying to make is that you need to use a program that supports your camera's RAW format to view your RAW files. This program is interpreting the data from the RAW file to show you an image regardless of whether any PP changes have been made yet.

Also, I believe the original poster said he was taking shots using RAW&JPEG. If his camera is like my XSi, this means he generated a RAW file and a JPEG file in camera for each shot. The comparison he is making is between the image quality of the RAW files (shown in his RAW software) versus the JPEG generated by the camera. If I had to guess, I would say that the in camera settings for JPEG compression is reducing the image quality of his pics while the RAW files he is viewing show without any compression.

I'm new to dSLR though so I may be off in my understanding. Feel free to correct me.

[dcclark]

Perhaps I can make this clearer:

A raw file is, as others have said, not an image. But you can make an image from one. How you make a raw file into an image is a highly variable process -- there are many things you can do, in different ways, which will give you noticeably different outputs. So you cannot talk about the image in a raw file. Examples of the variables include the white balance, exposure compensation, the camera's "tone curve" (which determines how the sensor data is turned into color information), etc. Without this information, you can't make an image -- you just have a collection of data about how photon bucket X on your sensor responded when the shutter was pressed.

Now, a raw file contains information about the camera's settings which can tell a raw converter a "default" way to turn the raw file into an actual image -- the camera had some white balance settings, it has some default tone curve, etc., which a raw converter will use if you don't specifiy anything else. So, in some sense, you can turn a raw file directly into an image without any real human intervention.

However, this defeats the purpose of shooting in raw, which is to allow you to change what the camera would have done. You want to be able to modify the tone curve, or the white balance, or any number of other things, which (if you shot in jpeg) the camera would have done for you.

Of course, I nearly never shoot in raw, but this is some explanation of what it is, why it is fundamentally different from shooting in jpeg mode, and why you might want to do it.

[sheldonc]

Thanks for everyone's input

My understanding now is that the RAW is just data and when I view an image from it in a piece of software (I'm viewing in Iphoto & GIMP) will be interpreted differently from the JPEG image that the camera has produced

I don't think there is any real difference in "quality" that I'm seeing between the 2 images I just guess I prefer the interpretation of the RAW image by the software than the settings the camera is making / choosing for the JPEG

Having played around with some of the images in GIMP it is predominantly indoor / flash photography that seems to be interpreted more to my liking by the software than daylight / outdoor images

Of course all this maybe because I'm not using correct WB settings for these indoor shots

I guess I just need to keep playing around and see what settings I prefer but as I'd rather not spend hours PP multiple shots (which i'm not that experienced at anyway) I guess it's trial & error at the moment

Thanks again

Sheldon