Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAW images

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm new to the digital camera world. I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1. I have
read that it is important to take the images in RAW format and then transfer
them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images tend to look
blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a bell. Am I
doing something wrong? Even the images that I initially take as JPEGS and
then immediately transform into RAW files turn out slightly blurred when I
view them in my computer. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! ...Dan

More about : raw images

Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dan Gheno" <dangheno@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:qJ1zd.5356$_X7.3345@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm new to the digital camera world. I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1. I
> have read that it is important to take the images in RAW format and then
> transfer them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images
> tend to look blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a
> bell. Am I doing something wrong? Even the images that I initially take
> as JPEGS and then immediately transform into RAW files turn out slightly
> blurred when I view them in my computer. Any comments would be
> appreciated. Thanks! ...Dan
There should not be a difference in focus with a RAW vs JPG, if your camera
is focused.
You can NOT transform a JPEG into RAW format.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPEGs are the finished product of your cameras computer editting pics
the way it thinks the image should look (i.e., sharpenning,
sensitivity, etc.), then compressing the image to save space. The
advantage to RAW format or TIFF/TIFs is TRUE resolution, and that if
part of the file becomes corrupted, the file can still be salvaged,
whereas in JPEG, 28-bits could represent any # of pixels in the image.
However, I've been known to speak from my butt from time to time, so
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dan Gheno wrote:

> I'm new to the digital camera world. I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1. I have
> read that it is important to take the images in RAW format and then transfer
> them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images tend to look
> blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a bell. Am I
> doing something wrong?

It depends...

What software are you using to process your RAW files and what is your
typical workflow (what do you do to the RAW files before you convert them) ?
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dan Gheno" <dangheno@prodigy.net> writes:

> them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images tend to look
> blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a bell. Am I
> doing something wrong? Even the images that I initially take as JPEGS and

I think you'd get better guesses if you posted a couple of examples of JPG
and RAW files on the Web somewhere. (Oh, and told people the URL.)
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dan Gheno wrote:

> I'm new to the digital camera world.
> I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1.
> I have read that it is important to take
> the images in RAW format and then
> transfer them to TIFFs to get the best
> quality.

Not perhaps to get the best quality,
but to provide a basis for the most
versatility, and maybe the best quality
depending on your purpose.

RAW can be though of as straight output
from the sensor on your camera. Each
pixel laid down as a number in a grid.
(I know that's not entirely true, but it'll
do for a primer.)

You can take that raw output and
adjust brightness, contrast, sharpness,
white balance and so on to end up
with the finished picture.

That's what your camera does for you
when you choose JPEG as the output.
It also compresses the file.

So when you compare RAW, which
is unimproved sensor data, with JPEG,
which has been improved for viewing,
it's like comparing a pile of lumber
with a garage.

> All of my RAW images tend
> to look blurred while my JPEGS at the
> same settings are clear as a bell.

That's because of the effects of
contrast, brightness and sharpening
adjustments.

> Am I doing something wrong?

Nope. It's as it should be.

> Even the images that I initially take
> as JPEGS and then immediately transform
> into RAW files turn out slightly blurred
> when I view them in my computer.

Well, now that's a problem. I'm not sure
how you go from JPEG to RAW. Do you
mean to TIFF?

The purpose of starting with RAW output
is that you can do a heck of a lot with
RAW files. You can adjust things in them
in any number of ways to make them look
better, then save them as a JPEG to reduce
their size for sharing with friends and family.

But once you take JPEG from the camera,
you've lost the RAW data, and there's no
way to get it back. You have the garage
pre-built.

So the recommended path (workflow, it's
called) would be to take RAW from the
camera and save it on your hard drive.
Then make a copy and manipulate that
for white balance, color, brightness, contrast,
sharpness and whatever else you want to
play with. (Sharpness should be last.)
You can save as TIFF, which saves all
the data but doesn't compress, or use
JPEG, which compresses and loses
some data.

When you're done with your own manipulations,
the resulting file should look as good as
what comes as JPEG from the camera.

Now, that said, many cameras provide
pretty darn good looking JPEGs that
print up just fine at the drugstore, and if
that's all you need, then don't worry about it.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 2:41:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Dan Gheno" dangheno@prodigy.net

>I'm new to the digital camera world. I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1. I have
>read that it is important to take the images in RAW format and then transfer
>them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images tend to look
>blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a bell. Am I
>doing something wrong? Even the images that I initially take as JPEGS and
>then immediately transform into RAW files turn out slightly blurred when I
>view them in my computer.

The jpegs are created in-camera from RAW files ... they are getting sharpened
when converted to jpegs, either with a default setting or with something you
set on purpose ... sharpen the converted RAW files and they will also look
"clear as a bell".
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 3:05:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Waggener wrote:

> "Dan Gheno" <dangheno@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:qJ1zd.5356$_X7.3345@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>I'm new to the digital camera world. I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1. I
>>have read that it is important to take the images in RAW format and then
>>transfer them to TIFFs to get the best quality. All of my RAW images
>>tend to look blurred while my JPEGS at the same settings are clear as a
>>bell. Am I doing something wrong? Even the images that I initially take
>>as JPEGS and then immediately transform into RAW files turn out slightly
>>blurred when I view them in my computer. Any comments would be
>>appreciated. Thanks! ...Dan
>
> There should not be a difference in focus with a RAW vs JPG, if your camera
> is focused.

Quite right. But the presumption is the OP is talking about the
appearance of jpeg and RAW files from the same shot.

> You can NOT transform a JPEG into RAW format.

Also quite right. I passed it by thinking he'd just transposed the two
terms.

--
John Mcwilliams
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:31:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks to everyone for the clear and thorough explanations. Everyone seems
to agree that the camera is doing some in-house manipulation of the images
when it converts them to JPEGs. I will try playing around with the RAW files
in my computer---- the camera came with a program to tweak the images.

As for the reconverting of the JPEGs to RAW..... According to my Cannon
PowerShot Pro1 manual (pg.55, 56), the camera is supposedly able to return
the JPEG image back into RAW if you command the camera to do so within 10
seconds of taking the image. I assume that the camera must be holding onto
both the RAW and the JPEG converted image for those 10 seconds. At least
that's what I'm assuming---- the manual never explains the how of the
process.

Thanks again for everyone's help.... Happy Holidays,
Dan
"Don Lathrop" <dl682@concrete.not> wrote in message
news:-c6dncsE8e3fWVHcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> Dan Gheno wrote:
>
>> I'm new to the digital camera world.
>> I have a Canon PowerShot Pro1.
>> I have read that it is important to take
>> the images in RAW format and then
>> transfer them to TIFFs to get the best
>> quality.
>
> Not perhaps to get the best quality,
> but to provide a basis for the most
> versatility, and maybe the best quality
> depending on your purpose.
>
> RAW can be though of as straight output
> from the sensor on your camera. Each
> pixel laid down as a number in a grid.
> (I know that's not entirely true, but it'll
> do for a primer.)
>
> You can take that raw output and
> adjust brightness, contrast, sharpness,
> white balance and so on to end up
> with the finished picture.
>
> That's what your camera does for you
> when you choose JPEG as the output.
> It also compresses the file.
>
> So when you compare RAW, which
> is unimproved sensor data, with JPEG,
> which has been improved for viewing,
> it's like comparing a pile of lumber
> with a garage.
>
>> All of my RAW images tend
>> to look blurred while my JPEGS at the
>> same settings are clear as a bell.
>
> That's because of the effects of
> contrast, brightness and sharpening
> adjustments.
>
>> Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Nope. It's as it should be.
>
>> Even the images that I initially take
>> as JPEGS and then immediately transform
>> into RAW files turn out slightly blurred
>> when I view them in my computer.
>
> Well, now that's a problem. I'm not sure
> how you go from JPEG to RAW. Do you
> mean to TIFF?
>
> The purpose of starting with RAW output
> is that you can do a heck of a lot with
> RAW files. You can adjust things in them
> in any number of ways to make them look
> better, then save them as a JPEG to reduce
> their size for sharing with friends and family.
>
> But once you take JPEG from the camera,
> you've lost the RAW data, and there's no
> way to get it back. You have the garage
> pre-built.
>
> So the recommended path (workflow, it's
> called) would be to take RAW from the
> camera and save it on your hard drive.
> Then make a copy and manipulate that
> for white balance, color, brightness, contrast,
> sharpness and whatever else you want to
> play with. (Sharpness should be last.)
> You can save as TIFF, which saves all
> the data but doesn't compress, or use
> JPEG, which compresses and loses
> some data.
>
> When you're done with your own manipulations,
> the resulting file should look as good as
> what comes as JPEG from the camera.
>
> Now, that said, many cameras provide
> pretty darn good looking JPEGs that
> print up just fine at the drugstore, and if
> that's all you need, then don't worry about it.
>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:31:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dan Gheno wrote:

> I will try playing around with the RAW files in
> my computer---- the camera came with
> a program to tweak the images.

If that's the Arcsoft Camera Suite, you might want
to invest in JASC (now Corel) Paint Shop Pro
or PhotoShop Elements eventually. As you
get more experienced, you'll probably want
to step up to an application with more ability
to adjust things. I think both can handle Canon
RAW, and are reasonably priced.

> According to my Canon PowerShot Pro1
> manual (pg.55, 56), the camera is supposedly
> able to return the JPEG image back into RAW
> if you command the camera to do so within 10
> seconds of taking the image.

I didn't know that. Learn something every day!

Again, though ... if you're happy with the JPEGs,
and they make good prints for you -- there really
is no reason to go too far down the RAW path.
If you're very serious about photography, you'll
want to. But if you want family shots and vacation
shots, it might be a lot of trouble for very little gain.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 5:54:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dan Gheno wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for the clear and thorough explanations. Everyone seems
> to agree that the camera is doing some in-house manipulation of the images
> when it converts them to JPEGs. I will try playing around with the RAW files
> in my computer---- the camera came with a program to tweak the images.
>
> As for the reconverting of the JPEGs to RAW..... According to my Cannon
> PowerShot Pro1 manual (pg.55, 56), the camera is supposedly able to return
> the JPEG image back into RAW if you command the camera to do so within 10
> seconds of taking the image. I assume that the camera must be holding onto
> both the RAW and the JPEG converted image for those 10 seconds. At least
> that's what I'm assuming---- the manual never explains the how of the
> process.
>

Ah, that rings a bell. I recall reading that also, in one of my Canon
manuals, but never gave a thought to actually using it. Could come in
handy, tho, so I will try to look it up.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:36:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> You can NOT transform a JPEG into RAW format.
>

You can with Nikon Capture..
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:28:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 02:31:05 GMT, "Dan Gheno" <dangheno@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>As for the reconverting of the JPEGs to RAW..... According to my Cannon
>PowerShot Pro1 manual (pg.55, 56), the camera is supposedly able to return
>the JPEG image back into RAW if you command the camera to do so within 10
>seconds of taking the image. I assume that the camera must be holding onto
>both the RAW and the JPEG converted image for those 10 seconds. At least
>that's what I'm assuming---- the manual never explains the how of the
>process.

You're assumption sounds correct.
!