picture quality

[Callaby32]

Hi all, I'm relatively new to this so please bare with me if this has been asked before. So I've been shooting the photos in JPEG and Raw DNG, when looking at the photos in windows photo viewer the JPEG pictures look far better then the DNG's even though they are a much smaller file size, am i getting something simple wrong here? the pictures are actually smaller and just don't look as a good a quality, also what's the best format for shooting the photos? highest resolution possible and in 4:3 rather then 16:9, any and all advice would be greatly appreciated ,thanks..

 

[Thomas B]

You must be looking at a preview of the .DNG

 

[JamieK]

RAW photos generally look ‘flat’ until you process them In an editor like Lightroom.

 

[Meta4]

when looking at the photos in windows photo viewer the JPEG pictures look far better then the DNG's even though they are a much smaller file size, am i getting something simple wrong here?

A couple of points will help explain things.
1. The jpg format is a compressed file.
Although the file size is smaller, the pixel size is identical.

2. dng files need to be post-processed to look their best and will generally look dull when you view them

the pictures are actually smaller and just don't look as a good a quality,

3. You need specialised software to view the dng files.
If you use software that's not capable of reading teh dng file, what you will see is a tiny jpg preview image that's inside the dng file.

also what's the best format for shooting the photos? highest resolution possible and in 4:3 rather then 16:9

16:9 is just 4:3 with a bit cropped from the top and bottom to give a narrower rectangle.

 

[vindibona1]

A couple of points will help explain things.
1. The jpg format is a compressed file.
Although the file size is smaller, the pixel size is identical.

2. dng files need to be post-processed to look their best and will generally look dull when you view them

3. You need specialised software to view the dng files.
If you use software that's not capable of reading teh dng file, what you will see is a tiny jpg preview image that's inside the dng file.

16:9 is just 4:3 with a bit cropped from the top and bottom to give a narrower rectangle.

To elaborate on Meta4's information...

Besides being compressed, a jpg is an image whose "raw data" has been processed with certain built in parameters before getting compressed. With a jpg file the camera is acting like a mini computer doing the processor. A dng file being "raw" means that it is only raw data that has not been processed. Until you actually use a program to process the image as noted above, your computer is allowing you to see only the preview. Consequently the preview's image will not have the look or the resolution of even the associated jpg file.

What's great about having both jpg and dng files is that sometimes the jpg is just fine the way it comes out of the camera, depending on the shot and how fussy you want to be. But the dng or most raw files give you the many options within processing, including some upscaling that would be limited by a jpg file.

 

[Brian I]

In a nutshell - if you don't intend to use (or don't have) a program like Lightroom to edit ALL your photos there is no point shooting in RAW.

 

[Callaby32]

Great thanks for filling me in, makes perfect sense, I was just worried the raw files looked so bad, I've been looking at luminar AI for post processing, would that be a decent option or am I better off with lightroom and photoshop? Cheers

 

[Dbez1]

Be careful of the learning curve on the more sophisticated and expensive editing programs. If you’re not willing to put in the time to really learn Lightroom or Photoshop, just stick with jpg and use iOS photos or whatever the equivalent Microsoft is. The results will be just fine.

 

[vindibona1]

In a nutshell - if you don't intend to use (or don't have) a program like Lightroom to edit ALL your photos there is no point shooting in RAW.

Your post brought back 20 year old memories...
I started shooting stills with my first "professional" DLSR, a Nikon D1 about 2001. At the time I was still shooting about 40 weddings per year before abandoning weddings, shooting strictly commercial beginning around 2003. Under the varied lighting and shooting circumstances of weddings and events, most jpgs needed help thought the the D1 and subsequent D1x did shoot in raw. However initially Nikon charged extra for their raw editing program ($200, if I recall properly). And either jpg or raw images could be corrected one at a time.

And then along came Capture One Pro, developed by Phase One who were hawking the first medium format digital cameras. C1Pro software was revolutionary because it allowed you to view the images AND CORRECTIONS via "proxy images" (now very common) which were low rez representations, and you could make a correction on one image, then the correction parameters into any number of images. And given the slower speeds of computers 20 years ago it allowed you to process the images unattended. Prior to Capture One Pro you can imagine how long it took to get through 1000 wedding images- days. With Capture One Pro I could color correct almost 1000 PER HOUR and wait to render the images until the end of the day before I went home and let the computer process the images while I was home and sleeping.

I'm not sure what the history of Lightroom is, but I've continued with Capture One Pro which has become quite sophisticated since its inception. It now does things far beyond my ability, need and desire to learn the new stuff (just like Photoshop) and I stopped upgrading C1P after V12.

Getting back to the Adobe debacle... I never saw a need to upgrade Photoshop CS3 as my motto in that version of the program was (and still is) "If I can think it I can do it". Sadly, Adobe in its infinite greed has not allowed me to activate CS3 on my 2 year old computer, and as I am semi retired do not use Photoshop every day, but continue to have to pay Adobe as if I did. And often I will go to my 12 year old Sony laptop to do Photo editing because it is far less clumsy than the new Photoshop versions where 10 pounds of ? is stuffed into a 5 pound bag. Lightrooom? Bah humbug.