Now, my friends, I have a serious doubt !...

Antonio Correia

I shot these pictures today.
I was using the 350 D and the 24-70.
I shot RAW and JPG at the same time.
Which photo looks the best ?
The one on the right or the one on the left ?
In fact the one on the right is the JPG and the other the RAW file without "modifications". And the JPG is better than the RAW !

I do understand that shooting RAW is better because of the digital negative, etc. etc. etc..

What am I doing wronge ?
What am I supposed to do ?
Can I have even better pictures coming from RAW to JPG ?
In http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147967103 are other pictures in the same place with the same "problem"

The link for the 1.st photo is: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147968166-L-LB
The link for the 2.ed photo is: http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579#147967103-L-LB

pathfinder

Antonio,

Jpgs from the camera may look better than straight from RAW images, due to incamera sharpening, increase in color saturation, and contrast the incamera jpgs are getting.

The straight from RAWs will not have these advantages until YOU process them. Once the RAW files receive similar, but better, increases in color, contrast and sharpening, they will be better than the straight jpgs.

digismile

Hi Antonio,

On my screen the two pictures are top and bottom. I assume the first is your jpeg and the second is the RAW.

You aren't doing anything wrong. All that is happening is that your camera is doing a little extra post processing as it creates the jpeg. I don't know for sure on the 350D, but on the 10D, 20D, etc. canon gives you the option of setting a few custom post processing settings that affect contrast, saturation, sharpness, and color. In a lot of cameras, particularly point & shoot, the manufacturers assume you want some "pop" and they increase the contrast, etc.

I think a lot of us had the same feeling when we first went to RAW, that somehow our pictures were "flat" compared to jpeg. It wasn't that the RAW was flat, it was the jpeg was being processed an extra amount! You can easily do the same in RAW.

The problem with automatically increasing the contrast, etc. in a jpeg, is that not all photographs need the extra saturation, contrast, etc.. I would much rather have the RAW and process to my taste, not the camera manufacturer's taste.

That being said, there could be a setting on your camera that you can turn off. On my 20D, my jpegs and RAW images look pretty much identical. Take a look under your custom settings.

Regards,

thebigsky

Antonio,

All images that the camera produce are originally RAW, however if you choose to save as a JPEG the camera will usually add sharpening, contrast and saturation, depending on the make and model.

RAW leaves the data untouched and allows you to make these enhancements.

RAW files are not meant to be left untouched.

Charlie

Antonio Correia

Pathfinder, Brad and Charlie

Thank you for the comments.

They were useful and confirmed what I was suspecting for some time now:

Shooting JPG all the way is easier in most situations.
For special situations, like situations where light temperature is difficult to control and we can not use the gray card, high dynamic range is needed, hight detail in shadows is needed, large prints are required, RAW may/is be the issue.

Now, I am going to experiment with some different camera settings to watch the results I like best.
But, there too, those setting differ from one subject to another.

Shooting a landscape and a face should require different settings.

Curious, that only now I noticed such a difference. And it is not the 1.st time I shoot RAW and JPG simultaniously.
Usually I shoot with 20D and yesterday I was using the 350 D.

Thank you again.:D