[stevebrot]

or... shoot just RAW (40mb) and then (even a batch process) extract the jpgs which by all accounts seem to be exactly the same in terms of menu choices and file size to what a RAW+ would give.

You are playing loose and easy with the term "extraction". Extraction is grabbing a preview JPEG from the DNG or PEF using Fastone, PDCU, ExifTool, or whatever and has been a prominent element in this thread.* In-camera JPEG or TIFF creation from RAW, OTOH, is image rendering from data, aka RAW processing or RAW development. The results from the two are quite different in that the preview JPEG has quite a bit of compression applied even at full resolution.

If one desires a high-quality JPEG from DNG/PEF that retains all of the camera's custom image, lens correction, HDR, and special effect features without doing the processing in-camera, the easiest way is to use PDCU with the default settings direct from the "Browser" view. Simply select one or a range of files and "Save as..." or "Process Multiple Files..." to JPEG. The results will be image-identical to making a file using either JPEG or RAW+ as the capture type.


Steve

* The term extraction is well-established in this context and is used by most tools that do the task of separating embedded JPEGs from the parent file.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-22-2019 at 10:33 AM.

[BruceBanner]

I think there may be some confusion here - partly due to the vocabulary we've invented around this. Maybe we should step back and define some terminology.

When I say that FastStone "extracts" an embedded JPG from a RAW file, I mean that it takes a preview image that's inside the RAW file and presents it to you. This is not the "normal" way to do things - it's a shortcut that FastStone uses. Most programs "process" or "develop" the RAW image and generate a JPG. This takes more time and is computationally more expensive, but it gives you far more latitude for adjusting exposure, white balance, etc. etc. That's why people save RAW images.

When you used your camera development feature, you were not "extracting" the embedded JPG. The camera was "developing" the RAW image, so it's not surprising that you got the exact same sized JPG file that you got when you shot RAW+. You were essentially performing the same operation in both scenarios. When you shoot RAW+, the camera captures the RAW image and develops it into a JPG image - it embeds a somewhat lower quality version of the JPG image inside the RAW file, as well as a higher quality version along side it (quality of that image set according to the camera settings). When you shoot RAW, and then develop the image in camera, the camera processor takes the RAW image out of the RAW file, and develops it a second time (according to your current settings). If there was no change in the camera settings, you should get the same image JPG image that you would have got if you shot RAW+.

When you extract a JPG image from a RAW file with FastStone, I don't think it's easy to be sure what the size of the embedded file was before you extracted it - so I don't think comparing file sizes is valid in that scenario. I haven't updated FastStone in a while, but in the version I'm using, it gives you the option of saving the file with the original JPG quality, but because the JPG was extracted from a DNG, FastStone doesn't have an "original" JPG quality (or at least, it doesn't tell you what it was), so it uses whatever value you have set as your default. If your default is high, you'll end up with a large JPG. If it's low, the JPG will be smaller. All you can see is the size of the file that FastStone will create from the extracted JPG, not the size of the file that was embedded in the RAW file.

As I mentioned previously, I looked at some images where I shot RAW+, and I did a side by side comparison of the JPG extracted from the DNG file and the JPG generated/saved by the camera. I can see a slight difference in quality - there are more artifacts in the JPG extracted from the RAW file - it's not quite as sharp. I have to pixel peep to see the differences, but they are there. I could try to save 100% crops of the two versions of the same image and post them here, but the compression applied by the website might mask the subtle difference between the two. I haven't posted an image to the forum in years, so I'm not sure how this will look. The image was shot RAW+ using my KP. The first - "camera_jpg_crop" - is a crop from the JPG generated by the camera. The second - "extracted_jpg_crop" is a crop from the embedded JPG that FastStone extracted from the DNG file. I zoomed in on a detail from the image, then upsized it so that the JPG artifacts can be seen. I performed the same sequence of operations on both images, in the same order. For the camera JPG, I saved it at 98% quality, which is what FastStone says in the quality saved by the camera. For the DNG crop, I saved it at 100%. I can see a difference in the posted images, but I concede that this is pixel peeping. It's just to demonstrate that there is a difference in the quality of the JPG image that is embedded in the RAW file, and the one saved by the camera when you shoot RAW+. Is the difference important? That depends on what you are going to do with the image.

As I said, I would suggest you do this test for yourself. Shoot an image RAW+ . Make sure it's an image that has some strong light/dark contrast, a fair amount of detail, and perhaps a swath of sky in it. Then, in FastStone, click on both the DNG/PEF and the JPG, and use the image comparator to bring up both images side by side. Then zoom in to 100% (or higher) and scroll around the images. You should see more JPG artifact in the image extracted from the RAW file. The difference is quite noticeable in my K30 images, and a little less noticeable with my KP images. Only you can decide whether that difference is important or not.

Assuming you want to save RAW files, I maintain that there are 3 options for obtaining JPG images from them. In order of increasing image quality they are:

1) shooting RAW and extract the JPG that's embedded in the RAW file (using FastStone - there may be other programs that will allow you to do this but I don't know of any off the top of my head)
2) shooting RAW+ and use the JPG generated by the camera
3) processing/developing your RAW images to generate JPGs using a RAW converter (eg. PDCU, DxO, Lightroom, Rawtherapee, Darktable, etc. etc.)

The last option is where you have the most flexibility to adjust exposure, white balance, etc., and where you can increase the JPG quality to the maximum, or save as TIFF.

PS: for anyone curious - the crop is taken from a shot of someone standing in a winter scene. You're looking at one lens of the person's sunglasses, where you can see reflections of a shadow, and footprints in the snow.

---------- Post added 04-22-2019 at 08:33 AM ----------

Another test you can do: Set your camera to shoot RAW. Take 3 shots of the same scene with the JPG quality setting at *, **, and ***. I bet there won't be much of a difference in the size of the resulting RAW files, which tells you that the quality of the JPG that is embedded in the RAW file is not under your control.

You are playing loose and easy with the term "extraction". Extraction is grabbing a preview JPEG from the DNG or PEF using Fastone, PDCU, ExifTool, or whatever and has been a prominent element in this thread.* In-camera JPEG or TIFF creation from RAW, OTOH, is image rendering from data, aka RAW processing or RAW development. The results from the two are quite different in that the preview JPEG has quite a bit of compression applied even at full resolution.

If one desires a high-quality JPEG from DNG/PEF that retains all of the camera's custom image, lens correction, HDR, and special effect features without doing the processing in-camera, the easiest way is to use PDCU with the default settings direct from the "Browser" view. Simply select one or a range of files and "Save as..." or "Process Multiple Files..." to JPEG. The results will be image-identical to making a file using either JPEG or RAW+ as the capture type.


Steve

* The term extraction is well-established in this context and is used by most tools that do the task of separating embedded JPEGs from the parent file.

Good stuff guys, I really appreciate it. And I do apologise if my terminology is all screwy (Steve is very used to this by me however ). I simply mean 'getting a jpg from a RAW' and have been using terms like extraction etc where it might not have been technically ideal choice of words.

I did mean to get around to do some proper testing on this subject, but you know life and stuff, got busy and I carried on with my usual 'shoot RAW' only habits.

Thus far I have done a 200% image inspection of a Jpg from which was made from using RAW+ and a Jpg generated from the In Camera Raw Development mode from a RAW (was a slightly different image however, take a second later). I cannot tell when pixel peeping these images any difference at all in terms of quality.

I guess I can just tripod up, and then shoot RAW+, and with the RAW DNG taken from this shot actually use In Camera Raw Development (I shall call this ICRD from now on) to get a jpg from that, then compare the two Jpgs, they should be the same?

Right now we're talking about whether FS can do a better or worse job from pulling out a Jpg from a RAW file right? That's a bit different I guess.

I tried PDCU a few times and gave up, it was slow, buggy, applied exposure changes when asked not to, crashed multiple times. In all honesty at this time I would rather shoot RAW and then use the ICRD to get a Jpg from it if need be rather than use any computer software as they all seem to perform worse than what ICRD can achieve. Which again brings me back to my point about whether there is any real benefit to using RAW+ when it appears to me (at least on 200% image inspection in LR of the two Jpgs side by side) that there is no difference (very much unlike your example here @arkav). You place the buffer under less strain shooting RAW vs RAW+ and if you want a nice Jpg from those RAWs at any time you can, just use the ICRD.

The stuff about FS using a Jpg preview when viewing RAWs makes sense, and explains at times why I think sometimes I did 'bad' on the shot, that it's not sharp or noisy etc. Once firing that RAW into LR I can relax, I was just seeing nasty Jpg Preview artefacts from FS. However that's a good thing, as you say FS makes for a quick view of a RAW file, something LR doesn't allow. I can do my first wave of culling far quicker this way and then send the shots that made the cut to LR for proper editing.
I note you can change some of that stuff in FS, under Settings>RAW >View RAW files in: Fastest>Faster>Slow etc.

In regards to taking a RAW file and change the Jpg settings for each RAW file shot, I would guess (haven't tried) that the RAW file won't change in file size one little bit. It will be exactly the same and allow for a Jpg to be pulled out of it L and *** if you like, even if you had your Jpg settings as * in camera.

A curious test would be to shoot RAW+ with Jpg camera settings as only * etc, and then see with the RAW file if you can in ICRD pull out a *** Jpg etc, hopefully the RAW jpg will be higher quality than the + Jpg made...

Well I just did this test and confirm what I thought was true.

RAW = 42mb
Jpg+ = 322kb (XS *)
Jpg from the 42mb RAW ICRD = 12mb

This makes you wonder, if every RAW file ever shot is capable of getting the maximum Jpg quality possible (at least in the case of the K-1, regardless of Jpg settings), then really why bother ever with RAW+. Furthermore, are we K-1 shooters being hampered with our burst and frame rates shooting RAW because of this? I feel like our RAW files could be smaller, allowing for more bursts or better buffer limits, faster writing etc, because it always has a 'theoretical' 12mb jpg with it (in case we want it)...

It's like RAW is RAW+ and RAW+ is like RAW++ ( ).

On the one had it's nice that we get good jpgs from every RAW file ever taken, even when we're not in RAW+ mode, however on the other hand it makes me feel they could perhaps have done better here?

Thoughts?

[pschlute]

A curious test would be to shoot RAW+ with Jpg camera settings as only * etc, and then see with the RAW file if you can in ICRD pull out a *** Jpg etc, hopefully the RAW jpg will be higher quality than the + Jpg made

I don't understand the point of this test Eddy. You have told your camera to write a raw file and a * jpeg to the card. You then use ICRD to create a *** jpeg from the raw file. So you now have a raw file; a * jpeg; and a *** jpeg. What is surprising about that ?

This makes you wonder, if every RAW file ever shot is capable of getting the maximum Jpg quality possible

A raw file is capable of this because it contains all the data the sensor captured. It can be processed either with ICRD or computer software to produce a jpeg of whatever quality you like.

then really why bother ever with RAW+

I never use RAW+ but can see situations where it would be desirable: You are covering an event and want to provide or upload to the web images immediately the event is over. When you are back home you can use the raw files to produce a better quality image of your best shots.

It's like RAW is RAW+ and RAW+ is like RAW++

On the one had it's nice that we get good jpgs from every RAW file ever taken, even when we're not in RAW+ mode

A raw file is just that, a raw file. It is not an image file. It's only purpose is that you can create an image file from it by raw development.

[BruceBanner]

I don't understand the point of this test Eddy. You have told your camera to write a raw file and a * jpeg to the card. You then use ICRD to create a *** jpeg from the raw file. So you now have a raw file; a * jpeg; and a *** jpeg. What is surprising about that ?



A raw file is capable of this because it contains all the data the sensor captured. It can be processed either with ICRD or computer software to produce a jpeg of whatever quality you like.



I never use RAW+ but can see situations where it would be desirable: You are covering an event and want to provide or upload to the web images immediately the event is over. When you are back home you can use the raw files to produce a better quality image of your best shots.



A raw file is just that, a raw file. It is not an image file. It's only purpose is that you can create an image file from it by raw development.

You may have come into the thread a little late, this isn't exactly the whole point but to bring you up to date the previous poster said;

"Another test you can do: Set your camera to shoot RAW. Take 3 shots of the same scene with the JPG quality setting at *, **, and ***. I bet there won't be much of a difference in the size of the resulting RAW files, which tells you that the quality of the JPG that is embedded in the RAW file is not under your control."

And so I did this test, the RAW+ (DNG file) file stays the same* regardless of the Jpg quality selected in camera before hand. Furthermore, when you selected for example RAW+ with XS and * you can still generate the *** L Jpg from the ICRD, whereas perhaps there was some thinking that this might not be possible, you selected beforehand that the RAW+ would be XS and * therefore the only kind of ICRD possible for a Jpg might be of that quality (just talking about in camera here, not taking a RAW file off to PS and then Exporting/Saving as a Jpg etc).

*Between my RAW+ DNG files they were 53,436KB (when using *** L Jpg) and 52,032KB (when using * XS), the difference between the two could have happened anyway for a repeat shot.


If you shot events like I do you would never ever entertain shooting RAW+, especially if dual writing to two SD cards, the buffer issues are constant strain and beyond manageable. You would have a far quicker experience to shoot RAW and then review on the back of the camera the images and select the ones you wish to make a Jpg for the client. You can either finish the session, set the camera to give you Jpgs for all the shots taken in RAW and just wait awhile, or go through the images on the LCD and then select the ones you want Jpgs from (multiple Image select) and in this regard that can work quite well and is pretty swift.
RAW+ is just absolutely not for event (Pentax) shooting, if you write one RAW to one card and one Jpg to another, then maybe, but you still run the risk of losing all the RAW files if that card dies etc. This tog wouldn't shoot a wedding like that... and besides I don't know what kind of events the client really want jpgs immediately with no editing (so it's kinda weak argument for the necessity of RAW+ in teh first place imo, most clients are happy to wait for their images), if they do need them (official sport stuff) then it's probably being shot by cameras that aren't Pentaxes which are meant for this kinda thing, or the tog is actually shooting Jpgs for the absolute highest buffering capabilities.

I'm pretty firm with my opinion, shooting RAW+ makes so little sense, especially when you can always get the Jpg that the In Camera would produce had you selected Jpg only or RAW, why crush the buffer needlessly? Try writing to two cards RAW+ and take a Pixelshifted shot, it's quite amusing

Anyway... the purpose of this thread was more to do with FS and it's own ability to load a RAW DNG file and derive a Jpg from it that took on the qualities similar as to how it was taken at the time in camera, and whether it was worse in quality, better, the same, faster to do that job etc than using ICRD.

EDIT: Just in case there was any doubt I did a RAW+ shot with Jpg set to *** L, and I then did a ICRD of the RAW DNG to Jpg, came out exactly the same size as the Jpg taken with RAW+;

RAW+/DNG File = 44656KB
RAW+/Jpg File = 20718KB
Jpg from ICRD from the RAW+ DNG file = 20718KB

---

Last edited by BruceBanner; 04-22-2019 at 09:47 PM.

[pschlute]

I can see buffer issues making RAW+ not an option in many cases. I never use RAW+ myself.

[arkav]

Furthermore, when you selected for example RAW+ with XS and * you can still generate the *** L Jpg from the ICRD, whereas perhaps there was some thinking that this might not be possible, you selected beforehand that the RAW+ would be XS and * therefore the only kind of ICRD possible for a Jpg might be of that quality (just talking about in camera here, not taking a RAW file off to PS and then Exporting/Saving as a Jpg etc).

This test is no surprise. Whether the camera stores a JPG at the same time as it stores the RAW file (RAW+), or you process the RAW file after the fact using ICRD, you are doing the exact same thing. This is completely different from extracting the embedded JPG using FastStone. Extracting the embedded JPG doesn't involve any processing. This is why it is FAST and why you get an image that looks much the same as you would get from ICRD (with the exception of additional JPG artifact).

The RAW file contains several things:

1) The RAW 'image' - which is not really an image - it's the raw, unprocessed (or minimally processed) data captured by the camera sensor
2) A full sized JPG image (quality is camera dependent) intended to be used as a preview - this allows you to look at the image on the rear screen of the camera without having to re-process the RAW image
3) Possibly one or more thumbnail previews

Note that items 2 and 3 are there simply for "convenience". They are embedded in the RAW file to allow you to look at the image in the RAW file without having to do any processing (ie. converting RAW image data into an actual image).


We will continue to go around in circles unless we're clear that we are talking about two different operations:

1) Raw Development/processing - this can be performed using ICRD in the camera (while shooting JPG/RAW+ or after the fact), or on a computer using a Raw Converter (Lightroom, PDCU, etc.)
2) Extracting the preview JPG that's embedded in the RAW file - this can be done using a limited number of programs (FastStone is the only one I know of, but there are probably a few others)

Note that operation 1 is computationally expensive because you are creating the image from RAW data. Operation 2 is fast because you are taking advantage of a JPG image that already exists, but you have to live with whatever JPG artifacts exist in the preview image. Depending on what you want to do with the image, it may be good enough. If it's for a blog post, it's probably good enough. If you want to print it poster sized, probably not.

Shooting RAW+ isn't going to work for everyone. Yes, you can always create JPG images after the fact using either ICRD or a RAW converter on a computer, but that is an extra step.


Personally, I never have buffer issues in the shooting I do. I squeeze my shots off one by one, deliberately. So write speed isn't an issue for me, and I can shoot RAW+ if I want to. I can't imagine ever using ICRD for my own shooting because I can't easily pick my "keepers" on the rear screen of my camera. I mostly shoot macro (or near macro), where I'm dealing with narrow DOF. When possible, I will take a number of shots of my subject. I can't easily tell when I've nailed the focus on a tiny screen - I need to compare the images on a monitor to decide which shot is the best. Once I've browsed/culled my shots on my computer, I'm not going to return to my camera to do ICRD of the best shots. And besides, it may be months or years later when I decide I need an image for publication - so I really don't have any choice but to use a RAW converter on my computer when I want a high quality JPG (or TIFF).

As I explained previously, I don't always need high quality versions of my images. Often, I just need a JPG as a record of an observation, or to attach to an email to demonstrate something to someone. Which shots I will want to keep as RAW and which I might just want to keep as a cropped JPG isn't known until I can look at the images on a computer. If I shoot RAW+, my post shooting cull process consists of deleting RAW and JPG for the garbage shots, deleting the RAW for the record shots, and keeping the RAW and JPG for the keepers. I don't have to go to the extra step of firing up a RAW converter and fiddling with low-priority images that I'm only keeping as JPGs.

That's not a workflow that makes sense for everyone, and it certainly doesn't make sense for an event photographer who is working to a timeline. My cameras as chock full of features I never use, but I don't dismiss them as useless just because they aren't useful to me.

[BruceBanner]

This test is no surprise. Whether the camera stores a JPG at the same time as it stores the RAW file (RAW+), or you process the RAW file after the fact using ICRD, you are doing the exact same thing. This is completely different from extracting the embedded JPG using FastStone. Extracting the embedded JPG doesn't involve any processing. This is why it is FAST and why you get an image that looks much the same as you would get from ICRD (with the exception of additional JPG artifact).

The RAW file contains several things:

1) The RAW 'image' - which is not really an image - it's the raw, unprocessed (or minimally processed) data captured by the camera sensor
2) A full sized JPG image (quality is camera dependent) intended to be used as a preview - this allows you to look at the image on the rear screen of the camera without having to re-process the RAW image
3) Possibly one or more thumbnail previews

Note that items 2 and 3 are there simply for "convenience". They are embedded in the RAW file to allow you to look at the image in the RAW file without having to do any processing (ie. converting RAW image data into an actual image).


We will continue to go around in circles unless we're clear that we are talking about two different operations:

1) Raw Development/processing - this can be performed using ICRD in the camera (while shooting JPG/RAW+ or after the fact), or on a computer using a Raw Converter (Lightroom, PDCU, etc.)
2) Extracting the preview JPG that's embedded in the RAW file - this can be done using a limited number of programs (FastStone is the only one I know of, but there are probably a few others)

Note that operation 1 is computationally expensive because you are creating the image from RAW data. Operation 2 is fast because you are taking advantage of a JPG image that already exists, but you have to live with whatever JPG artifacts exist in the preview image. Depending on what you want to do with the image, it may be good enough. If it's for a blog post, it's probably good enough. If you want to print it poster sized, probably not.

Shooting RAW+ isn't going to work for everyone. Yes, you can always create JPG images after the fact using either ICRD or a RAW converter on a computer, but that is an extra step.


Personally, I never have buffer issues in the shooting I do. I squeeze my shots off one by one, deliberately. So write speed isn't an issue for me, and I can shoot RAW+ if I want to. I can't imagine ever using ICRD for my own shooting because I can't easily pick my "keepers" on the rear screen of my camera. I mostly shoot macro (or near macro), where I'm dealing with narrow DOF. When possible, I will take a number of shots of my subject. I can't easily tell when I've nailed the focus on a tiny screen - I need to compare the images on a monitor to decide which shot is the best. Once I've browsed/culled my shots on my computer, I'm not going to return to my camera to do ICRD of the best shots. And besides, it may be months or years later when I decide I need an image for publication - so I really don't have any choice but to use a RAW converter on my computer when I want a high quality JPG (or TIFF).

As I explained previously, I don't always need high quality versions of my images. Often, I just need a JPG as a record of an observation, or to attach to an email to demonstrate something to someone. Which shots I will want to keep as RAW and which I might just want to keep as a cropped JPG isn't known until I can look at the images on a computer. If I shoot RAW+, my post shooting cull process consists of deleting RAW and JPG for the garbage shots, deleting the RAW for the record shots, and keeping the RAW and JPG for the keepers. I don't have to go to the extra step of firing up a RAW converter and fiddling with low-priority images that I'm only keeping as JPGs.

That's not a workflow that makes sense for everyone, and it certainly doesn't make sense for an event photographer who is working to a timeline. My cameras as chock full of features I never use, but I don't dismiss them as useless just because they aren't useful to me.

I think we're getting somewhere

So let's talk about the full sized Jpg first.

- in my above examples, does that mean for every 40-50mb RAW file it's being 'larger than it needs be' by carrying the weight of the file size of that full sized Jpg? Most of the ICRD of the RAW files for getting the Jpg seems to sit around 12-19mb, so does that correlate that the 40-50mb RAW files are being 'weighted down' by an additional 12-19mb and they could instead be actually only 25-35mb file sizes if they had just thumbnail previews or say * Jpgs (ie something to help us see on the back of the screens properly to judge the image by, just not something that is full sized? Because if that was the case then I think they possibly didn't do us any favours going about things the way they did. I would prefer;

• Smallest RAW sizes possible so that we can take more shots before hitting the buffer, and deriving a full size Jpg from extraction or whatever is not possible, you have to load the RAW file in some kind of Raw developing program for editing (and get your jpg that way).
• If you want RAW and a full size Jpg then use RAW+, but as it is it feels awfully like we have no choice and even in RAW we are crippled with the weight of a full size jpg whether we like it or not.

Going off on a tangent here for a second but... In camera there seems to be a couple of ways to go about getting a Jpg from RAW. You can either choose Raw Development or use 'Digital Filter', both of which will allow the image to be saved as a Jpg. I noted both have their uses but differ slightly, and if you visit Raw Development for example you can only apply ONE Digital Filter affect. It's a tad annoying in a sense that Raw Development gives you some options, but then you would have to use them, save as Jpg and then load that Jpg in camera again and then use Digital Filter to then apply further processing, would be kinda neat to have it all under 'one roof'. My Raw Development also has a spare space (- -), can I somehow choose what tools are available in RAW Development to get around this?

FS truly is a great program, I think a lot of my confusion is I was treating ICRD and FS as being the same (and programs like RawTherapee/LR as something else, Raw development stuff, longer times to show an image etc). But really the ICRD is more like LR/RT and it's FS all on it's own out there, just a simple Image Viewer. The fact it can get a Jpg from a RAW is cool, but as you say it's doing this differently from say LR or even ICRD (and the quality will vary).

I tried a brief amount of 'Save As' with FS and still felt the conversion times (in a batch session) were actually quite lengthy, so I'm not sure I will actually ever really use FS for this purpose, and just leave it as my main first wave of culling.

This thread has been very informative, I have learned a lot and have some decisions to make in future. I learned that RAW+ is not viable or needed for me, and if I want a Jpg that would have been exactly the same as if I used RAW+ or Jpg only I can have it, just after the fact by simply using just RAW mode (with no buffer strain). ICRD is actually pretty decent and fast at getting that Jpg. What I can and have done is eject one of my sd cards from a session, put in my pc, use FS to view the images, get a notepad up and take note of the last 3 digits of the files I like and want Jpgs from, then in camera (with the remaining SD card) browse those files (multiple images) and select them for ICRD, this can be done quite quickly. Failing that if I have time just do an entire folder ICRD if locking up the camera for awhile is not an issue (such as driving back home from a job etc).

---

Last edited by BruceBanner; 04-23-2019 at 02:28 PM.

[pschlute]

I would prefer

The raw file must include an embedded jpeg so we can see what we have shot and see a histogram. I have absolutely no idea how changing (even if that was possible) the quality/size of the embedded jpeg, would affect the buffer. It is easy to assume it would be a lot quicker, but who knows.

But really the ICRD is more like LR/RT and it's FS all on it's own out there, just a simple Image Viewer. The fact it can get a Jpg from a RAW is cool, but as you say it's doing this differently from say LR or even ICRD (and the quality will vary).

i don't use FS, but from what you say... "doing it differently" means it is not doing any raw development at all ! It is simply displaying the embedded jpeg preview file that was created in camera over which you have no control. Does FS not have a raw development setting ?

[arkav]

- in my above examples, does that mean for every 40-50mb RAW file it's being 'larger than it needs be' by carrying the weight of the file size of that full sized Jpg? Most of the ICRD of the RAW files for getting the Jpg seems to sit around 12-19mb, so does that correlate that the 40-50mb RAW files are being 'weighted down' by an additional 12-19mb and they could instead be actually only 25-35mb file sizes if they had just thumbnail previews or say * Jpgs (ie something to help us see on the back of the screens properly to judge the image by, just not something that is full sized? Because if that was the case then I think they possibly didn't do us any favours going about things the way they did. I would prefer;

No, that's not quite right. The JPG that's embedded in the RAW file is full sized, but it is of lower quality than you get from when the camera saves a *** quality JPG (at least this appears to be the case with most cameras). This is what I demonstrated with the crops from the two versions the image I posted. The image that was embedded in the RAW file had more JPG artifact than the image saved by the camera as a separate JPG. As I said, I don't think there's an easy way to determine the actual size of embedded JPG, or the compression setting used. I guess one way to test it would be to shoot RAW+ with the JPG quality at various settings, and by comparing the images, try to see if you can figure out which JPG quality setting gets you an equivalent image quality to the embedded JPG. I can say with confidence that a *** JPG is of better quality (and therefore a larger file size) than the embedded JPGs in my K30 and KP DNG files. I haven't played around with * or ** settings. Maybe the embedded JPG is equivalent to * quality.

If the embedded JPG is of very low quality, you might have trouble evaluating your image on the rear screen of your camera. If you zoomed in to check the fine detail, JPG artifact might make you think the image is out of focus for example. So yes, embedding a full size JPG does inflate the size of the RAW file somewhat, but the alternative would be that you'd only have a thumbnail preview, and you'd have to develop the image before you could zoom in on it. There's no free lunch.

I don't know much about ICRD or the in camera Digital filters. You have to keep in mind that while the JPG engine on the camera is perfectly capable of producing great JPG images, it's a little awkward to adjust the various parameters using the camera controls during ICRD. If using ICRD gets you where you need to go, that's great, but most people find using a RAW converter on a computer more flexible and more powerful.

---------- Post added 04-23-2019 at 07:55 PM ----------

i don't use FS, but from what you say... "doing it differently" means it is not doing any raw development at all ! It is simply displaying the embedded jpeg preview file that was created in camera over which you have no control. Does FS not have a raw development setting ?

FS does have a setting that gives you the option of developing the RAW images for display, but you have no control over the processing parameters, so it's mostly pointless (in addition to being much slower than just using the embedded JPG ). The resulting image will look different from the embedded JPG because FS uses DCRAW which doesn't understand any of your camera's JPG settings. If you use the embedded JPG, you get something that looks like the camera JPG, and depending on the camera, it can be of reasonably good quality. You have to pixel peep to see the difference between the embedded JPG and the camera JPG.

FS isn't supposed to be a RAW converter. It's an image viewer, and basic image editor. It's very good at those functions. As I explained earlier, I use it to browse/cull my images, and to do simple edits. If I need to use a RAW converter on an image, I invoke it from FS. If I need to do a complex image edit with layers, etc., I invoke a more powerful editor from FastStone.

This whole discussion revolves around a quirk of FS: because, by default, when you view a RAW file it shows you the embedded JPG, you can edit and save that embedded JPG. It's not as high quality as you would get from RAW development, but if all you need is a quick, low res version of your image that looks more or less like the camera JPG, it's a fast way of getting one.

This is what I've been trying to explain all along. Using FS to extract JPGs from RAW files is a shortcut that you can use when you don't need full quality JPGs.

Imagine you've been out in the field all day, shooting RAW. You get back to your hotel room and you want to send a quick sample of one of your images to somebody via email, but all you've got is a low powered laptop, and not much time to muck around with a RAW converter. You can browse your RAW files using FastStone, choose your image, and then adjust/crop/resize/sharpen the embedded JPG and save it. Much faster than importing all those images into Lightroom.

Many people don't need to do this - ever. But even if you never do, FS is still a very handy program. And it can do some things that programs like Lightroom cannot ( AFAIK ). Again, those features may not be of use to most photographers, but they are very handy for the kind of work that I do.

[pschlute]

FS does have a setting that gives you the option of developing the RAW images for display, but you have no control over the processing parameters, so it's mostly pointless (in addition to being much slower than just using the embedded JPG ). The resulting image will look different from the embedded JPG because FS uses DCRAW which doesn't understand any of your camera's JPG settings. If you use the embedded JPG, you get something that looks like the camera JPG, and depending on the camera, it can be of reasonably good quality. You have to pixel peep to see the difference between the embedded JPG and the camera JPG.

I see. Pointless as you say. If you only have FS software you are better off shooting jpeg in the camera (with the proviso of what you describe as a handy function to see the embedded jpeg via FS if you want to, but will process the raw files in a proper raw converter later)

[arkav]

I see. Pointless as you say. If you only have FS software you are better off shooting jpeg in the camera (with the proviso of what you describe as a handy function to see the embedded jpeg via FS if you want to, but will process the raw files in a proper raw converter later)

Yes, I have no idea why the designer included that option in FS, but it's been there since the version I began with around 10 years ago. I would not recommend its use, but the scenario you suggest is an interesting one. A person who doesn't have a RAW converter today ( or isn't inclined to use one ) may decide they want to use one in the future. Where will they be if they shoot JPG?

I would argue that FS actually allows them to shoot RAW even if they don't have a functioning RAW converter, because it will extract a JPG image of reasonable quality from the RAW file without doing any RAW conversion. Maybe that's good enough for them for the time being. After all, what do most people do with the images they capture? They post them on the internet. The embedded JPGs are good enough for most web applications. You would have to pixel peep to tell the difference between the embedded JPG and the one produced by the camera as a separate JPG, and you can be hard pressed even then. So if the only thing this person is doing with their images (in the short term) is viewing them on a computer screen, extracting the embedded JPGs from RAW files and editing them is a perfectly viable option.

But by shooting RAW, the photographer has the option of doing something more with their images at some future date if they are so inclined.

[BruceBanner]

No, that's not quite right. The JPG that's embedded in the RAW file is full sized, but it is of lower quality than you get from when the camera saves a *** quality JPG (at least this appears to be the case with most cameras).

Interesting. Are you sure about this? Perhaps you missed this but I did post some results a few posts back where I shot in RAW+ and used the ICRD to pull out a L *** Jpg and it was EXACTLY the same size (to the KB) of the *** L Jpg taken at the time of the RAW+ shot...

I tested this numerous times on the KP and K-1, always what the ICRD can pull from the RAW file is the same size Jpg as what the camera can do when in RAW+ mode. Now I didn't go pixel peeping and compare the two, I just took it at face value that both Jpgs were of the same quality as one another (because of the same size file), therefore I could not understand the point of RAW+. Of course if the Jpg that is made at the time of the RAW+ shot taken is somehow superior to the Jpg than can be pulled from the RAW from ICRD is better then that's fair do's (but my findings thus far in terms of size suggested they are the same). Perhaps I need to pixel peep this.

This is what I demonstrated with the crops from the two versions the image I posted. The image that was embedded in the RAW file had more JPG artifact than the image saved by the camera as a separate JPG. As I said, I don't think there's an easy way to determine the actual size of embedded JPG, or the compression setting used. I guess one way to test it would be to shoot RAW+ with the JPG quality at various settings, and by comparing the images, try to see if you can figure out which JPG quality setting gets you an equivalent image quality to the embedded JPG. I can say with confidence that a *** JPG is of better quality (and therefore a larger file size) than the embedded JPGs in my K30 and KP DNG files. I haven't played around with * or ** settings. Maybe the embedded JPG is equivalent to * quality.

I think I thought that your aforementioned comparison was either comparing Jpg from in camera vs what FS can manage from a RAW etc, or just that it's with older models of Pentax where things might be being a bit different. I wasn't aware these were KP RAW+ Jpg vs Jpg pulled from the RAW... I'll have to go back and reread that, my apologies.

If the embedded JPG is of very low quality, you might have trouble evaluating your image on the rear screen of your camera. If you zoomed in to check the fine detail, JPG artifact might make you think the image is out of focus for example. So yes, embedding a full size JPG does inflate the size of the RAW file somewhat, but the alternative would be that you'd only have a thumbnail preview, and you'd have to develop the image before you could zoom in on it. There's no free lunch.

I don't know much about ICRD or the in camera Digital filters. You have to keep in mind that while the JPG engine on the camera is perfectly capable of producing great JPG images, it's a little awkward to adjust the various parameters using the camera controls during ICRD. If using ICRD gets you where you need to go, that's great, but most people find using a RAW converter on a computer more flexible and more powerful.

Yeah I get that. I think there was a digital camera, maybe a Leica that decided to do away with a review/playback/lcd screen entirely, akin to the film day experience. Sounds bad, probably is bad, however if the RAW files are small because they just omit jpg previews or full sized jpgs embedded then that at least is perhaps some kind of tradeoff if these things are passed onto the user experience. It's probably a silly idea, however I can see if you shoot as a hobbyist and enjoy the entire photography experience (including the excitement or anticipation of having to wait till you get to a computer to see what your images actually look like... then you know.. it's something different at least

I think the only time I have seeing thus far the actual Jpg preview of the RAW file is on FS. I think the back of the pentax camera is displaying the full sized Jpg for you to review. I see no loss of quality when pixel peeping the RAW file vs Jpg when reviewing images, however when I do fire that same RAW file up into FastStone and inspect to 100% things do not look as clean as they are when I fire that same RAW file into Lightroom and inspect there, or/and... do a RAW export in LR with no PP to get a Jpg and then compare that vs the RAW Jpg preview in FS... (if that makes sense).

So.. I get that we need some kind of embedded Jpg in RAW files, my gripe or concern is we're getting the maximum along with it whether we like it or not (arguably overkill) and thus negates the use of the RAW+ feature as well as hampering what could be a better RAW only shooting experience (smaller RAW files perhaps, better buffer management etc). But I clearly need to pixel peep both a jpg generated from RAW+ as well as a Jpg pulled from the RAW+ file and assess that they are indeed identical, if not they I'm eating my words and there is still a reason to use RAW+ (for a higher quality Jpg). However, the fact they are the same size is odd no? Or rather it still exists that the RAW+ is carrying 'too high a quality a Jpg' for the purposes of simply 'reviewing'. I don't know about you but I simply use the screen on the back of the camera or FS to review such things as focus, composition, exposure and such (much of which the Exif can do for us anyway), if I look at FS and think the picture is not so good I still sometimes visit that image in LR just to be sure (and sometimes my mind is changed), so point being a Jpg preview will never be enough... not really, sometimes you just have to use a real screen and RAW development program to see really what you have and whether its worth spending time on or not.

FS isn't supposed to be a RAW converter. It's an image viewer, and basic image editor. It's very good at those functions. As I explained earlier, I use it to browse/cull my images, and to do simple edits. If I need to use a RAW converter on an image, I invoke it from FS. If I need to do a complex image edit with layers, etc., I invoke a more powerful editor from FastStone.

Same really, minus the edits. FS is truly fantastic and quickly seeing what you have, it has a tagging feature and you can then move those tagged files to somewhere else (such as a folder for LR imports). I've had many arguments with people on Adobe forums about this work flow, they insist in using LR for the culling procedure but really its a waste of time. I just took 1000 shots at a wedding, FS allowed me to cull that down to 240 (first wave of culling, I will do one more), I'll likely end up at around 150ish, and it's at this point I will then import them all to LR. Importing 1000 images into LR is beyond ZZzz.... 150 is bad enough! And as a program on my system things are still sluggish to navigate and move around a library (PS is far quicker as an editor tool on my system).

This whole discussion revolves around a quirk of FS: because, by default, when you view a RAW file it shows you the embedded JPG, you can edit and save that embedded JPG. It's not as high quality as you would get from RAW development, but if all you need is a quick, low res version of your image that looks more or less like the camera JPG, it's a fast way of getting one.

Is it though? It really looks to me like I'm at times inspecting not the full sized Jpg but a lesser one? Or do you think it is the full one (same one that you would get from using ICRD to get the *** L Jpg?). I just haven't pixel peeped that much. I noted before that FS gives you different options of seeing the RAW file (Settings>RAW>View RAW files in: "Embedded Preview Image (Fastest)" (even says 'Preview). Are we to take from this that the Preview Jpg is the same quality as the *** L Jpg that can be pulled from the RAW in ICRD? Because those files come out the same size as a RAW+ Jpg hehehe...

Why then does FS offer different ways to view RAW files (Half Size, Actual etc). I note that when changing those options and viewing the DNG file not only does it take longer (durr... lol), but it actually looks different, takes on different rendering properties (Actual for example I think IS the real embedded Jpg).

Thoughts?

PS: Furthermore, when we use the 'Save As' feature in FS, if we load the DNG up using the Fastest method vs Actual (for RAW viewing)... do we think it makes a difference to the quality of the Jpg we get when Saved?.. Hmm...

This is what I've been trying to explain all along. Using FS to extract JPGs from RAW files is a shortcut that you can use when you don't need full quality JPGs.

Imagine you've been out in the field all day, shooting RAW. You get back to your hotel room and you want to send a quick sample of one of your images to somebody via email, but all you've got is a low powered laptop, and not much time to muck around with a RAW converter. You can browse your RAW files using FastStone, choose your image, and then adjust/crop/resize/sharpen the embedded JPG and save it. Much faster than importing all those images into Lightroom.

Defo!

Many people don't need to do this - ever. But even if you never do, FS is still a very handy program. And it can do some things that programs like Lightroom cannot ( AFAIK ). Again, those features may not be of use to most photographers, but they are very handy for the kind of work that I do.

It also has a pretty good spot reduction ability as well I think? Like it actually works pretty good!

[arkav]

I will try to answer your questions one at a time:

Interesting. Are you sure about this? Perhaps you missed this but I did post some results a few posts back where I shot in RAW+ and used the ICRD to pull out a L *** Jpg and it was EXACTLY the same size (to the KB) of the *** L Jpg taken at the time of the RAW+ shot...

Yes, I'm pretty sure about this, and I did not miss what you posted a few posts back. Off course there is no difference in size between the JPG you got shooting RAW+ and the one you got using ICRD - the files should be identical. In neither case are you looking at the embedded JPG. ICRD does not "pull out" a JPG from the RAW file. The "RD" in ICRD stands for "RAW development". The camera is developing the RAW data to generate a JPG from scratch. That's why it takes a few seconds for the camera to do it. When you push the preview button on your camera for a RAW file, the camera is showing you the embedded JPG, and you see it almost instantly. FS shows you the embedded JPG (unless you have it set to "Actual" mode).

I will try to explain this again. We are discussing two very different scenarios:

1) JPG obtained by RAW development = SLOW = JPG you get from RAW+, from ICRD, or from using a RAW converter like PDCU, Lightroom, etc.
2) JPG obtained by extracting the embedded JPG = FAST = the preview you see on the screen on your camera, and FastStone (when it is set in "fastest" mode)

Your tests regarding file size are just comparing different versions of scenario 1 above. AFAIK, there is no way to accurately estimate the size of the embedded JPG. FS shows it to you, and tells you the dimensions, but it doesn't tell you what the original compression ratio was, so you don't know what the original size of the image was. Maybe there's some tool out there that can look inside a DNG file and tell us what all the components of it are.

Of course if the Jpg that is made at the time of the RAW+ shot taken is somehow superior to the Jpg than can be pulled from the RAW from ICRD is better then that's fair do's (but my findings thus far in terms of size suggested they are the same). Perhaps I need to pixel peep this.

I would expect these files to be identical. Neither of these files has anything to do with the embedded preview JPG that is inside the RAW file. You would be comparing higher quality JPG images.

I wasn't aware these were KP RAW+ Jpg vs Jpg pulled from the RAW... I'll have to go back and reread that, my apologies.

Those sample crops were a comparison of the *** JPG saved by the camera (KP) while shooting RAW+ vs the preview JPG extracted from the RAW file using FS. Again, please note that the extracted JPG is NOT the same as the JPG you get using ICRD. ICRD is NOT extracting the preview JPG.

I think the only time I have seeing thus far the actual Jpg preview of the RAW file is on FS. I think the back of the pentax camera is displaying the full sized Jpg for you to review. I see no loss of quality when pixel peeping the RAW file vs Jpg when reviewing images, however when I do fire that same RAW file up into FastStone and inspect to 100% things do not look as clean as they are when I fire that same RAW file into Lightroom and inspect there, or/and... do a RAW export in LR with no PP to get a Jpg and then compare that vs the RAW Jpg preview in FS... (if that makes sense).

No, when you look at a RAW image on the back of your camera, you are looking at the preview JPG embedded in the RAW file. That's what the preview JPG is there for. At least, that is my understanding. Think about it - how could the camera possibly display the image on the rear screen so fast if it had to perform the ICRD to create a full size high quality JPG every time you push the preview button? The image has to already exist for it to be displayed instantly. Your camera is showing you the preview JPG embedded in the RAW file. I am not surprised you were not able to see a difference while examining the images on your camera's rear screen. The difference is subtle, and it isn't easily discernible in every image. With my KP images, I have a hard time seeing the difference on a 25" monitor until I zoom right in to something like 400%. I wouldn't expect to be able to see the difference on the camera screen. I seem to recall it being a bit easier to see the difference with my K30 images, but even there, I wouldn't expect to be able to notice it on the rear screen. As I said previously, this makes sense. The preview JPG has to be of reasonably good quality or you wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate your shots on the rear screen.

concern is we're getting the maximum along with it whether we like it or not (arguably overkill)

I do not believe that this is true, and I think most other forum members would agree. I don't believe the embedded preview JPG is maximum quality, and the sample crops I posted support this view.

I've had many arguments with people on Adobe forums about this work flow, they insist in using LR for the culling procedure but really its a waste of time.

Yes, LR users tend to view their work flow as the only viable one, and that anyone who finds it burdensome should just buy a faster computer. I don't pay much attention to them.

Is it though? It really looks to me like I'm at times inspecting not the full sized Jpg but a lesser one? Or do you think it is the full one (same one that you would get from using ICRD to get the *** L Jpg?).

I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I believe the embedded preview JPG that FS shows you is full resolution (same number of pixels as the original image), but it is more compressed than the *** JPG you would get by doing ICRD (and more compression = lower quality). Because it is more compressed than the *** JPG, it will be somewhat smaller in size. How much smaller is difficult to estimate.

I noted before that FS gives you different options of seeing the RAW file (Settings>RAW>View RAW files in: "Embedded Preview Image (Fastest)" (even says 'Preview). Are we to take from this that the Preview Jpg is the same quality as the *** L Jpg that can be pulled from the RAW in ICRD? Because those files come out the same size as a RAW+ Jpg hehehe...

Again - I think your terminology is confusing you. ICRD is not "pulling" a JPG from the RAW file. It is developing a JPG. It is doing the same thing that a RAW converter does. What FS is doing is completely different ( when you have it in "fastest" mode ).

Why then does FS offer different ways to view RAW files (Half Size, Actual etc). I note that when changing those options and viewing the DNG file not only does it take longer (durr... lol), but it actually looks different, takes on different rendering properties (Actual for example I think IS the real embedded Jpg).

I have no idea why FS gives you these options - as mentioned in previous posts, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When you set FS to view RAW files in "Actual" mode, FS no longer extracts the embedded preview JPG. Instead, FS develops every image (basically, it's like using ICRD). It looks different because FS is using DCRAW, which is a different RAW converter than the one that's in your camera, and DCRAW doesn't know what to do with the various JPG settings you have set in your camera (eg. contast, saturation, highlight correction, etc.). It is slower than the "fastest" mode because FS has to create the JPG from the RAW data. You have no control over how FS/DCRAW performs that conversion, so it's of dubious utility. The only positive aspect of using this mode is that the image won't have the JPG artifacts that you see in the extracted JPG when you are using "fastest" mode. I haven't done extensive testing, but I don't see much of anything to recommend using "Actual" mode. As I said, FS isn't a proper RAW converter, and IMHO it shouldn't be used as one.

PS: Furthermore, when we use the 'Save As' feature in FS, if we load the DNG up using the Fastest method vs Actual (for RAW viewing)... do we think it makes a difference to the quality of the Jpg we get when Saved?.. Hmm...

Well, yes and no. Let's consider what's happening in each case:

Fastest mode: FS is extracting the embedded JPG from the RAW file. That embedded JPG has been created by the camera's JPG engine, but it is compressed so it contains some JPG artifacts.
Actual mode: FS is creating an image by rendering the RAW data using DCRAW. The image isn't compressed, so no JPG artifacts until you actually save it as a JPG - if you save it as a TIFF, you should have no artifacts. But DCRAW isn't optimized the way the camera's JPG engine is, and it won't be able to use any of your camera settings.

So on the one hand, using Actual mode has the potential of giving you a "better" image because you aren't starting with a compressed image, but FS/DCRAW isn't "tuned" for Pentax RAW files - it's just a generic converter running in default mode (I'm guessing here - I don't know anything about the inner workings of FS/DCRAW). That's why the image you get in Actual mode looks different from what you get from the camera. In the few cases where I've tried to use FS in this mode, I haven't been impressed with the results (and you have no way to adjust how the FS does that conversion). I prefer the rendering I get with the camera JPGs, or with the rendering I get using other RAW converters (where I can make adjustments to correct various problems).

It also has a pretty good spot reduction ability as well I think? Like it actually works pretty good!

Yes. It is basic, but I find it intuitive and in most cases it does a great job with minimal fuss. But most editing programs have spot correction.

The thing about FS is that it has all the basic editing functions in a lightweight, accessible package, and it is FREE. No, it doesn't have layers, or some other sophisticated features, but personally, I don't use those features most of the time. I'd rather work with a fast, lightweight program on a day to day basis, and pull out the big guns only when I really need them. I wish there was a keyboard shortcut for watermarking, as that's usually the last step in an image edit and I dislike needing to mouse over to the menu to invoke it.

I find FS has almost all the basic editing functions I could want for doing straightforward image editing. The "Draw" function is very handy when I need to put an arrow onto an image pointing to something, or I want to draw a circle around something, add footnotes, etc. Yes, I can do all that in GIMP or Photoshop, but it is far more accessible in FastStone. If I'm just doing quick and dirty work for something I need to attach to an email, FS is far more convenient (considering it's the program I'm already using to browse/cull my images). If I am preparing something for publication, then I might resort to a more sophisticated program, but I've certainly used FS to prepare images for publication.

Here's an online version of an article I wrote for a publication:
http://www.ontarioinsects.org/Publications/Summaries/2016_bog_elfin.pdf

For the images at the bottom of the article, I used FS to prepare them, and add the arrows, captions, etc.

[BruceBanner]

I will try to answer your questions one at a time:



Yes, I'm pretty sure about this, and I did not miss what you posted a few posts back. Off course there is no difference in size between the JPG you got shooting RAW+ and the one you got using ICRD - the files should be identical. In neither case are you looking at the embedded JPG. ICRD does not "pull out" a JPG from the RAW file. The "RD" in ICRD stands for "RAW development". The camera is developing the RAW data to generate a JPG from scratch. That's why it takes a few seconds for the camera to do it. When you push the preview button on your camera for a RAW file, the camera is showing you the embedded JPG, and you see it almost instantly. FS shows you the embedded JPG (unless you have it set to "Actual" mode).

I will try to explain this again. We are discussing two very different scenarios:

1) JPG obtained by RAW development = SLOW = JPG you get from RAW+, from ICRD, or from using a RAW converter like PDCU, Lightroom, etc.
2) JPG obtained by extracting the embedded JPG = FAST = the preview you see on the screen on your camera, and FastStone (when it is set in "fastest" mode)

Your tests regarding file size are just comparing different versions of scenario 1 above. AFAIK, there is no way to accurately estimate the size of the embedded JPG. FS shows it to you, and tells you the dimensions, but it doesn't tell you what the original compression ratio was, so you don't know what the original size of the image was. Maybe there's some tool out there that can look inside a DNG file and tell us what all the components of it are.



I would expect these files to be identical. Neither of these files has anything to do with the embedded preview JPG that is inside the RAW file. You would be comparing higher quality JPG images.



Those sample crops were a comparison of the *** JPG saved by the camera (KP) while shooting RAW+ vs the preview JPG extracted from the RAW file using FS. Again, please note that the extracted JPG is NOT the same as the JPG you get using ICRD. ICRD is NOT extracting the preview JPG.



No, when you look at a RAW image on the back of your camera, you are looking at the preview JPG embedded in the RAW file. That's what the preview JPG is there for. At least, that is my understanding. Think about it - how could the camera possibly display the image on the rear screen so fast if it had to perform the ICRD to create a full size high quality JPG every time you push the preview button? The image has to already exist for it to be displayed instantly. Your camera is showing you the preview JPG embedded in the RAW file. I am not surprised you were not able to see a difference while examining the images on your camera's rear screen. The difference is subtle, and it isn't easily discernible in every image. With my KP images, I have a hard time seeing the difference on a 25" monitor until I zoom right in to something like 400%. I wouldn't expect to be able to see the difference on the camera screen. I seem to recall it being a bit easier to see the difference with my K30 images, but even there, I wouldn't expect to be able to notice it on the rear screen. As I said previously, this makes sense. The preview JPG has to be of reasonably good quality or you wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate your shots on the rear screen.



I do not believe that this is true, and I think most other forum members would agree. I don't believe the embedded preview JPG is maximum quality, and the sample crops I posted support this view.



Yes, LR users tend to view their work flow as the only viable one, and that anyone who finds it burdensome should just buy a faster computer. I don't pay much attention to them.



I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I believe the embedded preview JPG that FS shows you is full resolution (same number of pixels as the original image), but it is more compressed than the *** JPG you would get by doing ICRD (and more compression = lower quality). Because it is more compressed than the *** JPG, it will be somewhat smaller in size. How much smaller is difficult to estimate.



Again - I think your terminology is confusing you. ICRD is not "pulling" a JPG from the RAW file. It is developing a JPG. It is doing the same thing that a RAW converter does. What FS is doing is completely different ( when you have it in "fastest" mode ).



I have no idea why FS gives you these options - as mentioned in previous posts, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When you set FS to view RAW files in "Actual" mode, FS no longer extracts the embedded preview JPG. Instead, FS develops every image (basically, it's like using ICRD). It looks different because FS is using DCRAW, which is a different RAW converter than the one that's in your camera, and DCRAW doesn't know what to do with the various JPG settings you have set in your camera (eg. contast, saturation, highlight correction, etc.). It is slower than the "fastest" mode because FS has to create the JPG from the RAW data. You have no control over how FS/DCRAW performs that conversion, so it's of dubious utility. The only positive aspect of using this mode is that the image won't have the JPG artifacts that you see in the extracted JPG when you are using "fastest" mode. I haven't done extensive testing, but I don't see much of anything to recommend using "Actual" mode. As I said, FS isn't a proper RAW converter, and IMHO it shouldn't be used as one.



Well, yes and no. Let's consider what's happening in each case:

Fastest mode: FS is extracting the embedded JPG from the RAW file. That embedded JPG has been created by the camera's JPG engine, but it is compressed so it contains some JPG artifacts.
Actual mode: FS is creating an image by rendering the RAW data using DCRAW. The image isn't compressed, so no JPG artifacts until you actually save it as a JPG - if you save it as a TIFF, you should have no artifacts. But DCRAW isn't optimized the way the camera's JPG engine is, and it won't be able to use any of your camera settings.

So on the one hand, using Actual mode has the potential of giving you a "better" image because you aren't starting with a compressed image, but FS/DCRAW isn't "tuned" for Pentax RAW files - it's just a generic converter running in default mode (I'm guessing here - I don't know anything about the inner workings of FS/DCRAW). That's why the image you get in Actual mode looks different from what you get from the camera. In the few cases where I've tried to use FS in this mode, I haven't been impressed with the results (and you have no way to adjust how the FS does that conversion). I prefer the rendering I get with the camera JPGs, or with the rendering I get using other RAW converters (where I can make adjustments to correct various problems).



Yes. It is basic, but I find it intuitive and in most cases it does a great job with minimal fuss. But most editing programs have spot correction.

The thing about FS is that it has all the basic editing functions in a lightweight, accessible package, and it is FREE. No, it doesn't have layers, or some other sophisticated features, but personally, I don't use those features most of the time. I'd rather work with a fast, lightweight program on a day to day basis, and pull out the big guns only when I really need them. I wish there was a keyboard shortcut for watermarking, as that's usually the last step in an image edit and I dislike needing to mouse over to the menu to invoke it.

I find FS has almost all the basic editing functions I could want for doing straightforward image editing. The "Draw" function is very handy when I need to put an arrow onto an image pointing to something, or I want to draw a circle around something, add footnotes, etc. Yes, I can do all that in GIMP or Photoshop, but it is far more accessible in FastStone. If I'm just doing quick and dirty work for something I need to attach to an email, FS is far more convenient (considering it's the program I'm already using to browse/cull my images). If I am preparing something for publication, then I might resort to a more sophisticated program, but I've certainly used FS to prepare images for publication.

Here's an online version of an article I wrote for a publication:
http://www.ontarioinsects.org/Publications/Summaries/2016_bog_elfin.pdf

For the images at the bottom of the article, I used FS to prepare them, and add the arrows, captions, etc.

Congrats! You Passed! This was actually all a test to see how much idiocy you could put up with from Bruce, and you passed with flying colours!

No seriously, thanks for all of this, you help clear the confusion cloud in my head and bring order to what I was experiencing. I appreciate the time it takes to reply in depth like you have and it has not gone unnoticed from this forum member.

Thanks again.

Bruce

[rogerstg]

This has been a very informative thread; much appreciated. Interestingly, it has given me a new appreciation of DCU5 now that I understand more about extracting vs save as, etc. I'm going to be using it as a first review/cull of my raw files (KP) because it allows me to leverage the power of custom images as a starting point, easily changing selections after the fact. IOW, I shoot "Bright" by default, and with DCU5, I can easily change to another custom image selection if needed. It's like working with in camera processing from the comfort of my laptop.