Which file is better ?

[gjdagis]

Please be kind enough to answer the following question: Leaving aside the actual benefits of the RAW file ITSELF, which JPEG is of the better quality . . . One that is DIRECTLY captured by the Rebel itself as a LARGE/ Fine or a JPEG that is GENERATED (please forget about the RAW image itself) from a RAW file using the "file viewer utility" ? Of course I would set the convert method at the highest possible setting (#4 Highest Image Quality) to generate the JPEG.

Thank you so much for your time and trouble.
George

[Andy_T]

??? Why not just try it out, as you have a Rebel ???

Obviously it depends on whether the conversion algorithm of the Rebel is better than that of the FVU.

OTOH - If you shoot RAW, you have the flexibility of choosing a different RAW converter to generate your JPEGs ... or you could convert them to TIFF and have the final JPEGs generated by Photoshop after you're done with editing - remember, every time you save a JPEG file, you'll lose some quality, as it is compressed anew.

Granted, that's an advantage of RAW files, but one that is directly pertaining to your question :)

Regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

I strongly beleive based on my own experience that Photoshop will produce a better jpeg from a RAW file than the 10D can do on it's own.

This makes sense as the largest jpeg you make from a raw in PS (the highest quality setting of 12) will be a larger file than the one the 10D makes.

[fbenn]

Have you ever read on the Adobe website about the Camera Raw Converter ? You can do a lot of things with your Raw files e.g. convert your images to JPEG 2000. However you will neeed Photoshop 7.0.1
I hope this may be a little bit of help.
Regards,
fbenn

[stopbath]

gjdagis wrote:
Please be kind enough to answer the following question: Leaving aside the actual benefits of the RAW file ITSELF, which JPEG is of the better quality . . . One that is DIRECTLY captured by the Rebel itself as a LARGE/ Fine or a JPEG that is GENERATED (please forget about the RAW image itself) from a RAW file using the "file viewer utility" ? Of course I would set the convert method at the highest possible setting (#4 Highest Image Quality) to generate the JPEG.

Thank you so much for your time and trouble.
George
It would make sense that an offcamera conversion would give you better control over the conversion (ranging from better to worse than camera).

It is simple to test. Put the camera on a tripod. Shoot RAW, and highest quality JPEG. Convert the RAW to highest quality jpeg (using your favourite file converters for this: Canon and Photoshop). Then view the resulting files at extreme enlargement. Look for artifacting and general degredation of the image (you'll never see the difference at normal viewing size.) Examine where colours and lightlevels change suddenly.

[marcel wouters]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I strongly beleive based on my own experience that Photoshop will produce a better jpeg from a RAW file than the 10D can do on it's own.

This makes sense as the largest jpeg you make from a raw in PS (the highest quality setting of 12) will be a larger file than the one the 10D makes.

Hey,
don't confuse!
The jpeg size is not a quality indicator!
Example: sharpen a pic to develop noise then compare the size! The sharpened pic must be bigger!
Now in PS the quality 12 is very special, about no compression!

[robertcjones]

In order to make a determination which is better, you need to define what are the parameters.

RAW is more true to form, period. Its what comes right out of the imager.

True to form isn't generally what you'd print, even if you exposed it right. You have to convert it to something. RAW is separate RGB gray values. There are several other variables the RAW converter has to get right. Also, you'd sharpen the converted RAW file, at least.

At this point its no longer a RAW vs JPG "argument" if you are talking about image quality, its what staring point produces the best final picture considering your skills, the adjustments you want and know how to make, your tools and the time you want to put in. Therefore, the user is part of the equation, not just the file type.

I find it interesting there are so many discussions RAW vs JPG (like you'd have to choose) but I don't find too many threads on the Internet on which is better, MP3 or WAV. Of course the uncompressed data is more true to form, but leaving it there misses the whole point. Back to photography, there are compelling reasons not to use 16 bit TIFF files. Its not storage; that's cheap. Its time. Try taking a few of these 16 bit superfiles through their paces in Photoshop. If you are impatient like I am, you can identify. Maybe there's more to the argument than which has better fidelity.

BTW the Canon 10D RAW file spits out both JPG and RAW together if you choose RAW. When you choose the fine option, you can get the best JPG and RAW file same shot from the same camera. I've pulled some out and done a side by side. I could tell the difference, *barely*, but It would be impossible for me to denote any difference if they weren't laid side by side. I'm one of those people that juices up the saturation on most of my shots a'la Fuji. Whatever changes I make swamps the color subtleties between RAW and JPG anyway.

Many web pages discuss the true benefits of RAW being handling of exposure latitutue. I think they have something here. This is where the 8 vs 16 bit argument has teeth.

Therefore unless I'm doing anything with a huge dynamic range, I'm sticking with JPG as my "default" shooting mode.

RJ