Converting from RAW to JPG

[tkerr]

Well I know this site is a pain (pop-ups and countdown timers) but it’s the only one I know that lets you put up and file. Have just tried it from another computer and it does work.

Try using Dropbox.com instead.

[tkerr]

I suggest following Daniel's suggestion - open the image in ACR and take a screen shot, then convert it to JPG and take a screen shot of that. Post both here (you can upload them to this site, which offers several MB of image storage).

Or if you're using Windows you can use the Snipping Tool.
It can be found in Start menu Start / All Programs / Accessories - Snipping Tool.
Or you can just Type "Snipping Tool" in the search/command line box at the bottom of the start menu.

[DLS]

Well I know this site is a pain (pop-ups and countdown timers) but it’s the only one I know that lets you put up and file. Have just tried it from another computer and it does work.


The original CR2 file is also there and using PSE it’s a reasonably sharp image.

Hi Raid. It worked for me. I was able to view all three files from the site.


First off, I'm NO expert in evaluating sharpness but what I do notice (as you probably know) is that the RAW has more dynamic range, obviously more detail and more colors represented. I wonder if the drop in quality of these three just results in "a drop in sharpness".


As an aside, I use LR3 on a PC for my RAW work. When i export an original .cr2 as a jpeg vs say a TIFF I DO notice a significant drop in sharpness and range of colors when I view it on my 22-inch monitor. I think its just a function of the a compressed jpeg file vs a non-compressed file.





As i said earlier, I'm no expert but there are plenty of experts on this forum that will be able to shed more light on your question.


Cheers,


Damian

[Daniel Browning]

OK, now that I've had a chance to look at your images, I think I can see what's going on here.


First of all, let me say that everyone has their own taste and preferences when it comes to images. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. In the case of this image, what I consider treasure, you consider garbage, and vice-versa. But maybe I can still help you get the results you want.


To me, the original JPEG is plenty sharp. Too sharp, in fact -- to my eye, the sharpness is not actually a ugly artifact called aliasing. But to you it's not sharp enough (which is fine, of course -- we just have different taste). The reason that the original raw file looks sharp to you is because Adobe uses a really fast, low-quality resize algorithm to show a preview of the file. This fast algorithm has a side effect of causing lots of aliasing artifacts (which are perceived by many as "sharpness"). But when resizing to make the actual JPEG file (and not just an on-screen preview), adobe uses a slower, higher-quality algorithm that has fewer artifacts (though still too many in my opinion). That is why it does not look sharp to you any more.


The only real solution I know of is to export a full-size JPEG or TIFF (full 8 MP), then find another program that does resizing in a way that is more inline with your tastes. (Any that have a "nearest neighbor" or "point sampling" algorithm would do it.) One alternative would be to just add sharpening after resizing, as you have been doing, but the results are not exactly the same.

[Raid]

First of all thank you for taking the time to help me with this.


Neuroanatomist


As I understand it you cannot post files larger than 4MB means that CR2(7MB) and TIFF(23MB) files cannot be posted. As I wanted to be able to provide this type of file as well I went to the annoying option.


Tkerr


As dropbox (like some others) wants to install software, I was a little worried that it this would look like a spam post.


DLS/Daniel


Now if I look at some of the images on this site and other sites, I

[Daniel Browning]

As a personal preference I like images that use light and shadow well and have a high dynamic range e.g. silhouette

Actually, silhouette photographs have a very low dynamic range. That's one of the defining characteristics. If it had higher dynamic range, then there wouldn't be so much of the image crushed to black.

or to soften the image.

To me, after resizing the image to 1024x682, the image is plenty sharp/crisp and does not require any additional sharpening or softening.

I feel that the unedited JPG lost dynamic range

Actually, the edited version has slightly *less* dynamic range than the unedited jpeg; for example, there is less visible detail in the shrubs on the left under the bright lights in the edited version.


It sounds like you might prefer it if you set the defaults in your raw converter to produce less dynamic range (e.g. "contrast" slider/tone curve), more sharpening, and higher saturation.

[Raid]

Thank you Daniel


Sorry for not responding sooner, still trying to get my head around this problem.


You are correct dynamic range was clearly the wrong term but I