Page 1 of 1

RAW to jpeg conversion

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:44 pm
by Arthur Fowler
I generally take RAW+ jpeg on my Nikon and use the jpeg unless something needs doing with light levels.
Last year I took a photo of a leopard in very low light that looked not bad on the jpeg. When I tried starting from the RAW though I couldn't get anywhere near the quality of the appearance of the jpeg. Seems the jpeg in camera conversion does a lot of very effective sharpening amongst other things.

I'm off on a short safari next year and ideally would like to shoot in RAW only as with my camera the buffering/write speed is substantially better that way. But unless I can get very close to the jpeg low light image quality then I am loathed to do so.

Is there some way of recreating the in-camera processing in post? I have Lightroom and PS but I'm far from an expert in either!

Thanks

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:35 pm
by paulsaz
Shoot jpg only?

Lightroom should have adobe's efforts at recreating your cameras jpeg styles under the camera calibration tab of the develop module. In my experience these range from pretty close to nowhere near depending on manufacturer and how bothered adobe can be to get them right. They are not the same as the original jpegs though.

I'm surprised you see a significant increase in write speed shooting just RAW compared to RAW+JPEG, the jpegs are normally tiny in comparison to the raws. I assume you're using the fastest cards your camera supports? Makes a hell of a difference.

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:01 pm
by Arthur Fowler
paulsaz wrote:Shoot jpg only?

Lightroom should have adobe's efforts at recreating your cameras jpeg styles under the camera calibration tab of the develop module. In my experience these range from pretty close to nowhere near depending on manufacturer and how bothered adobe can be to get them right. They are not the same as the original jpegs though.

I'm surprised you see a significant increase in write speed shooting just RAW compared to RAW+JPEG, the jpegs are normally tiny in comparison to the raws. I assume you're using the fastest cards your camera supports? Makes a hell of a difference.
Thanks for the reply. I will have a look at the camera calibration tab.
Edit: calibration only appears to affect colour and only on jpeg images in LR, not sharpening etc that is applied by the camera jpeg.

I don't want to shoot jpeg only as that is very limiting on what I can adjust back home. The write speed comment is based on research into what card to buy rather than trying myself. I've just bought a SanDisk Extreme Pro to try it. According to this page as an example https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon ... omparison/ RAW only is half as fast again as RAW+jpeg.

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:31 am
by RobDickinson
in camera jpg is pretty rough it shouldnt be hard to get far fa better with a raw especially for low light / under exposed images.

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:45 am
by barrynorton
DXO optics pro is rather good for processing RAW files. It downloads and corrects for each individual lens and body. It’s noise reduction on raw files is pretty impressive.

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:33 pm
by Arthur Fowler
Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps it is just because I suck at LR! Just looking at the photo again, it was taken at 25,600 ISO so I guess the situation wouldn't arise very often.

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:19 pm
by Arthur Fowler
Bit of an update on this (not that anyone is probably interested!) in two respects.

1) I can shoot in RAW only and then use the in-camera export to JPEG function.

2) I did an experiment using two different cards following recommendations on the web. I found that the cards I had been using (Sandisk Ultra 80MB) were not the best.

Shooting continuously for 30 seconds first with RAW only, then with RAW+Fine JPEG, then RAW+Basic JPEG gave:
20 shots, 14 shots and 19 shots respectively.

I then tried the same using an Extreme Pro 95 and got:
86 shots, 57 shots and 78 shots respectively.

That is a HUGE difference!!

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:14 pm
by Woz
RobDickinson wrote:in camera jpg is pretty rough it shouldnt be hard to get far fa better with a raw especially for low light / under exposed images.
I would normally agree with you, but recently compared my OMD EM1 to what I could get from RAW and it produces extremely good files.

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:56 am
by wolfkiller
Arthur Fowler wrote:Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps it is just because I suck at LR! Just looking at the photo again, it was taken at 25,600 ISO so I guess the situation wouldn't arise very often.
Post the jpg on here and stick the raw in dropbox and share the link. Someone might be able to get more from the file than you can. Raw is far, far more flexible. It may be your LR presets that need adjusting.

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:23 pm
by driver8
At high ISO, you'll likely need to tweak the white balance, up noise reduction, refine sharpen, darken shadow, and consider converting to monochrome. (In the DETAIL panel, try holding down the ALT key whilst adjusting the sliders.) The Effects - Dehaze slider can sometimes do a remarkable job from a poor-looking starting point (but also emphasises dust spots!)

Happy to spend a few mins with your file, if you wish. :)

But yes - these days, the in-camera processing does a great job with 99% of photos, and even high end smartphones have been good for 2 years.

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:58 pm
by Arthur Fowler
Thanks both