When I take a raw + jpeg photo together, the jpeg photo is so much sharper! When zooming into the raw pic it almost looks like its a thumbnail quality pic. The details show it to be of a high data size compared to the jpeg. What am I doing wrong?
Raw format?
- Thread starter Jibiffe
- Start date
IMO you are doing nothing wrong. I have found the same thing and I prefer Jpeg.
RAW is more adaptable for post editing but then, with GIMP (Look it up - Its free) it
can process Jpeg very well.
Maybe not suitable for the professionals but I like it.
RAW is more adaptable for post editing but then, with GIMP (Look it up - Its free) it
can process Jpeg very well.Maybe not suitable for the professionals but I like it.
Attachments
Last edited:
When you look a the RAW, depending on what you use to view it, you are looking at a thumbnail embedded in the RAW.
The RAW needs to be "developed" - eg run it through Adobe camera raw via photoshop or lightroom, then spit it out as a JPG (or other image format). RAW is just a container for the raw image data.
If you are happy with the images straight from camera, then just use JPG. If you want control over the image, RAW is a better option.
The RAW needs to be "developed" - eg run it through Adobe camera raw via photoshop or lightroom, then spit it out as a JPG (or other image format). RAW is just a container for the raw image data.
If you are happy with the images straight from camera, then just use JPG. If you want control over the image, RAW is a better option.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
Look at the size of the image you are looking at.
If it's only 900 pixels or so wide, it's just a thumbnail and not the actual file.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 27
- Age
- 54
I don’t know what are you using to open the raw, but I normally shot both jpg plus raw, the first to see the overall image in order to find blured areas, composition, and the raw to reveal the image with Photoshop camera raw, and later, edit it in photoshop or Lightroom. I can say that raw is way sharper than jpeg. Also, when I save the raw edited to jpg, I get 300 ppp, more ppp than jpg. Also, with raw, you get a lot more information, which is perfect to recover overexposed skies or underexposed shadows.
To sum up, raw requires a process to get the best of it.
To sum up, raw requires a process to get the best of it.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
Shooting in raw is fine but it's not for everyone or every situation.
The pixels per inch of your output is entirely due to the settings in your software and is unrelated to whether you shoot raw or jpg.
I would also challenge the idea that there's any difference in sharpness.
Have a look at the images in this gallery on a large monitor.
Shipping 2018 - Above & Beyond Photography
They were all shot in jpg and there's no lack of sharpness or issues with shadows and highlights.
