Fuzzy Raw Images

[sam bailey]

I played around a little trying to see what difference shooting in Raw would accomplish. With my Rebel/300D I took the same pictures(using a tripod) in Raw and also in the best quality JPEG. When viewing the images in the Canon software the Raw files were not as sharp as the JPEG. You could not tell this unless you enlarged them. Is this normal? Do you have to export the Raw images to something like Photoshop and then do extra sharpening?

[GenEOS]

Almost always "Yes". For me, that is what I want, I want to be in total control of the sharpening.

[Scottes]

This is normal. When you shoot JPEG the camera does some internal sharpening before saving. There are different levels of sharpening you can set, too.

In RAW mode, it's just that - RAW data, unprocessed, nothing done to it. You have to "develop" the image by processing it through the Canon software (FVU?) or 3rd party products like Photoshop CS or CaptureOne or BreezeBrowser.

In RAW mode you have much more control of things - you can change exposure +/- 2 stops, change color saturation, the color of the light, etc, etc, etc. It's a lot more control, but can be a lot more work - it is definitely some more work.

Search the forums here or do a Google for something like "shoot raw mode" or "raw vs jpg" and you'll get plenty of reasons why and why not to do either. I won't go into it here - that debate has been done a thousand times.

[chris.bailey]

JPEG - Processed in camera quite a lot, including sharpness but then saved as a lossy image that introduces its own artefacts.

RAW - Does not

Canon Software - Not highly rated on this forum as a RAW converter.

C1 or PC CS creates a MUCH better image from the RAW file but only of you can see past the initial appeal of a JPEG image and are prepared to play around to get what you want out of it rather than what a Canon techie bod thinks you will like.

See beyond sharp as a primary consideration. The RAW image will be cleaner (no JPEG artefacts), truer (not messed about with in camera) but needs a little more lovel and attention to get the best out of. I sharpen a little on RAW conversion but only enough to get my eyes to focus, again when I decide on the size I am going to print out to and again when I have finished mucking about. All in Photoshop.

If you cant be bothered with the above (and few would disagree that its not a lot of work for the gain) shoot in JPEG and be done with it. If you want the best your fine camera can give you, go RAW.

[sam bailey]

Thanks guys. since the Canon image(right side of the screen on the computer) indicated that the same sharpening was being applied even to the Raw image, I assumed it should be at least as sharp. Sounds like even though it indicates sharpening is going on, it really is not.

[Scottes]

since the Canon image(right side of the screen on the computer) indicated that the same sharpening was being applied even to the Raw image, I assumed it should be at least as sharp. Sounds like even though it indicates sharpening is going on, it really is not.

Yeah, that's what people thought until Chuck Westfall (Canon Director of Technical Something or something like that) cleared it up: The sharpening setting is set to X, but RAW ignores that setting and does almost no sharpening. I said "almost no sharpening" but I understand that to mean "very, very, very little sharpening."

[RichardtheSane]

SOmething it is worth noting here is that if you are jsut viewing the images in the canon software withough converting the RAW files then the image that you are seeing for the raw is in fact the embedded jpeg thumbnail - which is problably a much lower res than the jpegs you took.

If you convert the raw files then put the two side by side the comparison would be much better.

[ahmadof]

when you embed the highest quality Jpeg in the RAW file, is this the same as taking a high quality Jpeg by itself? That is, can i take a RAW embeded with a highest quality Jpeg shot of the same subject with the same parameters and compare the quality for myself?

[kufel]

Actually, Canon soft will offer the best quality after processing the RAW, unfortunately it's very time consuming. C One is my preferred untill the new Canon software is released in April.
embeded jpeg is exactly the same as jpeg itself, but you can ONLY use Canon soft to extract it

[ahmadof]

that new software will be avail in april? are there any details?

[KennyG]

that new software will be avail in april? are there any details?

The software will only be for the 1D, 1Ds and 1D-MKII.

[Saturn]

Hello:

We shoot nothing but raw. If a client needs jpgs, we still shoot raw, convert to tiffs or psd files, sharpen, then convert the sharpened files to jpgs. You can set up an action in Photoshop that will do this in one step. Takes about 10 seconds per file.

Having gotten that off my chest, in the raw mode, you can select your level of sharpness in the converter window, either Canon's or Photoshop CS browser (we much prefer the Photoshop browser for conversions). Check to see if you had sharpening turned completely off in your conversion software of choice.

From testing, we've found that we turn off all in-camera, and browser and conversion software sharpening. We sharpen the file after it is converted to a tiff or psd file, then save as a jpg. We never sharpen jpgs, as the natural jpg artifacting becomes more noticeable.

Hope this helps!

Saturn

[kufel]

there will be 2 versions: one updated for 10D and Rebel and one brand new for 1D's, according to Chuck Westfall from Canon. They are also considering combining all models in the new soft later on. I don't rememb er which forum I saw it on, either this or Rob G.'s