Canon Jpeg Engine Quality

I am using a T6 canon, wanted to know how close is the Jpeg render compared to the Raw output.

Many people told me canon Jpegs are the best...

Please advise...

Laksh

The JPEG result is a direct result of the picture style you select (ie. sharpness, contrast, saturation, color tone), the level of NR you set, etc. The raw will have none of this, those settings are in a sidecar in the raw and don't impact the raw, when viewing it, unless you use DPP, which honors those settings as if you were looking at the image on the camera.

What the raw allows you to do is to change white balance easily, manage noise versus detail better, more cleanly change a missed exposure than processing a jpeg, gain about 1/2 to 1 full stop of dynamic range that the JPEG looses, which means if you have blown highlights in your image, you may actually not have blown highlights in the raw.

If you only work with JPEG, you lose quite a bit of the capability of editing the image properly and losslessly. JPEGs are very limiting in their recovery over raw.

It is very nearly difficult to compare a raw file to a JPEG from the camera, unless you apply all the same parameters and export as a JPEG. If you do that, then yes the raw->jpeg should look very close to the in-camera JPEG. Shoot enough in JPEG only and you will have a moment (or moments) where you wished you had shot in raw.

TeamSpeed mentioned styles. For a quick guide to what is offered go to https://support.usa.ca​non.com …US&searchid=148​9688055310. Note up near the top is a “printable version” option should you want to print it out.

Keep in mind the selection only affects the jpeg image, not the RAW; should you shoot RAW then you can change the style after the shot has been acquired.

this bring us to a often beaten topic, in the long run will jpeg be better or raw. I don't over or underexpose by many stops to blow out a image. do you think raw will offer any advantage... i don't want to start a jpeg vs raw debate but some questions..

I posted some of the other advantages.

RAW allows more flexibility when post-processing than JPG does. For that reason I always shoot RAW files.

There is no right or wrong answer. There is just what is right for you.

RAW allows more creativity due to the extended range of edits that can be made. I am doing an art projects (single RAW image post processes in Lightroom) that can't be done by in camera JPG.

If what you are shooting can be accomplished in JPG then you don't need to be shooting RAW.

Having said that you may find that your needs/desires change over time. You may want to go back to older images and experiment with new styles of processing (I certainly did). In that case you will need RAW because JPG images have the processing baked in and all other image data deleted. You can go back to a RAW file that was processed in black and white and make a copy/virtual copy that is colour - because the RAW still contains all the image data. A black and white JPG can not (easily) be converted back to colour.

Put simply, you can always make a JPG out of a RAW, you can't make a RAW out of a JPG.

This website gives a good explanation about RAW files and how they are converted into viewable files:

https://www.cambridgei​ncolour.com/tutorials/​raw-file-format.htm

I've been recently going over some of the images I took over 10 years ago. In reprocessing these, those that I have RAW versions of, I was amazed at how much was there that I didn't know was there 10 years ago, simply because the tools are better now. Since with RAW you still have every bit of detail in that file still, the new tools can exploit those images ever so much better than I could when I took them. The JPEGs can be manipulated, but not to the degree the RAW files can.

I shoot raw for everything, unless I am having buffer issues in the camera where I need it to clear faster. I'm not sure what cool stuff they will come on the post side in the next 10 years, but with raw files, I am more guaranteed to be able to exploit those capabilities on the files I take today. With raw images, what I have today is pretty much what I'l have tomorrow. The flexibility of the file will be greatly reduced.

Its like cooking from scratch versus cooking from a packaged meal. The package meal may be good for you today.... but if you want to change it up more later, you have a lot less flexibility in what you can do. Sorta.

Shooting RAW is more future proofing those files....

Croasdail wrote in post #18886306
I've been recently going over some of the images I took over 10 years ago. In reprocessing these, those that I have RAW versions of, I was amazed at how much was there that I didn't know was there 10 years ago, simply because the tools are better now. Since with RAW you still have every bit of detail in that file still, the new tools can exploit those images ever so much better than I could when I took them. The JPEGs can be manipulated, but not to the degree the RAW files can.

I shoot raw for everything, unless I am having buffer issues in the camera where I need it to clear faster. I'm not sure what cool stuff they will come on the post side in the next 10 years, but with raw files, I am more guaranteed to be able to exploit those capabilities on the files I take today. With raw images, what I have today is pretty much what I'l have tomorrow. The flexibility of the file will be greatly reduced.

Its like cooking from scratch versus cooking from a packaged meal. The package meal may be good for you today.... but if you want to change it up more later, you have a lot less flexibility in what you can do. Sorta.

Shooting RAW is more future proofing those files....

I like this. I was amazed at how much was there that I didn't know was there 10 years ago, simply because the tools are better now. Also I know how to use them more effectively.

I haven't shot Jpeg since about 2006. It all depends on what you want to do. Do some post processing or not. I can post process files pretty quickly or take my time. It took a while to set things up with the software I use. I can process a file in less than 10 seconds if I need to. This helps with multiple files. You may not need RAW but there may be a time where you wish you had it.

Also depending on what you do there are 3 phases of sharpening. Capture that compensates for the AA filter, etc, Creative for local sharpening and output sharpening. For output sharpening you adjust the amount for screen viewing or paper (and type of paper). Creative is not as critical but when Capture and Output sharpening are done properly RAW finals will look as good or better.

https://www.cambridgei​ncolour.com …ials/image-sharpening.htm

Storage is inexpensive these days so that is not a big deal as RAW files do take up more space.

That being said and a little off topic I still use Canon's DPP (Quick Check - Full Screen) to cull before I import into the software I use. DPP's downsizing algorithm for 'fit to screen' display is very good - contrasty which creates the illusion of sharpness. It looks like a processed Jpeg so easier to delete non usable or unwanted files.

It might depends on camera, lens and if you are into editing or SOOC.
With 50L on 5DC I switched to JPEG1 and SOOC. It was this good. With 5DMKII and another L I'm taking it as small RAWs.