Raw and Jpeg

Took this photo with a K7 18-55 kit lens using the built in flash hence shadow, and couldn't believe the difference between the *.DNG and *.JPG

All I have done with the "Raw" photo was open it in CS5 and saved it as jpg
and then opened the jpg and just re-saved it.

Raw file
link

Jpg file
link

Why is there such a difference, the jpg looks over saturated etc.

All help and advice welcomed thanks

Regards

The jpeg is processed in camera to whatever settings you have on the camera. The raw file should be more of a what you see is what you get picture. Raw files are meant to be processed at a later date giving a lot more control.

Hi,

The RAW file will have data such as lens correction measurements to use if you wish but yes all the brightness, sharpness setting etc from the camera will be in the jpeg alone. You can tune them down but not entirely off.

On my KR I save as RAW from buffer post shot if I think a shot difficult requiring correction later. Otherwise I find I have a hard drive full of hundreds of large RAW files I never get around to doing anything with!

To get the best JPEG file from the camera it needs setting up. The default settings are not quite what I like, so I set Natural and +1 sharpness and that's it done. Premium quality is also necessary. Even then many images will need some adjustment, but it's usually minor.

To get the best from a RAW file there is also a bit of work to be done before it's saved as something else, be it a JPEG or TIFF.

My problem is finding one that is worth doing anything with

And there is such a bewildering amount of menus/settings to "tweak" in the camera without going into monitor calibration. I have a choice of 5 monitors to view my snaps on and every one looks different. Having the artistic eye of a mushroom doesn't help either. I'm beginning to wonder if its worth carrying on trying to learn it all

Thanks and Regards

I think John is right only a couple of settings to check for jpegs in camera. Once you have them to your taste they really don't need changing much.

I think Pentax have made it harder by Bright being default on some models, Natural on others and then I gather the same named defaults vary in effect from mdel to model any way.

As to monitors digitally connected ones using DVI have far fewer settings than anologue connected (dsub plug)ones. I have mine at 6500K and like most find varying room light the biggest issue.

All images need sharpening to a degree, some more than others. But I'm not convinced that "in camera" is the best place to do it. I always sharpen in P.Shop, and sharpening is always off in my camera.

To explain further, the +1 sharpness in camera is done for a specific reason. fotoLibra, the online image library, specify certain parameters for the images uploaded for sale. One of these is that no Photoshop sharpening at all should be done, but it is OK to apply a small amount of sharpening in camera. Counter-intuitive this may seem, but if that's what the buyers want then that's what they get. There has to be a reason and no doubt it is to do with the process of printing in books and magazines.

They also now insist on JPEG files and have converted their TIFF back catalogue already. Likewise, they want sRGB and the printers do their own CMYK conversions.

In practice, for more general applications, their is no discernable difference to the end result by adding that +1 sharpness and before web or print I do also apply some USM in Photoshop.

Mmmm! Looks like I will have to do some experimenting with sharpening both in-camera and USM in P.shop.
I didn't know that about fotoLibra.
I was always led to believe that if you put your images into an image library, (which I don't really feel confident enough to do), then they should be sent 'as is' and not altered in any way. But from what you say that is obvously wrong. Lots to learn still.
BTW I was also told that Adobe RGB1998 was the standard colour profile..

Although you can set the sharpening amount to the mid point of the +/- range available in the camera's JPG settings, I'm not sure it follows that that is the same as actually switching sharpening off.

I don't know for a fact, but I'd guess that the only way to guarantee that the camera has done no sharpening at all is use the RAW file.

When I get a chance I'll shoot a few images in RAW+ and see if there's an obvious difference.

I thought that if the sharpening range was moved to the left,(the minus side), then it was off!

I've never heard of fotoLibra and think I am years away from ever having images good enough to sell All I want to do is produce photographs which look good enough to show other people. At 68 I'm not looking for a career It's good there is somewhere like this to get advice from people who have been there, done that, and got the T-shirt

Regards

Why did you save a raw as JPEG then open and save the JPEG again???? Every time you save a JPEG you lose data as it recompresses the image.

As for uploading. Every image in an image library needs post work be that sharpening colour adjustments exposure adjustments etc.... don't believe that all editorial images have no post done... they all do.... just not for removing stuff or duplicating stuff......

I think your comment is for me cabstar, what I meant was I opened the raw file in photoshop and saved it out as a jpg because it looked different to the jpg file the camera had produced. I'm using raw+ so get two images. I don't know if you can upload raw files to photobucket then link them into a comment on here. I'm very new to all this so expect to make lots of mistakes and some things are better explained in layman's terms rather than puzzling over the instructions written by the programmer.

I know a lot of processing must go on in mags etc look at the skin of some "super models" in the mags and in real life, they look like two different people

Regards

I don't know. It may be - or it might be that that at the left hand end of the scale it's just the minimum they thought would ever be desirable.

Whether that's actually zero sharpening, I have no idea.

If you take the saturation all the way to the left, it doesn't become completely black and white though, there's still some colour.

So by the same token, perhaps it doesn't actually take the sharpness to zero.