RAW + JPEG question

[ChrisLumix]

I've just started experimenting by shooting RAW for the first time (using Raw Therapee to develop them).

 

I don't know if other manufacturers do the same, but Panasonic allow you to capture both RAW and JPEG versions of a shot, which I've chosen to do at least to begin with.

 

The question is - are the JPEG settings the camera's default settings, or your own? I can't find the answer in the manual or online. The point is, I want to compare RAW against what I've set for JPEGs (i.e. NR -5, SH 0 SA 0 C 0), not the camera's defaults (which would be a totally pointless exercise).

 

Anyone know the answer?

[annie]

I have my camera on Raw/JPEG just so I don't have to open all the raw files just to see the images. I just assumed the JPEG would be the settings I had set myself..so it will be interesting to find this out Chris..

[Black Pearl]

Whatever you set in camera is 'baked' into the JPEG so if you've altered settings that's what you will see - the RAW file might be displayed with the same settings depending on the software and whether it reads the EXIF correctly. The thing with the RAW is they aren't baked in you can adjust them as you see fit.

[Guest]

Chris in camera Jpegs use all the settings that you have set in camera and process the image accordingly, basically it's a built in editor that has limitations. 

 

The raw image is not influenced by any of the camera settings except exposure and WB and is a basic starting line that you decide the settings for and not the camera. Only the camera manafactures own raw software will will display the raw the same as the jpeg.

 

For instance if shooting jpeg if you have contrast set to plus 3 for a low contrast scene then you really should change it to minus 2 for a very high contrast scene to get the finished jpeg you want, but with raw all these decisions are made post capture.

Edited February 9, 2015 by OlyPaul

[Paul80]

Hi

 

For a long time I also used to shoot RAW + JPEG and printed from the JPEG as it was a quicker process, only reverting to the RAW file if I needed to do more processing.

 

Nowadays most software can handle RAW files just as quickly, if not quicker Photoshop, Lightroom etc so now I only shoot in RAW.

 

Its also better if you are shooting action as the camera is slowed down by processing JPEG files along with RAW, RAW on their own results in much quicker operation, well it does on my Lumix Cameras, might be different with others, depending on their processors power.

 

Paul

[Black Pearl]

Actually on every camera I'm aware of you are better off with jpegs not RAW when shooting action as the files are far smaller, write faster and so give you a vastly bigger buffer capacity/max number of shots.

[annie]

Chris has started something very interesting here.

 

I agree with BP...for both my cameras, RAW is slower, so I tend to use JPEG only if I am trying to get something moving fast and I am on continuous, they will go on and on then, not come to a halt while it plays catch up.

[ChrisLumix]

Thanks for the replies everyone - I already knew that JPEGs use your own settings, it was a specific question related to the RAW+JPEG option; but if you think that those JPEGs still use your own settings, then that's good to know.

 

The interesting thing is : the brickwork on a chimney (100%) looks 'smeary' on the JPEG compared to the RAW. If the JPEG contains my own settings (Noise Reduction reduced to its lowest setting) then that's a major win for RAW.

 

(I'll try to post two comparative pictures of that).

[ChrisLumix]

Detail from a 100% (200%?) crop (the only thing I did in the RAW processor was straighten the image)

 

JPEG:

 

 

RAW:

 

 

I hope you can see that there is better detail on the RAW image. However, at normal viewing size, there is very little difference to see.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ChrisLumix

[Guest]

 

The interesting thing is : the brickwork on a chimney (100%) looks 'smeary' on the JPEG compared to the RAW. If the JPEG contains my own settings (Noise Reduction reduced to its lowest setting) then that's a major win for RAW.

 

(I'll try to post two comparative pictures of that).

 

Chris in camera jpegs and some raw converters apply noise reduction over the whole image which can depending on the settings result in fine detail being smeared or if no noise reduction applied good detail in brickwork but more noise in plain areas like skies.

 

Some raw converters as this one here have the capability to work with layers so you can apply very little noise reduction but more clarity to detailed areas and more noise reduction to plain areas where noise can be a problem. Not sure if raw therape does this as I have not used it.

 

Click To Enlarge

Edited February 9, 2015 by OlyPaul

[ChrisLumix]

As you can probably see, Raw Therapee doesn't support layers, but there looks a lot to learn!

 

[Black Pearl]

I see you have the sharpness turned down on the JPEG which would explain the slightly soft image - is Raw Therepee applying basic sharpening to the RAW, most RAW converters do this by default.

[ChrisLumix]

I see you have the sharpness turned down on the JPEG which would explain the slightly soft image - is Raw Therepee applying basic sharpening to the RAW, most RAW converters do this by default.

 

The advice for the LX (and for most Lumixes) is to turn the NR down to minimum, and sharpness to -1 but I decided to leave it at 0 (0 is the mid-point!). I'm only a short way through the RawTherapee manual and even less in comprehension, but I got the feeling they said they were unlike most RAW programs in that they presented a Preview image straight from the file without any processing. I could have misunderstood though, it's all very complicated...

[Paul80]

Actually on every camera I'm aware of you are better off with jpegs not RAW when shooting action as the files are far smaller, write faster and so give you a vastly bigger buffer capacity/max number of shots.

 

Actually as the Camera has to apply processing to the JPEG it can be quicker shooting RAW only as nothing is done to the image with JPEG not only does it have to apply all the cameras settings but also apply the JPEG resizing algorithms, all that can slow the process.

 

As for space saving with memory cards being as cheap as chips these days what's the point, my 64gb card can hold 3000 RAW files and they cost less than £20 each so space saving is not an issue.

 

For me with my cameras I find shooting RAW quicker than Shooting RAW plus JPEG which if you actually read what I wrote, was what I said, not that JPEG on its own was slower than RAW but RAW Plus JPEG was slower than RAW on its own.

[ChrisLumix]

Paul, I think my camera delivers 3 RAW+JPEG per second so I'm not unduly bothered by a speed slowdown. 

 

But you're right, if I wanted to shoot action I would switch to JPEG only and get up to 30 fps.

[Black Pearl]

Performance for my camera:

RAW:

7fps

17 shots

13.3 seconds to clear buffer.

RAW + JPEG Large/Fine:

7fps

15 shots

14.3 seconds to clear buffer.

JPEG Large Fine:

7fps

100+ shots - put a fast UDMA CF card in and it will just keep going until you get bored.

As you can see the shooting speed (frames per second) is exactly the same regardless of which file type is selected or how many files you ask the camera to process and record. You do get two less shots by shooting RAW and JPEG together before the buffer fills but that's not bad as its holding twice as many files. If absolute performance is required then you are best shooting JPEG only as that is at least 100 shots without pausing.

[Guest]

I've never shot enough to fill the buffer on my E-M5 even when shooting dog agility trials in high speed frame mode so guess I should be pleased with it's raw capabilty of 9fps for 16 shots and 7.5 seconds to clear the buffer.

Edited February 10, 2015 by OlyPaul

[Paul80]

But then again if shooting speed is a big issue how long before everyone is going  down the 4k video route 25/30 FPS for as long as your card lasts and then just print the frame you want, Its been done already so how long before actual still photography as we know it is a thing of the past.

 

Not as long as some would hope I bet.

 

Paul

[Black Pearl]

Should that read 9fps for 16 shots not 16 seconds - because that is buffer capacity of 144 which is somewhat large and bigger than a D4s or 1Dx

[Guest]

Indeed it should BP..I have changed it. 

[ChrisLumix]

But then again if shooting speed is a big issue how long before everyone is going  down the 4k video route 25/30 FPS for as long as your card lasts and then just print the frame you want, Its been done already so how long before actual still photography as we know it is a thing of the past.

 

Not as long as some would hope I bet.

 

Paul

 

Just for so long as individual photographers have a picture in mind and shoot it, rather than shooting  a video and later musing "You know, was there a moment in there that would make a great still even if only 8Mp?" and then doesn't mind spending an entire evening tracking down that one moment on the video only to find that "No, it wasn't such a great still shot after all". Ok, I'm arguing the extreme scenario, but I'm sure you get my drift.

[Phil]

Off topic I know, sorry. Using your left mouse button, highlight an area of text in a post and a pop-up should appear where you can elect to quote that particular section.

[Korky]

a pop-up should appear where you can elect to quote that particular section.

 

It works! 

[ChrisLumix]

It works! 

 

 @Phil,

 

highlight an area of text in a post and a pop-up should

 

 

It does indeed!