Shasoosh Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I was shooting some RAW files with my 600D canon and then using a little software called IJFR extracted the embedded JPEG from the raw files just for the kicks of it. So right now i have 1 JPEG file (the embedded one) with the size of 2mb and one JPEG that was converted from the raw - sized 10MB. My question is, what's the difference between those too? I've really tried to find quality \ resolution differences etc' but couldn't find any. Beside contrast differences that i'm pretty sure can be resolved in post process i can't find any difference. Why do i need those gigantic 10-12 mb jpeg files that my camera is producing while shooting in JPEG mode if those tiny embedded files looks exactly the same? ** i'm not asking about the differences between RAW and JPEG but about the differences between the JPEG my camera produces and the embedded jpen in raw files my camera produce ( I'm pretty sure there's a good reason for that or that i'm just not seeing it, just needs someone to enlighten me ) I've uploaded an example for you guys to see what i'm talking about, please don't comment about the quality \ composition of the pic, its just an example test picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The dirt on the sculpture is far far more detailed on the bigger picture. Comparing at original resolution should be showing that fairly clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shasoosh Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Where? I don't see it :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZakO Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 As Kirkburn said, just look at the original size (5184x3456) image and you'll easily see there's a massive difference in detail. One example: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+InsaneNutter MVC Posted April 13, 2012 MVC Share Posted April 13, 2012 The colours look a lot more vivid in the 10mb image, you can also see a lot more detail. All i did was open them in Windows Photo Viewer and switch from one to the other, the difference in detail is quite significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 As far as just looking at the pic, there is no difference, but yeah, if you're going to view it full size, side by side, you will see the difference. Like everyone has a (5184x3456) desktop though!! Almost nothing worse than having to scroll up/down and side to side to see a pic!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shasoosh Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 Side by side i can see the difference, just not sure yet it's worth the extra 10mb a pic for day to day shooting.(Sounds bad to someone with a DSLR, i know.. Maybe it will change soon after i'll know what the hell i'm doing with my camera ;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nominak Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Side by side i can see the difference, just not sure yet it's worth the extra 10mb a pic for day to day shooting.(Sounds bad to someone with a DSLR, i know.. Maybe it will change soon after i'll know what the hell i'm doing with my camera ;) ) Always do post-processing with the RAW files, then convert to JPEG if post-processing is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts