RAW + JPEG shows exposure difference - confused!

In2Photos wrote in post #3519741
...... are we still circling?

I think that I have quit circling and come home to my buzzard roost.

Thanks for the explanations!

In2Photos wrote in post #3519741
Maybe? Nope! We definitely are.

The Auto settings in ACR are designed to fix a photo whether it is underexposed or overexposed. So here is my thoughts written out a little more.

With the Auto settings ON the RAW file is fine. But, with the Auto settings OFF the RAW image would be overexposed just like the JPEG.

So now that we have figured out what caused the RAW file to appear different then the JPEG that question is answered. Now we can fix the shots, either with the Auto settings or each one manually.

Is that any better? Or are we still circling?

OK, now I understand where you're coming from. And now that I do, I might consider that you might be on to something if not for the statement the OP made about the raw image not having the highlights blown.

JeffreyG wrote in post #3509821
...So the weird thing was that on some of the shots, especially in bright sun, the JPEGs looked to be 1/2 to 1 stop more exposed than the RAW. There were some even where preserved hightlights in the RAW were gone an unrecoverable in the JPEG.

I opened everthing using Elements 5.0. What is going on here? Can the camera adjust the exposure when it saves the JPEG? Is Elements making some adjustments when opening the file? If so, how did Elements blow out highlights that exist in the RAW.

I'm confused. About the only thing I think I've learned is not to shoot in JPEG only mode.

If the original raw were in fact overexposed with the highlights blown, "fixing" the exposure via the ACR AUTO function would not bring back the lost highlight details.

So, I still contend that the reason the OP is seeing a difference between the raw image and the out-of-camera JPEG image is because of the processing done by the camera on the JPEG image using the picture-style parameter settings in the camera.

PacAce wrote in post #3520167
OK, now I understand where you're coming from.

Yeah!

Oh no!

Doesn't this depend on how far the highlights are gone? I don't shoot JPEG but I know I can recover quite a bit in RAW. I might have to do some measurebating tonight.

Also you keep mentioning picture styles but the 350D/XT does not have that capabilities in camera.

PacAce wrote in post #3520167
If the original raw were in fact overexposed with the highlights blown, "fixing" the exposure via the ACR AUTO function would not bring back the lost highlight details.

If the camera parameters were set to add contrast, the JPEG file very well could have blown highlights that were recoverable in the RAW file. I often see "blinkies" on my LCD indicating blown highlights and later find the RAW file perfectly useable.

It's one of the reasons I shoot RAW.

In2Photos wrote in post #3520231
Yeah!
Oh no!

Doesn't this depend on how far the highlights are gone? I don't shoot JPEG but I know I can recover quite a bit in RAW. I might have to do some measurebating tonight.

Also you keep mentioning picture styles but the 350D/XT does not have that capabilities in camera.

Curtis N wrote in post #3520565
If the camera parameters were set to add contrast, the JPEG file very well could have blown highlights that were recoverable in the RAW file. I often see "blinkies" on my LCD indicating blown highlights and later find the RAW file perfectly useable.

It's one of the reasons I shoot RAW.

OK, sorry about the "picture style" thing. I though the XT had it. In that case, replace that with "processing parameters" then.

Re raw not having blown highlights and the JPEG having it, I agree 100% with what both of you are saying. And what Curtis said in his last post is exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the JPEG has a blown highlight while the raw doesn't is because of the in-camera processing done on the JPEG file. Whether you turned the ACR AUTO on or off would not make a difference. The raw would still have unblown details and the JPEG would, which is what the OP was seeing. Now, do you see what I was getting at?

PacAce wrote in post #3520972
do you see what I was getting at?

Yes. Basically, Mike and I were right all along.

Honestly, I'm too tired to go back and try to figure out who got confused when. But I do hope the OP understands the answer to his original question.

Curtis N wrote in post #3522261
Yes. Basically, Mike and I were right all along.

Honestly, I'm too tired to go back and try to figure out who got confused when. But I do hope the OP understands the answer to his original question.

I got confused trying to figure out who was confused.

According to the late Bruce Fraser, coauthor of Real World Photoshop, the highlight recovery function in ACR can "recover" up to one stop of blown highlights in some situations, but more typically about 1/3 stop. However, we should not take the term "recover" too literally -- what it really means is that one or sometimes two of the primary RGB colors is in "soft" saturation (the exposure response is no longer linear for that color) and therefore, the recovery is distorted in color fidelity. Because the recovered data has a very low density value on the print, this distortion is not particularly noticeable as long as it is kept to a judicious minimum.

http://luminous-landscape.com …php?showtopic=1​7706&st=60
Posts number 61 and 65

PacAce wrote in post #3520972
OK, sorry about the "picture style" thing. I though the XT had it. In that case, replace that with "processing parameters" then.

Re raw not having blown highlights and the JPEG having it, I agree 100% with what both of you are saying. And what Curtis said in his last post is exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the JPEG has a blown highlight while the raw doesn't is because of the in-camera processing done on the JPEG file. Whether you turned the ACR AUTO on or off would not make a difference. The raw would still have unblown details and the JPEG would, which is what the OP was seeing. Now, do you see what I was getting at?

I do. Basically you think that the in-camera processing is causing the blown highlights and overexposed look. And I believe that the AUTO function in ACR is fixing the blown highlights and overexposed look. It might even be a combination of the two theories.

But I guess the JPEG would have to be heavily processed to add that much to the highlights, would it not. A simple +1 contrast and saturation, and a little sharpening wouldn't send it that far over the top would it? (BTW I am really asking these questions as I don't shoot JPEG).

I'm back....sorry I was gone so long but I had in fact stopped in to read a few times and try some things.

I think the main driver for my issue was the contrast adjustment in the camera. The highlights got brighter and this looked like more exposure to me. The clincher is that the pics that seemed to be brightened the most were the ones that had a larger brightly lit area. I had never paid any mind to the parameters before since I was shooting RAW so I didn't realize how powerful those sliders are to JPEGS.

Also, I opened the files in DPP and they did look more similar to each other....so Elements is doing something to either the CS2 or the JPEG. I'm going to experiment more to figure out what is going on there.

I'm still interested in being able to shoot JPEGS. I'll still shoot RAW for most things and especially critical stuff...but sometimes I just want a few snaps.

Thanks.

JeffreyG wrote in post #3534898
Also, I opened the files in DPP and they did look more similar to each other....so Elements is doing something to either the CS2 or the JPEG. I'm going to experiment more to figure out what is going on there.

How is your color management set up?
Have a read in the link from my sig for the settings for PSCS2 (I don't know Elements) and DPP...

JeffreyG wrote in post #3534898
I'm back....sorry I was gone so long but I had in fact stopped in to read a few times and try some things.

I think the main driver for my issue was the contrast adjustment in the camera. The highlights got brighter and this looked like more exposure to me. The clincher is that the pics that seemed to be brightened the most were the ones that had a larger brightly lit area. I had never paid any mind to the parameters before since I was shooting RAW so I didn't realize how powerful those sliders are to JPEGS.

Also, I opened the files in DPP and they did look more similar to each other....so Elements is doing something to either the CS2 or the JPEG. I'm going to experiment more to figure out what is going on there.

I'm still interested in being able to shoot JPEGS. I'll still shoot RAW for most things and especially critical stuff...but sometimes I just want a few snaps.

Thanks.

It may very well be the Elements is doing something to the pictures but I also wanted to point out that DPP will, by default, apply the same parameters to the raw for conversion as the camera did for the JPEG. So, if you really want to see if theres a difference between the raw and the JPEG, you should set the DPP parameters to all be at the lowest settings.

JeffreyG wrote in post #3534898
I'm back....sorry I was gone so long but I had in fact stopped in to read a few times and try some things.

I think the main driver for my issue was the contrast adjustment in the camera. The highlights got brighter and this looked like more exposure to me. The clincher is that the pics that seemed to be brightened the most were the ones that had a larger brightly lit area. I had never paid any mind to the parameters before since I was shooting RAW so I didn't realize how powerful those sliders are to JPEGS.

Also, I opened the files in DPP and they did look more similar to each other....so Elements is doing something to either the CS2 or the JPEG. I'm going to experiment more to figure out what is going on there.

I'm still interested in being able to shoot JPEGS. I'll still shoot RAW for most things and especially critical stuff...but sometimes I just want a few snaps.

Thanks.

It may very well be the Elements is doing something to the pictures but I just wanted to point out that DPP will, by default, apply the same parameters to the raw for conversion as the camera did for the JPEG and that's why they would look the same. So, if you really want to see if theres a difference between the raw and the JPEG, you should set the DPP parameters to all be at the lowest settings which is where ACR starts out at before it does it's thing to the images based on how you have ACR set up.