RAW problem?

[MissCupcake]

Hope this is in the right place. Need a bit of advice - after doing a bit of research I thought I'd see the benefits of shooting RAW for myself (I'm a complete noobie by the way). Have got a Canon so used the software (DPP) that came with it to view and convert the RAW data. All fine so far. However I noticed that the images, once converted from RAW, lose some of the quality that they had whether saved as Jpeg or TIFF. Is this always the case or am I doing something wrong?

I am aware that there is always some data loss when converted to JPEG in the camera but I thought if I shot RAW I'd be able to minimise data loss? Really liked the way the images looked in RAW - is there anyway of conserving this quality through to printing?

Thanks in advance for your help & apologies if I sound ridiculously stupid.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by MissCupcake

Hope this is in the right place. Need a bit of advice - after doing a bit of research I thought I'd see the benefits of shooting RAW for myself (I'm a complete noobie by the way). Have got a Canon so used the software (DPP) that came with it to view and convert the RAW data. All fine so far. However I noticed that the images, once converted from RAW, lose some of the quality that they had whether saved as Jpeg or TIFF. Is this always the case or am I doing something wrong?

I am aware that there is always some data loss when converted to JPEG in the camera but I thought if I shot RAW I'd be able to minimise data loss? Really liked the way the images looked in RAW - is there anyway of conserving this quality through to printing?

Thanks in advance for your help & apologies if I sound ridiculously stupid.

I'm far from a RAW expert Miss Cupcake, but when are you seeing the degradation after you convert...is it on your screen, or on your prints? I wouldn't think you should be seeing much, or any loss saved as TIFF files

[MissCupcake]

Originally Posted by auto-focus

I'm far from a RAW expert Miss Cupcake, but when are you seeing the degradation after you convert...is it on your screen, or on your prints? I wouldn't think you should be seeing much, or any loss saved as TIFF files

It's on my screen, rather than on the prints. They just seem to be a little less 'vibrant' afterwards and seem less sharp.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by MissCupcake

It's on my screen, rather than on the prints. They just seem to be a little less 'vibrant' afterwards and seem less sharp.

Well, it is a compression of the original, and there will be some data loss when saved as JPEG's...a little tweak in PS levels and Unsharp Mask might make things a little better after you convert

Vinnie

[Trader]

I use a Nikon camera and I have used both Capture NX (from Nikon) and Adobe Camera RAW to convert my files to JPEG and I can't say that I notice any degrading of the quality of photos. I do make some adjustments at almost every level of processing that I do so maybe that is what you are talking about. There are times that I will convert a RAW file and Camera RAW and then make a levels adjustment and/or a sharpening adjustment to improve the quality of the photo. Is that what you are referring to?

[MissCupcake]

The difference is marginal but it is noticeable nonetheless. Have messed around a bit though, adjusting levels and sharpening post conversion to TIFF, and it looks fine. I think in my naivety, but after what I had read, I was expecting them to look exactly the same as they did in RAW even after I had converted- especially to a lossless format such as a TIFF. Thanks for your advice.

[Jim Poor]

If you are seeing a visible difference between the RAW file and a converted Tiff or JPG, you likely have some setting somewhere tweaked that is causing the change. Try downloading the free trial of Lightroom or one of the other decent programs and see if you have the same issue.

The difference between a RAW file and JPG (or Tiff) that has had nothing done to it beyond conversion without any adjustments isn't something we humans can see with our eyes.

[MissCupcake]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

The difference between a RAW file and JPG (or Tiff) that has had nothing done to it beyond conversion without any adjustments isn't something we humans can see with our eyes.

Thanks Jim, I shall look into the settings and try downloading the lightroom free trial as you suggest. I am pretty sure my eyes aren't superhuman!!

[Aperture Nine]

With RAW you are working on the digital negative; everything the camera captured unaltered, with all details preserved. Shooting RAW and JPG is highly recommended. Delete RAWs for images that are nothing special or important.

If the camera used to much contrast, blew the highlights or somehow made a bad conversion of what the camera captured, then you can process the image yourself.

If you are not good at post processing then RAW is not for you. It is time consuming to post process a batch of pictures and batch processing them is not always a great idea either.

RAW has many features that JPG can't match. You will love the white balance adjustment. I recently shot some images with auto white balance in RAW, and the camera got the white balance wrong. I returned to the scene (electrical light), got the white balance right using my Expodisc, and viola; I then had the white balance as a NUMBER (two, actually) I could use on EVERY RAW image from the day before, and the images looked perfect. If I had only JPGs then I would have had to make all kinds of adjustments on every image (that has a unique, wrong white balance). It is also easier to work on a dedicated white balance (and tint) slider than adjusting red, green or blue curves and what not.

With Adobes camera profiles you can also easily switch color profiles from landscape to portrait to vivid to standard. And as I said, you will have all the data from when you took the image, no loss of data because you had low quality JPG selected or whatever.

However, RAW is not for anyone or for any situation. People discuss RAW vs JPG as if you are a retard if you don't just this or that, but if you are happy with your JPGs, don't worry about the difference, and keep shooting in JPG.

I was not satisfied with the JPGs from my camera, and was pushed into RAW processing. I am that that happened, because I get excellent results myself, much better than in-camera processed JPGs.

But, I recommend that you keep a RAW copy of vital images. It is after all, your digital negative, unaltered.

[zona5101]

Are you using the same program to view the raw and the jpg/tiff?
Maybe it's as simple as the way each program interacts with the monitor. Stock viewers that come with your computer may not do a good job in rendering the pic.
Just a thought...