PDA

View Full Version : JPEG sharper than RAW


maranelloboy05
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:10
I have never been totally happy with the IQ of my 40D and I think I found out why. I almost always shoot in RAW, but yesterday I was shooting a motosports event and shot in JPEG and RAW to save some room on my card. On average the JPEG pictures were much sharper than the RAW, even after applying sharpening in Lightroom the JPEG were sharper. I have mine set to a 6 on sharpness. I have always heard that RAW is sharper than JPEG and I am really not sure why my JPEGs were coming out sharper. Could there be a problem with the RAW capture in the camera?

The first picture is a sharpened RAW and the second is the original JPEG.

jeromego
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:13
those are 2 different angles and maybe 2 different exposure settings. try to compare both raw and jpeg with the same angle, same subject and exact same setting.

beano
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:18
The 1st image looks more like motion blur, than a sharpness issue to be honest. There's no EXIF data, so it's hard to say, but it looks like you're trying to pan at an angle!?!

In answer to your question "Could there be a problem with the RAW capture in the camera?".. No, i don't think so. If the image capture was faulty it would affect the jpeg's too. ;)

quadphoto
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:18
The raw sample looks as if it might not have be sharp at the taking stage, if you were shooting Raw+jpg try compairing the exact same images.

jxg
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:23
The raw sample looks as if it might not have be sharp at the taking stage, if you were shooting Raw+jpg try compairing the exact same images.

that's how i read it too, but then i thought, if he is trying to save space, why would he capture RAW and JPEG. I think what he really meant was, i shot some in RAW, then to save space, shot some in JPEG (BICBW)...

xarqi
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:26
For jpeg, the camera does the sharpening; for RAW, you do.

If the images you are creating from your RAW data are not sharp enough for you, sharpen them more than you are currently doing.

Really, it's that simple.

beano
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:27
The raw sample looks as if it might not have be sharp at the taking stage, if you were shooting Raw+jpg try compairing the exact same images.

I think that's the difinitive answer. Shoot both simultaneously, and compare. That's the only test that'll rule out user error. ;)

thrash_273
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:30
Maybe mount the camera in a tripod shooting jpeg and raw on a same subject. Then you'll the difference

maranelloboy05
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:33
Ok here are these. 1st is straight out of the camera. 2nd is with the RAW sharpened and the JPEG still the original.

gjl711
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:35
If the raw of a particular image is not as sharp than the camera processed jpeg, the problem lies not with the raw file or camera, but with the person doing the sharpening or the tools being used to process the raw data. A camera jpeg starts with the same raw data to generate the image. All a raw image is is the data before converted to jpeg.

AlanU
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:36
1st photo is OOF.

I shoot primarily jpeg. I'm extremely pleased since I seldom ever print larger than 8x10. Lightroom is a wonderful program that has saved many jpegs that need TLC.

I'll use RAW only when I feel I may miss any details.

thrash_273
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:42
That's good if you like using jpeg for the of its more sharper than raw. But raw requires alot of processing and some personal prefernce/choice of controlling the final image.

jxg
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:45
your samples are still different (shutter speed and cropping).

maranelloboy05
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:45
I love shooting RAW and I find it very useful but I can't seem to get a RAW file to the same sharpness as the JPEGs that I shot.

Luke Cern
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:47
Your problem isn't related to your ability to set the right focus point!

As has been mentioned, RAW files are data straight from the sensor. No sharpening, no contrast enhancement etc. RAW files do not have sharpening, etc, processing done to them in-camera. In other words. no loss of captured data before being stored on the card. JPEG files are processed in-camera according to the settings you pre-set and some capture data is lost.. That's why there is a large difference between the filesizes of RAW and JPEG files.

If you use in-camera Picture Styles, the settings are applied to both RAW and JPEG files BUT, these settings are only carried over to DPP. They are not recognised if you take your RAW image into any other RAW processor such as Adobe CS3 or CS4.

Its left up to you to tweak the image in a RAW processor such as DPP or Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. If you shoot in RAW, you will have more opportunity to correct your image than you can once it's a JPEG.
By all means use JPEG if it gives you what you want. No need to shoot both if you only need JPEG.

As regards sharpening of RAW files, there are various techniques to be applied at the very end of your processing work flow. Take a look at Unsharp Mask methods. They are provided in photoshop. Other methods include a technique using High-pass filter. You can also get add-ons. Sharp pictures aren't always desirable. If you are submitting images to publishers, they don't want to see them sharpened because they don't reproduce well. Plenty of online advice about sharpening.

Hope that helps...

basroil
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:52
You do realize that sharpness in camera is like applying .3px 250% in photoshop rather than lightroom right? Lightroom is optimized for PRINT sharpness, not web sharpness. If you want to cut yourself on the image, don't change sharpen in lightroom, then apply a .3px 250% sharpen in photoshop. Each level of in camera sharpening (scale of 0-9) is like applying a fourth of that sharpening. So 6 would be 4+2, so .3px 250%+ second .3px 250% faded 50%. Not exactly the same mind you, but should give you a close enough comparison.

EDIT: Or just use DPP and set sharpness to 6 ;)

tvphotog
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 12:52
I shoot RAW and large JPEG simultaneously on the 5D2 and the only difference in sharpness that I notice right out of the camera was the sharpening that I dialed in to the Style I was using. I was using 5 out of 7 and there really was very little difference in Camera RAW.

Luke Cern
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:02
I shoot RAW and large JPEG simultaneously on the 5D2 and the only difference in sharpness that I notice right out of the camera was the sharpening that I dialed in to the Style I was using. I was using 5 out of 7 and there really was very little difference in Camera RAW.

That makes sense, but suggests that you are taking RAW and JPEG into DPP. (which recognises the Style settings) . If you took those into ACR, you would certainly notice the differences because ACR ignores, and does not make any adjustment to the incoming RAW image as set by you in-camera. Whatever you use, the RAW scheme ( I refer to whhen you edit it in your RAW editor), never modifies pixels in an image file, whereas the compressed JPEG is modified "forever"! (unless you save it as another named file).

AdamLewis
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:03
If the raw of a particular image is not as sharp than the camera processed jpeg, the problem lies not with the raw file or camera, but with the person doing the sharpening or the tools being used to process the raw data. A camera jpeg starts with the same raw data to generate the image. All a raw image is is the data before converted to jpeg.

Couldnt have said it better

Luke Cern
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:19
Couldnt have said it better


Not quite correct though. A JPEG is not exactly the same record of the image captured by the sensor as a RAW. A JPEG is processed in-camera. A RAW isn't. However, "sharpness" is not neccessarily something that you should expect straight from RAW. Its a different thing from "focus". We all agree that focus is important and key to successful images, but sharpness is not the same quality. Canon make the EF 135mm f/2.8SF specifically for users that need soft- focus without blur.

Sharpness is also a bit of an illusion. You can fool the observer into seeing sharp edges by increasing contrast at the edges. That's how some computer based sharpening is achieved. However, over sharpening produces halos around objects and with experience, photographers begin to appreciate reasons not to over-sharpen.

tvphotog
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:41
That makes sense, but suggests that you are taking RAW and JPEG into DPP. (which recognises the Style settings) . If you took those into ACR, you would certainly notice the differences because ACR ignores, and does not make any adjustment to the incoming RAW image as set by you in-camera. Whatever you use, the RAW scheme ( I refer to whhen you edit it in your RAW editor), never modifies pixels in an image file, whereas the compressed JPEG is modified "forever"! (unless you save it as another named file).

Nope. Am using ACR.

gjl711
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:46
Not quite correct though. A JPEG is not exactly the same record of the image captured by the sensor as a RAW. A JPEG is processed in-camera. A RAW isn't. ..It is not the same record, but it starts with the same raw data. If there is a differance between the image the camera generates from the raw data and the image you generate from the raw data the problem is not with the raw data but the converter.

norbelthomas
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 13:54
Try using DPP.
Convert RAW to tiff or jpg in DPP, set the sharpness to 5-7.
I believe your will be satisfied with the result.

Ziffle
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 17:43
You do realize that sharpness in camera is like applying .3px 250% in photoshop rather than lightroom right? Lightroom is optimized for PRINT sharpness, not web sharpness. If you want to cut yourself on the image, don't change sharpen in lightroom, then apply a .3px 250% sharpen in photoshop. Each level of in camera sharpening (scale of 0-9) is like applying a fourth of that sharpening. So 6 would be 4+2, so .3px 250%+ second .3px 250% faded 50%. Not exactly the same mind you, but should give you a close enough comparison.

EDIT: Or just use DPP and set sharpness to 6 ;)

Basroil - where did you learn this?
Lightroom 2 has a specific program for sharpening print in the print section (Pixel genius photokit sharpener).

The development section has a different sharpening module which works on the luminous information - based on photoshop learning and running a simulated high pass filter technique.

Later,
_Mark

Luke Cern
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 18:05
Try using DPP.
Convert RAW to tiff or jpg in DPP, set the sharpness to 5-7.
I believe your will be satisfied with the result.

Have you overlooked that when you take the RAW image into DPP or ACR, you will be presented with a whole range of adjustments. Are you suggesting we ignore those, sharpen 5-7 and then immediately save for web. That's great. Lets all stop using RAW. There's obviously no point! We can use smaller cards. Better tell Canon and Nikon etc..:p. I'm amazed no-one noticed this before!

Don't forget that adjustments to JPG is permanent while adjustments to RAW are not. You can go back and adjust again to suit your needs.

And do you only sharpen? What about recovery of shadows, removal of colour casts, change of dynamic range, highlight recovery, setting black and white points, and adjusting white balance. Do you always get them correct in-camera.?

basroil
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 18:17
Basroil - where did you learn this?
Lightroom 2 has a specific program for sharpening print in the print section (Pixel genius photokit sharpener).

The development section has a different sharpening module which works on the luminous information - based on photoshop learning and running a simulated high pass filter technique.

Later,
_Mark

Why, because it looks like garbage at anything but the minimum radius and maximum detail :rolleyes: I personally hate highpass method except when used as part of a larger selection of sharpening tools, since it is not very good for web sized photos. Microcontrast boosting with unsharpmask or even smart sharpen will always be better in my opinion.

That said, even though it was my opinion that the sharpening is optimized for print rather than web, it does not change the fact that it can contribute to soft looking images, especially when there are already problems like motion blur or oof.

Luke Cern
17th of May 2009 (Sun), 18:23
It is not the same record, but it starts with the same raw data. If there is a differance between the image the camera generates from the raw data and the image you generate from the raw data the problem is not with the raw data but the converter.

I don't disagree with that. I use the convertor (ACR) to adust my images so that by the stage of being saved as JPEG's they will most certainly be different. I don't use the JPEG as the target quality. That's not why the facility is provided. In fact I never even store a JPEG image.

As far as I understand this thread, its about a claim that you might as well capture in JPEG because the image will be exactly the same (or better).

Question: Why would the RAW file be so much bigger than the JPEG file and why are you given options to capture Low, Medium and High quality JPEG files. Answer: because they have lower data content to give lower file sizes. Its a compromise. You can't have small files with the same amount of pixel data as large ones.

Following this theme logically, suggests that someone isn't getting the most from their RAW image, despite the unarguable fact that there is more data captured from the sensor within the RAW file. The RAW file is not processed by any of the components on the camera body. Its' just buffered and saved. No sharpening, no contrast adjustment, no brightness adjustment . The photographer chooses the amount of adjustment thay wish to do, and that also depends on the projected use of the image. Commercial printers need a different print profile and colour space than something that is destined for a 100 pixel square web image.