Jpeg v Raw question slightly different from normal

realspeed

realspeed

Messages
8,002
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
Yes
Camera Nikon D810 - lens Nikon afs 24-70 f2.8G

Just been and taken photos of a local castle, no problems there. What I don't understand if looking at a photo in Jpeg (SD card) using windows10 photos to look at them they look ok.

Looking at the same photo in RAW (CF card) it is completely wrong with Windows 10 in photo. I was wondering if windows 10 just can't process RAW files

Hopefully below gives some idea. Please excuse quality as it is a photo taken off monitor, but it shows the difference. Same photo, same camera settings, both taken at same time recording to both Jpeg and RAW

214B10q.jpg





on the left Jpeg -right RAW (actual photos better than shown here) example of difference not quite as bad as shown

I have Adobe elements to edit RAW files before someone asks

Please constructive comments only and suggestions as to why the difference
 
Last edited:
Wrong it what way?
hard to see from the pics but is the RAW decidedly different in respect to the actual image or are you talking about the processing that the JPEG has gone through before windows displays it ?
 
A jpeg is processed, a raw file isn't The camera will apply it's own settings to jpeg files to make them look half decent straight out of the camera. A raw has had nothing at all done to it. That's exactly what I would expect to see comparing the two file types side by side. My raw files look horrendous before I process them.
 
Just viewing RAW with Windows 10 in their Photo viewing program colours are different, and also not as bright in RAW. Nothing wrong with sharpness etc just colour and brightness seems to be the difference. I suspect the Windows 10 Photo program is just not up to be able to handle 36mp photos properly . As i said no problem with a proper RAW editing program.

It is hard really to explain without actually seeing the difference in real terms but this is about as close as I can describe
 
RichardC27 said:
A jpeg is processed, a raw file isn't The camera will apply it's own settings to jpeg files to make them look half decent straight out of the camera. A raw has had nothing at all done to it. That's exactly what I would expect to see comparing the two file types side by side. My raw files look horrendous before I process them.
Click to expand...

Good point one I had not thought of. Thank you
 
The Jpeg has all the in camera settings applied. Win 10 does not know about those settings used in camera at the time of capture, and so just applies generic settings to generate an image. If you opened the RAW file with the Nikon software, it would look exactly like the Jpeg, as Nikon's software knows what settings were used in camera, and so applies them to generate a preview image.

Most previous versions of Windows were unable to preview a RAW file, so it is an improvement on nothing. ;)
 
What I tend to do is look at the Jpeg photos and select which for editing in RAW. Great help everyone thank you so much. Would getting Adobe lightroom 6 stand alone version be of more help to view all Raw photos at the same time
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
What I tend to do is look at the Jpeg photos and select which for editing in RAW. Great help everyone thank you so much. Would getting Adobe lightroom 6 stand alone version be of more help to view all Raw photos at the same time
Click to expand...


It would, but I don't know why you'd want to pay over £100 for software that's no longer supported and is 4 years out of date.
 
I was at Bodium Castle this Sunday.
 

Attachments

  • 6B0A0229 copy.jpg
    6B0A0229 copy.jpg
    237.9 KB · Views: 10
  • 6B0A0279.jpg
    6B0A0279.jpg
    219 KB · Views: 10
AFAIK Windows 10 doesn't "know" how to process raw files at all. When you install the driver software for your camera, or some other RAW viewing software, it installs a driver that Windows uses to convert the RAW to a format that Windows can display (probably JPEG). So it is that driver software that has a go at applying colour, brightness, etc to the RAW values but then the whole point of RAW is that it is, well, raw ... so you can vary the WB and other levels rather than having some software make guesses about your intentions
 
My wife apple mac has no problem with viewing Raw files, Microsoft need to do some catching up.

Richard that is newer than my elements 14.
i don't want a continuous payment plan that adobe calls cloud or something that can lead one into unknown debt
 
realspeed said:
My wife apple mac has no problem with viewing Raw files, Microsoft need to do some catching up.

Richard that is newer than my elements 14.
i don't want a continuous payment plan that adobe calls cloud or something that can lead one into unknown debt
Click to expand...

You can pay up front for a full year's access for around £100 from Amazon. I got mine for £75 on black Friday so it's cheaper than LR6 and it's constantly updated so you won't be stuck with software that gets more and more out of date.
 
RichardC27 said:
You can pay up front for a full year's access for around £100 from Amazon. I got mine for £75 on black Friday so it's cheaper than LR6 and it's constantly updated so you won't be stuck with software that gets more and more out of date.
Click to expand...

What happens after a year if you don't renew payment? Have you lost everything ? sounds a bit dodgy to me . No If at all I would rather go for an older stand alone version when I know what is mine is mine . being an OAP one has to consider costs and value.
 
Last edited:
The windows 10 photo viewer is not color managed... if the color space of the jpeg is set to record in aRGB it will be displayed wrong; and if the raw file converter (for viewing) isn't doing the conversion to sRGB correctly it will display wrong. And it's also quite possible that what is being displayed for the raw file is actually the jpeg "thumbnail" that is embedded in it... I don't know which is the case.
 
It's all very well saying that Lightroom Classic costs about £100 but that's per annum. I'm still on v6.14 (the most recent standalone version) and i know there are features I would like but at £100 p.a. I can mange without. Having said that you do get Photoshop and Adobe Portfolio as well for your monthly rental, so it can work out as a good deal if you think you would use them. (The latter is a basic website programme)
 
i like to use raw...
i changed camera body and my LR3 wouldnt recognise the file name
from what i read above its getting your raw processing software updated/ renewed to match your filenames
while i was using LR3 it was continually updating for more filenames as more camera systems came on the market...
in my case using XP pro i cant get a LR upgrade on my OS, to suit my new raw filenames to run...nor many other offered suites...so i am well out of date!!
in time i can upgrade but find my super setting for jpeg is still acceptable but miss the raw flexibility
there is no such thing as a raw image...just data...so your screen is showing what it thinks the jpeg should look like
if i remember?
there may still be adjustments to make after raw processing and exported as a jpeg
the basic editing tools, crop clone burn and dodge?
any advice on my problem above greatfully received, please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top