How do I get my PP jpgs to look as good as my RAW files?

[MOmilkman]

Or is that even possible?

After processing my RAW files into .jpeg (the the highest quality possible) they don't look nearly as good as the original RAW file.
Any ideas as to why they might be losing image quality?

First one is obviously the RAW file and the second one is the jpeg version. A lot of color loss.
You can espically notice it in the green grass.

Please help!

[Snowdust]

What raw converter are you using?

Do you know the difference between a raw and jpg file? I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

A RAW file is just that. A raw file, or negative if you will with no adjustments. A JPG is created by your camera with adjustments applied. Such as sharpening, noise reduction, contrast adjustments, saturation, etc. Some of these are applied by default by the camera mfg, some you have a little control over through the menus. You get a pretty good picture SOC, but unused data is stripped and this leaves for less adjustment ability compared to raw.

With RAW, as I said, it is raw, no adjustments, and you must apply all those same items in post processing. Because all the data is recorded, you have much greater adjustement ability to suit your prefrence.

Adobe lightroom has Canon profile available to ease this adjustment learning curve, and by simply opening a raw file with the profile, you start at darn near what the canon jpg would be.

Hope this helps.

[OsmosisStudios]

Shot in the dark here: Youre RAW file is going to be 12BIT, your JPG is 8. That means that you can have a very nice gradient in youre RAW that gets slightly hased up a bit in jpg. Unlikely, though.

The likely culprit: what youre viewing your images in.

I dont know what software youre using to process your raw files, but it'll likely be sucking back about 10x more ressources than the windows viewer. This is because the converter is designed to show the image in it's optimum capacity: the viewer is for quickly viewing an image.

Have some fun: open the jpg in Internet Explorer, FireFox and, if you can, Safari. It'll be completely different. Then have some more fun: upload it to MySpace or Facebook: it'll be even worse!

Its all in the way each application displays the image: some are designed to show everything, some not so much.

[Pierre81385]

This may or may not be the case, but just a guess...

You may be viewing your photos with a Canon Picture Style applied. The picture styles' effect might not necessarily be applied when your photos are converted from RAW to JPG.

[MOmilkman]

Originally Posted by Snowdust

What raw converter are you using?

Just the Canon software that came with the camera. I think it's called Canon Zoom Browser EX. I'm at work right now so I'm going off memory on that.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The likely culprit: what youre viewing your images in.

Really? I had no idea it could simply be just the software I'm using to open the image. Is there a image viewer that you would recommend that would show each jpg image to it's full potential each and every time?

I feel like all the money I've invested in my camera is right out the window if I'm viewing the photos with software that doesn't show the photos at their best.

Originally Posted by Pierre81385

This may or may not be the case, but just a guess...

You may be viewing your photos with a Canon Picture Style applied. The picture styles' effect might not necessarily be applied when your photos are converted from RAW to JPG.

I'll have to check this when I get home. Thanks!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by MOmilkman

Really? I had no idea it could simply be just the software I'm using to open the image. Is there a image viewer that you would recommend that would show each jpg image to it's full potential each and every time?

I feel like all the money I've invested in my camera is right out the window if I'm viewing the photos with software that doesn't show the photos at their best.

Any photo or graphics software (Adobe Bridge, Photoshop, etc). The money spent on your camera is definitely not out the window: you just have to know that if youre going to view your images using the WIndows viewer, they're not gonna be all theyre supposed to be.

On a computer, there's no way to conveniently show off high-quality images other than a good photo or graphics editor. Any internet browser, different web sites, other viewers are always gonna show things differently: you just learn to live with it.

This, sadly, continues on in print too: Get the same photo printed at different places and it'll be noticeably different. Then get it blown up and repeat: it'll be different again.

You can limit the amount of difference there is by working in the sRGB colour space, or at least SAVING in sRGB, but youre always gonna see a difference, even then.

[Ginger Pixie]

Maybe try bumping the saturation slightly before conversion - I've got Canon software too, and sometimes that helps...