RAW + basic JPEG, Nikon D40 user

E

ekinny

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Ewen
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I tend to shoot in RAW + basic JPEG (Nikon D40 & Photoshop CS4).

When I have a quick look at the results, the basic jpeg files are so much more vibrant than the fairly drab looking RAW files, why is this?

Many thanks.

(I shoot in RAW as I'd like to get into changing elements within Photoshop)
 
Ewen,

The reason why the jpgs look more vibrant, etc., is because the camera has applied all the settings you have made before you get to see them. The RAW files are minus those settings, which you have to apply yourself.

Hope that helps :)
 
I have tried using Raw and Jpeg too on various cameras but always using Apple Aperture.

I find the Raw files are initially more dull too but just need a bit of a tweak - contrast/vibrancy/sharpness and they look better than just a jpeg.

Raw files also give you greater scope for recovering a border-line keeper too.

Tim

www.timothycook.co.uk
 
I always shoot Raw + Jpeg.

The Jpeg is just so I can recognise them after download (or upload) on the PC.

I have saved many a self inflicted disaster by editing in Raw which would of been impossible if I had just shot Jpeg.
 
Horse said:
would of been
Click to expand...
:gag:

"Would've been" :geek:

Pedantry police aside, yes, agree with the comments here. Once you've "levels"d, colour curved adjusted and sharpened up you RAWs - pretty darn good.

This months Digital Camera mag has a supplement all about RAW with it, might be worth a browse for the OP?
 
DorsetDude said:
:gag:

"Would've been" :geek:

Pedantry police aside, yes, agree with the comments here. Once you've "levels"d, colour curved adjusted and sharpened up you RAWs - pretty darn good.

This months Digital Camera mag has a supplement all about RAW with it, might be worth a browse for the OP?
Click to expand...


To be pedantic, it's raw, not RAW ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top