[cpk]

Is there any difference between the jpeg produced if the camera is set to "raw + jpeg" and the jpeg extracted from the raw file when the camera is set to shoot raw only?

[whk1992]

When you say extracted from the raw file, do you mean "developing" on your camera in view mode or exporting from a post-processing program?

[Volker76]

no, he means extracting. DNGs have jpegs embedded as a preview.

[cpk]

When you say extracted from the raw file, do you mean "developing" on your camera in view mode or exporting from a post-processing program?

I have software which will extract the jpeg from the raw file after loading the raw file onto a computer. It's that jpeg I am wondering about in terms of comparing it to one shot with the "raw + jpeg" setting. I'm looking for a description of the differences between these files, if any.

[jatrax]

Not sure but i thought the embed was just a thumbnail as opposed to the full resolution jpeg in RAW+jpeg.

Could be wrong though have never tested it.

[whk1992]

no, he means extracting. DNGs have jpegs embedded as a preview.

I have software which will extract the jpeg from the raw file after loading the raw file onto a computer. It's that jpeg I am wondering about in terms of comparing it to one shot with the "raw + jpeg" setting. I'm looking for a description of the differences between these files, if any.

Ah.
That's something I don't know.

---------- Post added 12-21-14 at 06:44 AM ----------

Not sure but i thought the embed was just a thumbnail as opposed to the full resolution jpeg in RAW+jpeg.

Could be wrong though have never tested it.

Uhmmm it's something larger (more pixels) than a thumbnail. When you load the image to Lightroom, for a split second it will show you the embedded JPEG first.

[LensBeginner]

Different cameras have different settings, but it's almost never a full-fledged, three-star quality (or whatever's the setting in-camera) jpeg. It might be full size, though (better chance with Pentax than with Ricoh, though , there was a thread about the GR and this issue recently).

Some cameras also embed thumbnails of different sizes, I ran into this when trying to recover data from corrupt RAWs for a fellow forum member.
The output (i.e. all that was salvageable) were 10kb jpegs, the bigger ones were probably corrupt just like the RAWs.

[Nicolas06]

so to the initial poster, for practical purposes, theses jpg are not the same. There are of lower quality than normal jpg.

[Aberrator]

Comparison: embedded vs. converted. K-5, PEF file, 100% crops enlarged by 150%

[arkav]

so to the initial poster, for practical purposes, theses jpg are not the same. There are of lower quality than normal jpg.

By default, FastStone uses these embedded JPEG files, and that's how it manages to display the contents of a folder so rapidly ( it isn't rendering all the RAW files to generate
previews ).

( in fact, I think it generates a preview from a RAW file faster than from the corresponding JPG when you've shot RAW+. I only notice this because I've seen the program struggle
with the output of my K30 on an old laptop. )

As far as the quality of these embedded JPGs goes, it varies by camera model. With my K200D, the JPG it embeds in the DNG RAW file is actually quite good. Good enough
for almost anything you might do on the web, or even 4x6 prints. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the embedded JPG and the output of a RAW developer.

I find that this is less true of the JPGs my K30 embeds in the RAW files, but they're probably still good enough for making the kind of low-res crops that you'd send via email, etc.

For those unfamiliar with FastStone:
Unless you configure it to "develop" the RAW file when you open a file, it will display the embedded JPG instead. Any edits you perform are performed on the
embedded JPG. So if your original shot is reasonable, and all you want is a quick low-res crop, you can do this straight from the embedded JPG without having
to process the RAW file.
You always have the option of developing the RAW file with FastStone, but I don't think you have any control over development parameters, so it's kinda pointless.
When I need to develop the RAW file, I invoke some other program like Elements, PDCU, or Silkypix from within FastStone.

[IchabodCrane]

As you'll quickly tell, I'm a noob with this subject. How do you guys extract the embedded JPEG from the RAW file? What's the actual size of the file?

[Nicolas06]

As you'll quickly tell, I'm a noob with this subject. How do you guys extract the embedded JPEG from the RAW file? What's the actual size of the file?

It is not meant for that... As said the Jpeg is just there to get a quick view and heavily compressed to not consume too much additional space. If one use raw format, it should be to get the full dynamic range of the sensor and so more possibility of post processing... If one change the white balance, push a the shadows or want to remove noise, a raw is far better.

But if one is ok with default rendering of camera then it should chose JPEG directly, it is much more practical and higher quality than embedded preview jpeg.

[Volker76]

just shoot raw+jpeg. If the jpeg is good enough: congratulations you saved yourself from some additional work. If the jpeg is not good enough: no problem, just open the raw in the raw 'developer' of your choice. From dxo or lightroom to rawtherapee or darktable...

[arkav]

It is not meant for that... As said the Jpeg is just there to get a quick view and heavily compressed to not consume too much additional space. If one use raw format, it should be to get the full dynamic range of the sensor and so more possibility of post processing... If one change the white balance, push a the shadows or want to remove noise, a raw is far better.

But if one is ok with default rendering of camera then it should chose JPEG directly, it is much more practical and higher quality than embedded preview jpeg.

As I said in a previous post, I think this is heavily dependent on the camera. My K200D puts a very high quality JPG in the RAW file.

I don't know about other photographers, but I usually don't know ahead of time that I'm going to need to fix exposure, white balance, etc. Often, I am perfectly
happy with the rendering of the camera, but even if I am, I might not necessarily be happy with a JPG version of it. What if I need a TIFF?

With the K200D, I would always shoot RAW. That way, if I needed to fix exposure, white balance, etc, I had the option. Also, if I got that 1 in a million shot, I could produce a TIFF
version if I needed it from the RAW.

But with the photography I do, much of the time I only need low resolution crops of the images I take for sharing via email, etc. For that purpose, the embedded JPG that my K200D
produced was more than adequate. That camera was slow writing to memory cards, RAW+ was not a realistic option.

If you use a program like FastStone to pull JPG from the RAW file, it's a bit like shooting RAW+ with the JPG of varying quality ( depending on the camera ) stuffed into the RAW file.

FastStone doesn't "extract" the embedded JPG explicitly. When you click on the raw file, it brings up a full screen view of the embedded JPG ( unless you have it configured to render from RAW ).

You can then perform whatever crops/edits/adjustments you like, and when you hit save, you get to choose what format you want to save the result in. If you don't do any edits, then the file that
gets saved is a copy of the embedded JPG.

With my K30, I shoot RAW+. When I open a folder of photos in Faststone, I see 2 copies of each image, one DNG and one JPG. If I click on a DNG and bring it up in the image comparitor with the corresponding JPG,
I'm really comparing the embedded JPG in the DNG with the full JPG generated by the camera. The two look identical, except you can see that the embedded JPG lacks some detail and you can see some JPG artifacts.
It's not too bad. If you're going to be resizing the image down to, you'd probably never notice. Now that I've looked at this more closely, I will probably switch backing to just shooting RAW. Why fill my Hard drive up with both RAW and JPG?

All my old photos that I shot with my K200D are RAW, so I can't do the same direct comparison, but I know that when I "extract" the embedded JPG, it looks almost as good as a TIFF rendered from the DNG by any of the following: ACR, PDCU, Silkypix, or Rawtherapee. For whatever reason, the K200D seems to save a very high quality JPG embedded in the DNG file. Maybe Pentax goofed when they originally made cameras capable of saving RAW in DNG format.

I just checked. The DNG files generated by my K200D are often BIGGER than those generated by my K30 ! The K200D pretty consistently generates 16.1M DNG files. With the K30, it varies. Some files are up over 16M, some are smaller. Worst case, the K30 files are only slightly bigger. This makes no sense - the K30 has a 16M sensor vs the 10M sensor in the K200D.

The K200D is probably always embedding a full resolution JPG in the DNG file. That's the only explanation that makes any sense.

[IchabodCrane]

It is not meant for that... As said the Jpeg is just there to get a quick view and heavily compressed to not consume too much additional space. If one use raw format, it should be to get the full dynamic range of the sensor and so more possibility of post processing... If one change the white balance, push a the shadows or want to remove noise, a raw is far better.

But if one is ok with default rendering of camera then it should chose JPEG directly, it is much more practical and higher quality than embedded preview jpeg.

Sorry, I should have specifically asked Ultrapentaxionalist the question as he's the one who apparently extracted the embedded JPEG from the RAW file. Frankly, I've never known anyone to do that unless that was just the accompanying in-camera JPEG he posted... though I doubt it was.