raw vs jpeg

[TMG1961]

I normally shoot in raw only. But today i did shoot raw+jpeg. Jpeg settings Large + standard creative style. I always noticed that the raw files needed some work when they were imported into lightroom, they did not look like the out of the camera jpeg files. But today after importing all the photos i could not tell without looking at the files extension which was which.
These 2 photos are unedited exports from lightroom, one of them is the exported raw file, the other is the exported jpeg file. i only resized them in photoshop, nothing else done to them. I can not tell which is which (i know but can not say here)

 

[Jack]

There’s no difference at all between these 2 images TMG1961 , however when processing images, there are more information in a raw file than jpg .

 

[TMG1961]

There’s no difference at all between these 2 images TMG1961 , however when processing images, there are more information in a raw file than jpg .

I know, but i have never seen raw files coming out of my cameras that look exactly as the ooc jpeg files. That is what got me confused, i first thought i shot in jpeg only but then noticed the .arw extension so knew they were raw files.

 

[Helix_2648]

In this case the JPG should look like the RAW file! If not there's something totally wrong with your camera as the JPG file is just an unedited exported result of the RAW file from your camera.

So why should there be a difference? It's fine to save your photos as a JPG & RAW file as long as you don't want to edit the RAW file. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense because you would have two JPG versions. One unedited from your camera and an exported edited file from your computer.

 

[TMG1961]

In this case the JPG should look like the RAW file! If not there's something totally wrong with your camera as the JPG file is just an unedited exported result of the RAW file from your camera.

So why should there be a difference? It's fine to save your photos as a JPG & RAW file as long as you don't want to edit the RAW file. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense because you would have two JPG versions. One unedited from your camera and an exported edited file from your computer.

I never seen the raw file that came out of the camera look almost identical to the jpeg file that came out of the camera. The raw always looked like a dull unedited version of the jpeg file. The only thing i did to the raw file was exporting it as jpeg and resizing it. The jpeg file was also unedited. As far as i know and have seen in the past when i did shoot raw+jpeg there always was a very clear difference between the look of the raw and jpeg photo

 

[Helix_2648]

I never seen the raw file that came out of the camera look almost identical to the jpeg file that came out of the camera. The raw always looked like a dull unedited version of the jpeg file. The only thing i did to the raw file was exporting it as jpeg and resizing it. The jpeg file was also unedited. As far as i know and have seen in the past when i did shoot raw+jpeg there always was a very clear difference between the look of the raw and jpeg photo

Ok, that's strange. I will give a try by myself. I'm interested to see if it's the same with my Canon EOS 90D.

 

[TMG1961]

Ok, that's strange. I will give a try by myself. I'm interested to see if it's the same with my Canon EOS 90D.

It could be that something changed in Lightroom after the latest update.

 

[Jack]

I know, but i have never seen raw files coming out of my cameras that look exactly as the ooc jpeg files. That is what got me confused, i first thought i shot in jpeg only but then noticed the .arw extension so knew they were raw files.

Check your camera settings. You probably have set Raw + jpg, and set it just to Raw, you don't need jpg unless you don't edit your images. I found that having jpg is waste of memory.

 

[TMG1961]

Check your camera settings. You probably have set Raw + jpg, and set it just to Raw, you don't need jpg unless you don't edit your images. I found that having jpg is waste of memory.

Since a few months I shoot in Raw only. But yesterday i decided to shoot in Raw+Jpeg (Don't ask me why) and noticed that both files almost were identical. I did shoot Raw+Jpeg before with the Sony a6400 and the Raw file was different then the Jpeg file, you could see the difference straight away and could tell which was which. I think that it might have something to do with the latest Lightroom update.

 

[Jack]

I never seen the raw file that came out of the camera look almost identical to the jpeg file that came out of the camera. The raw always looked like a dull unedited version of the jpeg file. The only thing i did to the raw file was exporting it as jpeg and resizing it. The jpeg file was also unedited. As far as i know and have seen in the past when i did shoot raw+jpeg there always was a very clear difference between the look of the raw and jpeg photo

I don't think you should expect any differences when having set Raw+jpg.