JPG from DNG is Noisy

I'm a beginner using Lightroom 5 and don't understand why the JPG generated by Lightroom is noisier and less vivid than the JPG created by the camera. Both images have been edited in LR for tone, vibrance, sharpness, etc. in an attempt to make the DNG the equal of the JPEG. Thanks in advance.

JPEG from Camera

I don't get the point of messing with DNG. What does it do FOR you?

It can be tough to duplicate in-camera processing exactly. Lightroom is a 3rd party product so if you want t duplicate in-camera processing it can take a bit of tweaking. There isn't really any magic to it. Can you be more specific as to what you mean by vivid? To me the DNG generated file looks more vivid. As for the noise I do see it in the sky but it looks like you applied heavy sharpening without masking it from the sky. It also looks like you may have been more heavy handed with the sharpening than the in-camera file. Do you have any noise reduction being applied in-camera when shooting JPEG? Doing any noise reduction in Lightroom?

Bassat wrote in post #17834277
I don't get the point of messing with DNG. What does it do FOR you?

I can't speak for the OP but DNG is just an open source RAW format. With DNG one would get the same benefits as they would with a proprietary RAW format compared to JPEG. Lots of debate about keeping the proprietary RAW format vs converting to DNG but little debate about the benefits of RAW vs JPEG. Basically DNG does the same thing for you as RAW, if you need it.

Are there any presets automatically changing the files on Import? and what are your JPEG export settings from LR?

The in-camera JPEG engine ALWAYS applies SOME NR to produce the JPEG, even if you have all NR turned off. You can check this by opening the RAW file in DPP and observing the sliders in the NR panel.

rrblint wrote in post #17834556
The in-camera JPEG engine ALWAYS applies SOME NR to produce the JPEG, even if you have all NR turned off. You can check this by opening the RAW file in DPP and observing the sliders in the NR panel.

I've heard that. Particularly with some Nikon models. Never been able to get a concrete source on how Canon might algorithmically decide how much gets applied. If you have something you could point me to I'd appreciate it. Thanks!!

nqjudo wrote in post #17834547
I can't speak for the OP but DNG is just an open source RAW format. With DNG one would get the same benefits as they would with a proprietary RAW format compared to JPEG. Lots of debate about keeping the proprietary RAW format vs converting to DNG but little debate about the benefits of RAW vs JPEG. Basically DNG does the same thing for you as RAW, if you need it.

Which is exactly my point. You have to have the raw file to covert to DNG. DNG does nothing for you that raw can't do. Well, except take up a smack-load of disk space, and add to your file management problems. Why bother?

I don't know of anything written down about the algorithm used, but it's easy to check for yourself. Simply shoot some photos in RAW+JPEG at different ISOs with all NR turned off. Check the noise sliders in DPP of the RAW file, you'll see that they are advanced very slightly at low ISO and a bit more at higher ISO. Now convert the RAW to JPEG in DPP leaving everything "As Shot". Compare the two JPEGs and they will be virtually identical. LR ignores all in-camera settings(except WB I think) including NR settings. POTN member aperson850 may know more about it and perhaps he can provide some written documentation for you if he checks into this thread.

Bassat wrote in post #17834573
Which is exactly my point. You have to have the raw file to covert to DNG. DNG does nothing for you that raw can't do. Well, except take up a smack-load of disk space, and add to your file management problems. Why bother?

DNG files are meant to replace your camera's raw file. They take up slightly less space than a CR2 file and contain data that would be in a .xmp sidecar file. Adobe argues that DNG files are more "future proof" since they'll supposedly be supported longer than whatever raw format your camera may have created.

mike_d wrote in post #17834652
DNG files are meant to replace your camera's raw file. They take up slightly less space than a CR2 file and contain data that would be in a .xmp sidecar file. Adobe argues that DNG files are more "future proof" since they'll supposedly be supported longer than whatever raw format your camera may have created.

So, let me see if I've got this. I should (according to Adobe) shoot raw, then take the time to covert my files to DNG, so I MAY at some undetermined future date, have the ability to process that file. That ability is DNG's only claim to usefulness. Any real usefulness at all for DNG requires that all of the following come to pass:

Original raw file is no longer supported by Camera mfr. software.
Original raw file is no longer supported by third-party software.
Camera manufacturer's raw-support program is no longer supported by computer OS.
Third-party software's raw-support program is no longer supported by computer OS.
I no longer have access to the computer, and the computer program, I've been using all along to process raw files.

If at some future date, Canon announces a complete disconnect between new and old, AND Adobe chooses to follow suit and not support the camera raw with LR (or whatever), I will still, at that time, have access to DNG converters that can handle the transition for me. At the very least, I can use the software and computer I am using at that time to convert everything to 16-bit TIFF (or whatever is current at that time). DNG was a good idea, whose time will never come. It serves no purpose.

MA128 wrote in post #17834259
I'm a beginner using Lightroom 5 and don't understand why the JPG generated by Lightroom is noisier and less vivid than the JPG created by the camera. Both images have been edited in LR for tone, vibrance, sharpness, etc. in an attempt to make the DNG the equal of the JPEG. Thanks in advance.

JPEG from Camera

JPEG generated by LR5 from DNG file

Heya,

The JPEG engine in your camera is different from the JPEG engine of Lightroom 5 for starters, so they will not render the same output.

However, the issue looks to me like you're comparing your profile & image settings in your camera determine that JPEG output to a RAW file that doesn't use that, so naturally, one will be less sharp, less saturated, etc, because the JPG-only settings in-camera are not applied to that RAW file, only the JPG. Take a look at them. These settings do not apply to RAW files, just JPG output. To get the same JPG output from the RAW file, you need to apply similar settings in Lightroom to the RAW file, which will require more sharpening and vibrance/saturation, etc, tweak till you like the look. Then SAVE that profile so you can do RAW -> JPG from Lightroom and get the look you want and maintain the flexibility of shooting in RAW.

Very best,

Bassat wrote in post #17834742
So, let me see if I've got this. I should (according to Adobe) shoot raw, then take the time to covert my files to DNG, so I MAY at some undetermined future date, have the ability to process that file. That ability is DNG's only claim to usefulness. Any real usefulness at all for DNG requires that all of the following come to pass:

Original raw file is no longer supported by Camera mfr. software.
Original raw file is no longer supported by third-party software.
Camera manufacturer's raw-support program is no longer supported by computer OS.
Third-party software's raw-support program is no longer supported by computer OS.
I no longer have access to the computer, and the computer program, I've been using all along to process raw files.

If at some future date, Canon announces a complete disconnect between new and old, AND Adobe chooses to follow suit and not support the camera raw with LR (or whatever), I will still, at that time, have access to DNG converters that can handle the transition for me. At the very least, I can use the software and computer I am using at that time to convert everything to 16-bit TIFF (or whatever is current at that time). DNG was a good idea, whose time will never come. It serves no purpose.

The only significant advantage that converting to DNG provides is that it allows you to use NEW unsupported cameras in old versions of Adobe products. The DNG format also incorporates the adobe sidecar files that Bridge/ACR use to store conversion settings. In the early days of DNG many non Adobe applications that supported DNG only did so when they were created directly as the camera's RAW output. They could not support DNG files converted from other RAW formats. I have not really stayed up with this, so I don't know how much better things are now.

So far as I am aware Adobe has never dropped support for an old camera from a later version of either ACR or Lightroom. Given the design ethos of LR, of shoot RAW keep everything RAW and just export JPEG files as needed, it is unlikely that Adobe will drop support for old file formats from that application, and by association from ACR. I note that DPP 4.x has support for only some older cameras, it seems to be the first time that a manufacturer has dropped support for any older cameras from a new software version.

I use the Magic Lantern DualISO options with my 50D, and in that situation the CR2 RAW file has to be preprocessed to allow for the alternating Low/High ISO line pairs. With DNG being an open format the ML team decided to use that format for the preprocessed file. Without the preprocessing DualISO effectively breaks the CR2 file.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17834811
The only significant advantage that converting to DNG provides is that it allows you to use NEW unsupported cameras in old versions of Adobe products. The DNG format also incorporates the adobe sidecar files that Bridge/ACR use to store conversion settings. In the early days of DNG many non Adobe applications that supported DNG only did so when they were created directly as the camera's RAW output. They could not support DNG files converted from other RAW formats. I have not really stayed up with this, so I don't know how much better things are now.

So far as I am aware Adobe has never dropped support for an old camera from a later version of either ACR or Lightroom. Given the design ethos of LR, of shoot RAW keep everything RAW and just export JPEG files as needed, it is unlikely that Adobe will drop support for old file formats from that application, and by association from ACR. I note that DPP 4.x has support for only some older cameras, it seems to be the first time that a manufacturer has dropped support for any older cameras from a new software version.

I use the Magic Lantern DualISO options with my 50D, and in that situation the CR2 RAW file has to be preprocessed to allow for the alternating Low/High ISO line pairs. With DNG being an open format the ML team decided to use that format for the preprocessed file. Without the preprocessing DualISO effectively breaks the CR2 file.

Alan

That statement makes no sense. If Adobe can convert the new camera's raw file to DNG, it can obviously read, and decode, the raw file. If it can read the raw file, you don't need DNG. When Canon releases the 6DII, I fully expect my LR5.7 to not be able to open the .cr2 files. Within 60 days, Adobe will update LR to work with those files. Same as they did for the 7D, 7DII, 60D, 6D, 5DIII, 1Dx, ad nauseum. DPP & LR also store conversion settings. Still looking for any benefit to using DNG. I am not debating whether or not to use DNG. That is up to each user/shooter. I am looking for something DNG can do that either DPP, or LR can't do. JEEZ, my wife shoots raw and she works in Picasa 3. We've never had a problem working .cr2 files in Picasa.

I think my original question to the OP is still valid. Why bother with DNG?

Bassat wrote in post #17834867
That statement makes no sense. If Adobe can convert the new camera's raw file to DNG, it can obviously read, and decode, the raw file. If it can read the raw file, you don't need DNG. When Canon releases the 6DII, I fully expect my LR5.7 to not be able to open the .cr2 files. Within 60 days, Adobe will update LR to work with those files. Same as they did for the 7D, 7DII, 60D, 6D, 5DIII, 1Dx, ad nauseum. DPP & LR also store conversion settings. Still looking for any benefit to using DNG. I am not debating whether or not to use DNG. That is up to each user/shooter. I am looking for something DNG can do that either DPP, or LR can't do. JEEZ, my wife shoots raw and she works in Picasa 3. We've never had a problem working .cr2 files in Picasa.

I think my original question to the OP is still valid. Why bother with DNG?

The argument and question of why bother with DNG is an extremely dated one. All the questions have been answered and all the counterpoints have been made. We're not exploring new territory with this or more importantly, the OP's question. Bottom line, some people find a particular use in some things; others not. Support for things gets added and dropped but it doesn't mean that you are going to instantaneously lose access to your files. There will always be opportunities for further conversions, etc. Realistically speaking however many people have RAW, DNG, JPEG, film negatives and polaroids sitting around untouched for years or decades because they are interested in what they are doing now. Not what they did way back when. I think the conclusion to the argument of RAW vs DNG can well be found in any search engine. In the meantime this has absolutely nothing to to with the OP's question. For the purpose of this thread maybe you can look past the DNG declaration and replace it with 'RAW format'. It makes no difference in the context of the OP.