In camera raw processing

Is there any difference in the finish of a raw file processed in camera to that of a raw file over processed in a raw converter on my pc.I ask as I have just used this feature on the Kr and its so easy and time saving.
Ian

well, yes, because you have no control over the processing in the camera... which kind of defeats the point, no?

Bret

Yes but would not the processing of the jpeg image give the final result as to the way you prefer the final image. Im not realy up to scratch having not processed raw files to be honest.
Ian

The in-cam processing will essentially give you a JPEG as the camera would have shot it.

COnsidering the main advantage of RAW is the ability to change exposure, white balance, bring out shadow detail and adjust levels, using the in-cam stuff other than to create a quick full-size check shot is a bit pointless IMO.

Bret

But what is the difference to doing all of these re'ajusments in a jpeg as to a raw file. Sorry if Im missing something but I cant see the difference.
Ian

A computer has potentially more processing power than the camera. On the other hand, the camera can be programmed by the manufacturer to produce the optimum result. It's a moot point these days and as time goes by JPEG capture becomes better and better.

I suggest use what suits until there's some defect that doesn't live up to your requirements, but always keep investigating alternatives as things change very quickly.

Thanks John would it help to post a raw file processed in camera and the same photo in a j peg format. A freind of mine is always badgering me to shoot in raw but he has all kinds of soft ware programes which are very expensive. He does though produce some very nice photos.
Ian

Ian, you'll see the advantage of RAW when pulling detail back into 'burnt out' highlight areas and extremely dark shadow areas. The RAW file contains a little bit more information than a jpeg which allows this.

Typically RAW converters offer better noise reduction results compared to in camera jpeg processing, but the maybe that's more an issue for older bodies that struggle a bit more with noise than the K-r!

Thanks for that info looks like I will have to do a little more digging on this subject.
Ian

GIMP / UFRaw. It's free and usable and effective.

A quick comparison with a shot I took a couple of weeks back... one is out of the camera with the in-cam processing, the other uses auto WB, a minor curve change, Blackpoint increase and saturation is +0.2.

Spot which one's which?

Bret

RAW is truly RAW data so programs can interpreted differently than another program does, you can even see difference if you compare programs renders directly.
I'm sure you will be able to see a difference between in-camera and software as well.

There looks to be more detail in pic 2 to my eye if you look at the blue coat but the sky looks a little washed out in the upper half but I would go for 2.
Ian