Raw-to-JPG, versus in-Camera
I noticed something today about my 20D. Probably existed on the Rebel but I just didn't notice.
If I shoot RAW, then convert with Canon's EOS Viewer Utility, the JPG file is roughly twice as large as an in-camera JPG. I guess that means the in-camera processing is significantly weaker than on the computer? I'm also going to assume the larger JPG file will make better enlargements?
Since I'm using the Canon raw processor, its using the very same sharpening/etc. settings that the in-camera JPG is using, so I know that isn't accounting for the file size difference.
If I shoot RAW, then convert with Canon's EOS Viewer Utility, the JPG file is roughly twice as large as an in-camera JPG. I guess that means the in-camera processing is significantly weaker than on the computer? I'm also going to assume the larger JPG file will make better enlargements?
Since I'm using the Canon raw processor, its using the very same sharpening/etc. settings that the in-camera JPG is using, so I know that isn't accounting for the file size difference.
Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
0