8 Replies Latest reply on Apr 9, 2015 1:04 PM by Per Berntsen

    RAW vs JPG quality question

    farroar

      Just got Lightroom and am now for the first time taking images in RAW format. I am using a Canon SLR as well as a Panasonic P&S both shooting in JPG and RAW. The Canon RAW images have an extension of .CR2 and the Panasonic has an extension of .RW2..

       

      Okay with that out of the way, I'm going through my images and notice that the RAW images don't look nearly as nice as the JPG images. As I understand it, RAW has all of the information from the picture taken and gives more flexibility with adjustments. But how is it that the two images side by side look so different? I like the look of the JPG images most of the time.. They have better color quality and the lighting seems to be more accurate to what was shot. Some even seem to have a higher level of sharpness where the RAW images almost look like they could be slightly out of focus. I've tried to get the RAW and JPG images to look the same to see if there is a specific difference (see if contrast is always x lower or x higher etc... ) but can't seem to get a RAW image to look like what was actually shot.

       

      Any input on working with RAW images or experience that would help me out here?

       

      Much appreciated!

       

      Nathan

        • 1. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
          99jon Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          Hi Nathan

           

           

          Your jpegs are fully processed in-camera e.g. using your chosen picture style, saturation and sharpness settings etc.

           

          Your raw images get the Adobe default settings, but this is meant to be a starting point. If you fine tune the sliders you can save the settings that look good as a preset. You can then apply that preset to all future raw imports automatically as you import.

           

          I think quite a few of us who first moved from jpeg to raw found the initial results less than pleasing, but with experience we found that raw files have a greater dynamic range to play with.

          • 2. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
            dj_paige Level 9

            To phrase what 99jon said in my own words ... unedited RAWs usually don't look good next to the corresponding JPG. Properly edited RAWs usually are superior to the corresponding JPG.

             

            Yes, I agree with 99jon, it takes time and effort, but it is worth it.

            • 3. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
              farroar Level 1

              I appreciate it! So, that makes a lot more sense. They are more "raw" and require some work. Since I am new to Lightroom (and I do miss my darkroom ) would you be able to say in general that there is one or two good places to start on getting the RAW images in the ball park? Something you always do with them? I know I am going to need a lot more time to play with it to get things right. If I can first get a RAW image to look just like it's corresponding JPG then I'll have a better understanding of what changes when a JPG is created in my camera.

              • 4. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
                dj_paige Level 9

                I can't specifically tell you what YOUR photos need, but MY photos almost always need more contrast and more vibrance and more clarity.

                 

                I can also tell you that the primary difference you will see between properly edited RAW and JPG is that the highlights and shadow areas will have more detail in the RAWs.

                 

                If I can first get a RAW image to look just like it's corresponding JPG then I'll have a better understanding of what changes when a JPG is created in my camera.

                A lot of people say this, and I always jump in and try to talk them out of this mindset. The RAW can look superior to the JPG. You gain nothing by working to trying to emulate the JPG. My process is:

                 

                RAW->Final product (which is superior to the JPG)

                 

                What you have described is more work and an extra step, and the extra step to me adds no value:

                 

                RAW->JPG appearance->Final product (which is superior to the JPG)

                • 6. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
                  trshaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                  You may find one of the Camera Style profiles works better for you than Adobe Standard. Regardless of the camera profile you should be able to get better results with raw files. There are plenty of learning  resources available on the Adobe site and the Web:

                   

                  https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/learn-lightroom.html

                   

                  Products | Lightroom | Adobe TV

                   

                  • 7. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
                    ssprengel Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                    The main “quality” thing you’ll probably see different your camera’s raw conversion (to JPGs) and Adobe’s is that there is no default luminance noise-reduction so there will be grain you can see and that the sharpening is more subtle.

                     

                    You can adjust both the noise-reduction and sharpening to taste, just don’t overdo it.  When I look at a camera JPG I typically see too much noise reduction which has removed too much fine detail, and sharpening halos along edges, both of which I dislike, now that I’ve worked with raws for so long.

                     

                    Here is the first part of a three-part tutorial about the three types of sharpening, capture, creative, output, that you can do to raw files in Lightroom.  The links to the other two parts are at the bottom of part one:

                     

                    http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/21/sharpening-in-lightroom-part-one-overview-and-capture-shar pening/

                     

                    You should also be doing your capture and creative sharpening with the zoom set to 100% or 1:1.  The resampling algorithim used to show smaller-than-100%-zoom views in Lightroom Develop will give inaccurate sharpening preview results, so what you think you’re doing will be different than what is actually visible in the output you produce with LR, unless you use 1:1.

                    • 8. Re: RAW vs JPG quality question
                      Per Berntsen Adobe Community Professional

                      and I do miss my darkroom

                       

                      A raw file is in many ways similar to a film negative. It needs to be interpreted, and contains a lot of information that may not be immediately visible. So when you see the image for the first time in LR, it's a bit like the first print you make from a new negative in the darkroom.

                       

                      Start out by adjusting exposure and contrast, then setting white and black points with the Whites and Blacks sliders. Similar to dodging and burning, you can recover blown highlights with the Highlights slider, and reveal shadow detail with the Shadows slider. The latter may also reveal noise.

                       

                      I suggest that you do some experimentation, and come back here if you have questions.

                      Hopefully, you'll find (like me) that you can do everything you could do in the darkroom, and more.

                      I've found that my digital prints are far superior to anything I've done in the darkroom, and there are things you can do with a raw file that are just impossible to do in the darkroom.