JPEG File Created with RAW Image?

[dfuccillo]

I have set my custom function#8 to create a RAW + Large/Fine. I noticed that when I extract the JPEG using Canon's Utility Viewer, its much smaller in size compared to when I take the RAW image and run it through Canon's UV and convert file to a JPEG. Which one would be the best quality?? I would suspect the one converted using Canon UV.

Thanks

[PJ Saine]

I have set my custom function#8 to create a RAW + Large/Fine. I noticed that when I extract the JPEG using Canon's Utility Viewer, its much smaller in size compared to when I take the RAW image and run it through Canon's UV and convert file to a JPEG. Which one would be the best quality?? I would suspect the one converted using Canon UV.

Unlike roses, a jpg is not a jpg is not a jpg. The size of the jpg is related to the compression ratio, the amount of fine detail vs. color field in the photo, and the number and range of colors in the image - as well as a number of more esoteric items. The size difference you see may be compression ratio.

Or - it could be something else! Namely - the 'mess-about' factor. We are often fooled into thinking that because we are shooting digital, each copy is the same as the last. Well - yes - if it is a direct copy. But what if it is a conversion? From one format to another to another. From 1 color space to another. If you take two images - one processed very little and one processed multiple times that include conversion - the former will be the "cleaner" image.

I shoot Raw + Large JPEG so I have a quick & dirty image and one to play with - in case the image is good enough for extracting from Raw, for which I use C1.

Keep in touch!

PJ
www.pjsaine.com

[tim]

I usually choose RAW or JPG, depending on the situation, and how likely I think i'll be to want to manipulate the photo. Shooting JPG saves a bit of work, shooting RAW gives you more control.

I don't shoot both because it fills the buffer too quickly.

[Rosalie]

so its ok to say that if the jpeg image looks good, there is no point in working on the RAW image..? (good as in, the colour is true, there isnt any noise, expoosure was correct etc.)

[tzalman]

so its ok to say that if the jpeg image looks good, there is no point in working on the RAW image..? (good as in, the colour is true, there isnt any noise, expoosure was correct etc.)
Sure...unless.
Unless:
A. You think you can do it better than the camera (man vs. machine) - or at least want to try.
And/or
B. You want to be creative.
Elie

[PhotosGuy]

so its ok to say that if the jpeg image looks good, there is no point in working on the RAW image..? For the web, no... if you feel that you can't do any better. (But you probably can.)
For a print, I think you'd better convert the RAW image.