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 .

 

[Helix_2648]

Maybe it's because of the color space (sRGB vs. AbobeRGB or others)?

 

[oscar118]

Raw files should look more flat and "boring" than JPGs as they lack all the in camera processing to increase contrast, saturation and decrease noise. Also they should be MUCH bigger in size (bytes) since JPGs are compressed.

 

[Chavezshutter]

Creative styles are just filters applied to in-camera display and to jpg.

Creative styles affect the way the photo looks in the viewfinder and the JPG itself (but not in standard creative mode, see below)but it does not affect the RAW file. If i set my creative style to b&w, i see b&w in the viewfinder before i shoot, i see b&w when i review the shot, I also get a b&w JPG but my raw file is a normal colour raw photo file.

Standard creative style by default will not change anything between the JPG and the RAW, it SHOULD produce 2 identical looking files , one RAW and another JPG. Try something like Vivid creative style or b&w which WILL change the JPG.

 

[Chavezshutter]

I always keep in mind that whenever I am looking at a raw file either in camera or an external program like Lightroom, photoshop or another raw viewer program - I am never looking at the raw file but a graphical extraction of the raw file ( most likely jpg). This is because in order to meaningfully create an image from a raw file you need a number of parameters which need to be determined by the program or camera in order to show you an image. It is these parameters which you are tweaking when you use creative styles from a Sony camera, they change how the image is viewed in camera and the jpg that it produces. The same parameters are what we are changing when we edit a raw file in Lightroom. We see images (jpg,tiffs,gifs,etc) we cant see raw until they are converted to an image.

 

[oscar118]

I do not think there is any problem. The raw files are very big, so the viewer software is probably compressing and sampling the file..., and the differences are masked in the process.

 

[kzurro]

there's an easy test: set the creative style to monochrome and the camera to RAW+JPG, take a shot and import it to LR.

• if the RAW file is a colored image, then there's no problem at all.
• if the RAW file is a b/w image, give some time to LR to fully load the image, as LR shows the embedded JPG thumbnail inside the RAW file and then it processes the RAW and shows its own version. your new RAW files are 42MP and much bigger than the ones from the A6400 or the Nikon were. it may take several seconds for this process to finish.

 

[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.