Converting RAW to jpeg

[JWellman]

Good morning everyone... The noob has another question.

Is there supposed to be this big of a difference in clarity and focus when I go from RAW to jpeg?

I took a screenshot of the RAW image that I see in my Canon program and the jpeg results that I get when using my Canon converter that came with my camera.

I'm simply not happy with the results I'm getting. How can I keep my jpeg's looking like my RAW's without owning PS. Someone also told me that Adobe has a free converter. ??

Screenshot of the RAW as I see it in my Canon program

Results I get after converting to jpeg

 

[Robin Usagani]

I dont know... It is probably user error. What are the settings when you convert it?

 

[JWellman]

I dont know... It is probably user error. What are the settings when you convert it?

Oh, I'm sure it is!

There are not a lot of settings that I see. I thought maybe I had the 1-10 set wrong as far as quality but the instructions say, "The setting range is 1 to 10. The higher the numerical value, the higher the image quality becomes." Maybe the DPI is not high enough? I'm not sure what that number should be. 350 was the default.

 

[JWellman]

I'm searching Google for options... what do you guys think about Lightroom 3? It's 300 bucks...

 

[Robin Usagani]

Well, my first question is how did you have a jpg that is only 536x755 pixel? Your camera has more pixel than that. How did you resize it before you upload it to your server?

 

[JWellman]

I've used PSP for 11 years now. I wanted you to see the image before I resized it. This image is super duper large so I apologize in advance. Click here to view. As you can see, it looks like crap right out of the converter before resizing.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I don't know what is up but LR3 is an awesome program. Even the 2nd file posted only had 0.8 megapixel. There must be a step you messed up somewhere.

 

[clanthar]

The image appears appropriate to the circumstances of its creation.

The child is out of DOF -- the lens was one stop down from wide open and the camera focused on the closest foreground material; the wrapping paper.

The image is noisy at 1250 ISO.

The JPEG algorithm takes advantage of the focus loss and more aggressively discards data in those areas. You must understand that JPEG compression even at the highest quality level does harm. In this photo your JPEG file is 3.03 megabytes on disk while the uncompressed photo is 40.2 megabytes. That's 75% compression. Theoretically, compression for redundancy under ideal circumstances can't exceed 50%. Practically, with photo data, redundancy compression rarely exceeds 25%. JPEG did its job and threw 1/3 of your photo away. That's what it's supposed to do. Where it found focus loss it figured, nothing important here.

DPP is excellent software. The difference you're seeing in the screen images may be the result of how DPP is displaying the RAW data. I'll look into that.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[vtf]

Are you converting your RAW files prior to editing in PSP. If so maybe in the conversion the program is making the adjustments for you and taking out what it wants to compress the data into jpeg form. Save to Jpeg after you have edited in PSP and closer to your final product.

 

[Opher]

two things come to mind. one is you may be loosing color as you assign a color profile the second would be jpg compression... but 10 should not cause that. Im at work so i will check back this evening.

 

[clanthar]

Try this test. Convert the same file from RAW to JPEG and then from RAW to TIFF. Then compare the two conversions. This should let you see what JPEG is doing to the photo.

Joe

 

[JWellman]

Playing in lightroom and having a blast! Now I just have to figure out all these buttons.

 

[subscuck]

Did you buy or download the trial version? Some things to consider about the Adobe family, if you already know this, apologies. LR is more organization and workflow based, with very limited editing. It was designed this way to be an "add on" with PS. PS has far more editing capability, including 16 bit editing, non destructive edits via layers. Elements has a lot more editing capability than LR, but lacks the organization of LR, and a lot of the features of PS. Elements may be a better choice for you at about $80. PS at $700 is a good choice if you can swing the $$$. If you can't, Elements is more than adequate for most people most of the time.

 

[cidrmakr]

When you are looking at a raw file what you see is a jpg that was imbedded by the camera into the raw file. It's the same one you see on the lcd on the back of your camera. Camera settings as to style, etc. are what determine that. The raw file once opened in a demosaic program (raw converter) has no adjustments made to it. It's up to you to modify it to what you want. That's why they appear different. LR is a good program for managing large file databases and for doing the basic camera raw adjustments (about the same as possible in your canon software). Some people need it some don't. Personally I think it's not worth what it costs. (I use cs5) Gimp is a freebie raw editor that has nearly the capabilities of adobe ps and easier to use. Be aware that when you start with adobe lr and ps you are in for a very large learning curve of software that has several different ways to do anything, is very difficult to learn - never completely it seems - and very expensive.

 

[JWellman]

Did you buy or download the trial version? Some things to consider about the Adobe family, if you already know this, apologies. LR is more organization and workflow based, with very limited editing. It was designed this way to be an "add on" with PS. PS has far more editing capability, including 16 bit editing, non destructive edits via layers. Elements has a lot more editing capability than LR, but lacks the organization of LR, and a lot of the features of PS. Elements may be a better choice for you at about $80. PS at $700 is a good choice if you can swing the $$$. If you can't, Elements is more than adequate for most people most of the time.

Thanks...I'm just messing with the trial version at the moment!
Same photo above but using Lightroom. The focus is on the paper and not the boy, but still better than the Canon program I've been using.