RAW vs JPG - dynamic range difference?

[nickcaptures]

Hi everyone,

New owner of a Mavic 4 Pro here. I was testing capturing photos directly into the sun, and for some reason, I'm finding that the JPG photo is giving a much more pleasing representation of direct sun glare than the RAW photo. Any ideas why this would be?

I am already aware that shooting video in D-LOG M is giving superior dynamic range to D-LOG (as this video explains:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

)

Could the same software / dual ISO trickery be also happening with the Mavic 4 photo mode to make it that shooting JPG is superior to shooting RAW in high dynamic range situations... (like direct sun?). Or am I doing something wrong with my RAW photos?

Any ideas/suggestions would be welcome. I'm baffled.

I'll attach examples here.

The original DNG file is 127MG & the original JPG file is 47MB. So I've put them both into photoshop, reduced by 80%, and exported as jpgs. While this isn't the original files, it's still a representation of the difference. Look at the sun and the range of colour/light outwards from the sun's centre in both images. The DNG seems to have like 3 colours/intensity of light. The JPG has a much more pleasant gradient of colour and light. This is more than just increased saturation...

Any idea what is going on? Thanks so much.

 

[Meta4]

Or am I doing something wrong with my RAW photos?

That's hard to say when you haven't said what you are doing with the dng files ??

 

[anotherlab]

Hi everyone,

New owner of a Mavic 4 Pro here. I was testing capturing photos directly into the sun, and for some reason, I'm finding that the JPG photo is giving a much more pleasing representation of direct sun glare than the RAW photo. Any ideas why this would be?

I am already aware that shooting video in D-LOG M is giving superior dynamic range to D-LOG (as this video explains:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

)

Could the same software / dual ISO trickery be also happening with the Mavic 4 photo mode to make it that shooting JPG is superior to shooting RAW in high dynamic range situations... (like direct sun?). Or am I doing something wrong with my RAW photos?

Any ideas/suggestions would be welcome. I'm baffled.

I'll attach examples here.

The original DNG file is 127MG & the original JPG file is 47MB. So I've put them both into photoshop, reduced by 80%, and exported as jpgs. While this isn't the original files, it's still a representation of the difference. Look at the sun and the range of colour/light outwards from the sun's centre in both images. The DNG seems to have like 3 colours/intensity of light. The JPG has a much more pleasant gradient of colour and light. This is more than just increased saturation...

Any idea what is going on? Thanks so much.

If you imported the RAW image into Photoshop and the only change that you made was to scale it down, then you are not getting any benefit of the RAW format. The RAW file is exactly what the file name suggests: it's the raw sensor data captured by the camera - not a "digital negative".

RAW files capture more data (higher bit depth, wider dynamic range, better color information). These advantages allow for better adjustments to exposure, white balance, shadows/highlights, and color grading without degrading quality. This gives you greater control over recovering highlights or lifting shadows. FWIW, Lightroom has a better workflow for working with RAW images than Photoshop.

The camera on your drone is making adjustments to the RAW file data when it creates the JPG. It's always shooting RAW, you just have a setting to save the RAW file in addition to the JPG was created from the RAW data.

 

[Bussty]

There has been a post over on the DJI Forum and the moderators have stated that auto iso mode kicks in enhanced HDR for photos and video. Not sure if this relates to what you are seeing. Moderators are checking if this applies to jpegs and raw, again might be related.

 

[nickcaptures]

Thanks for all the replies. I've uploaded the original DNG and JPG here in case you want to have a closer look. Basically I'm just trying to understand why the light/colour gradient around the sun looks so much worse in DNG than in JPG:

MavicTest - Google Drive

drive.google.com

All settings were manual (including manual ISO 100). The drone captured both DNG and JPG at the same time.

I know I can edit the DNG file to make the sun to look better/more natural... but I'm just amazed the JPG did such a good automatic job of processing highlights like this.

I'm opening the DNG in Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop and Preview (on Mac).

Bussty, thanks for the tip. I'll also try auto ISO test next time and also see what happens.

 

[Bussty]

Will be good to get to the bottom of it, if you are only Manual ISO (what I normally use) from all that I have seen there is no special HDR processing going on in Jpeg or DNG, the key seems to be that Auto ISO (well according to DJI) is the special ingredient. I have done some tests today so will see what they show. When you are used to just shooting Manual it can start getting overwhelming testing all the variations of auto iso, auto shutter speed and auto aperture!

 

[nickcaptures]

Oh thanks so much. Would be interested to see if you get the same results as me. I'll also do some more testing next time I get some full direct sun here (unfortunately it's a cloudy day today!)

 

[Meta4]

I know I can edit the DNG file to make the sun to look better/more natural.

It's not so much that you can edit the dng files.
It's that you must edit the dng files unless you want them to look dull and flat.
Dng files aren't meant to be left unedited and it sounds like you've done nothing to this one except open it in camera raw and convert it to a jpg?

.. but I'm just amazed the JPG did such a good automatic job of processing highlights like this.

It's quite normal for the jpg files to look better than the (unedited) dng file.

Bussty, thanks for the tip. I'll also try auto ISO test next time and also see what happens.

Unless you edit the dng file, it's still going to look dull and flat.

 

[Filmarik]

There has been a post over on the DJI Forum and the moderators have stated that auto iso mode kicks in enhanced HDR for photos and video. Not sure if this relates to what you are seeing. Moderators are checking if this applies to jpegs and raw, again might be related.

Hard to judge from the sample image. But in general, raw files capture wider dynamic range than JPEG, and when processed skilfully the result should be superior to straight out of camera JPEG. There is numerous technical reasons for that. Also you can adjust WB in broad range whereas JPEG need to be nailed in all aspects because if way off significant tonal and WB adjustments will break the JPEG image very quickly. Posterization in skie and other artefacts will ruin the photo..

 

[nickcaptures]

It's not so much that you can edit the dng files.
It's that you must edit the dng files unless you want them to look dull and flat.
Dng files aren't meant to be left unedited and it sounds like you've done nothing to this one except open it in camera raw and convert it to a jpg?

Correct - I haven't done any editing to the sample image. However, I personally would struggle to get the sun looking so natural with my RAW editing skills. I could improve the rest of the image significantly (the sky, water, jetty etc) but I don't think I could match the JPG's sun gradient.

 

[Ralph thompson]

Just a thought, is it possible the M4 pro jpeg capture is taking advantage of the quad bayer sensor and actually taking a single HDR photograph?

 

[Johnmcl7]

I feel like I'm missing something here but the DNG image even with default processing looks to have quite a bit more dynamic range, you can clearly see each of the clouds with some detail but in the jpeg the clouds are almost completely blown with no detail. However if you want to properly compare dynamic range you'll need to change settings in the raw processor to bring back detail in highlight and shadow areas.

Either way I agree with meta4's comment about comparing a DNG on default processing with a processed jpeg file as the jpeg will almost always look better. It put me off changing to raw processing for a while because my efforts with the raw file never looked as good as the jpeg, I eventually sat down and properly worked through guides to reach the point I was happy with the raw files and could take advantage of the additional data in the raw file. It's not something you have to do and if you're happy with the jpeg then go with that.

 

[thearborist]

Jpeg is a lossy process designed to reduce file size. Part of the process (done in camera) is to compare pixels to surrounding areas and then balance the image accordingly. This smooths out the colors, but at the loss of detail, as @Johnmcl7 pointed out. The dng images are the camera raw files, each pixel shown as recorded, no adjustments. There is usually no compression of the files, so what is stored on the camera is the full size.

If your camera allows, you can try different settings for the jpg compression.

I work with both: family and general pics, especially on the phone camera, are generally jpg. For my consulting practice (forensic level stuff) I always shoot camera RAW on a dSLR. (I also bracket exposures for greater HDR.) So it depends on your needs and the use you will put the images to. Viewing on a small screen and general size reprints are fine in jpg. If you have more exacting needs or greater enlargements (more than, say, 5x7"), then consider dng or raw and invest in the good software. Adobe Lightroom is my choice for that.

 

[Filmarik]

Correct - I haven't done any editing to the sample image. However, I personally would struggle to get the sun looking so natural with my RAW editing skills. I could improve the rest of the image significantly (the sky, water, jetty etc) but I don't think I could match the JPG's sun gradient.

Well, then you are not doing what raw files are made for. PROCESSING. Meaning adjusting image parameters. WB, highlights, shadows, saturation, contrast, curves, sharpness, noise reduction to name the basics. If you want the best IQ your camera is capable of capturing then shooting DNG and processing in somehing like Lightroom is the way to go. If you are a casual shooter and are happy with what your camera gives you as JPEG output then there is no more to say. Stick with what you are happy with.

 

[thearborist]

Well, then you are not doing what raw files are made for. PROCESSING. Meaning adjusting image parameters. WB, highlights, shadows, saturation, contrast, curves, sharpness, noise reduction to name the basics. If you want the best IQ your camera is capable of capturing then shooting DNG and processing in somehing like Lightroom is the way to go. If you are a casual shooter and are happy with what your camera gives you as JPEG output then there is no more to say. Stick with what you are happy with.

I'll add that jpg images can easily be adjusted, too, often in your camera (smartphone apps) or on a computer. Things like altering the overall exposure, contrast, adjusting shadows and highlights, saturation, etc can help improve your pictures. Many apps have automatic adjustment options, too. Even if you're skeptical of AI technology, AI is pretty good at helping with the images.

 

[Bussty]

Oh thanks so much. Would be interested to see if you get the same results as me. I'll also do some more testing next time I get some full direct sun here (unfortunately it's a cloudy day today!)

I did some tests but inconclusive, I would say as far as jpegs are concerned it looks like there is no added advantage in shooting Auto ISO so wondering about DJI's advice on that and is this just a dlog-m video thing? Will do some more today. My issue was I'll have to calculate correct EV change to get exactly same exposure using the AUTO modes as manual as they seemed to slightly over exposure by comparison using the highlight warning as a guide to match up each exposure. Very subtle though.

One thing is for sure the jpegs show significantly more dynamic range compared to standard jpegs of same scene and lens angle compared to my Sony A7RV which was interesting. I did also note somewhere either here or on the DJI forum someone said the Mavic 4 Pro had better resolving power than the Sony AR7V but that must be on video as there is no comparison on detail when you compare a 25MP Mavic 4 Pro image compared to a 60MP Sony but that is to be expected. I'm guessing by resolving power they might be getting some impact from better dynamic range?

 

[Johnmcl7]

It wouldn't surprise me that the Mavic 4 Pro has better jpegs than the Sony since it's not unusual for more enthusiast level cameras to have weaker jpegs I assume with the expectation users will be mostly using raw files. I was happy with Olympus jpeg files but when I changed to the Nikon D700 despite the much more impressive sensor the jpeg files were poor which is what forced me into learning raw processing to get advantage of the sensor. It is possible for the camera to produce better dynamic range with its jpeg engine doing the same as a manually processed raw file.

 

[Filmarik]

I'll add that jpg images can easily be adjusted, too, often in your camera (smartphone apps) or on a computer. Things like altering the overall exposure, contrast, adjusting shadows and highlights, saturation, etc can help improve your pictures. Many apps have automatic adjustment options, too. Even if you're skeptical of AI technology, AI is pretty good at helping with the images.

To some extent, yes. But JPEG has only 8 bit color depth meaning that if you push it a bit too much in editing it falls appart pretty quickly. Banding in skies and other artefacts start to creep in before too long. Raw format offers much more flexibility in editing and all that without undesirable consequences.

 

[Bussty]

It wouldn't surprise me that the Mavic 4 Pro has better jpegs than the Sony since it's not unusual for more enthusiast level cameras to have weaker jpegs I assume with the expectation users will be mostly using raw files. I was happy with Olympus jpeg files but when I changed to the Nikon D700 despite the much more impressive sensor the jpeg files were poor which is what forced me into learning raw processing to get advantage of the sensor. It is possible for the camera to produce better dynamic range with its jpeg engine doing the same as a manually processed raw file.

Using the Mini 3 Pro when DXO added compatibility to DXO Photolab the conversions were amazing over what I could achieve with other converters, so Photolab is my RAW developer of choice now. I'm not really converting RAWs yet with the Mavic 4 Pro as DXO aren't providing compatibility until September but when they do I'm picking conversion will be a notch up from what we have seen so far in jpegs and what I can achieve in Affinity Photo. The DXO noise reduction is amazing. While overall dynamic range is better than say the Sony I just don't see the even better dynamic range that the video dlog-M is getting when using AUTO ISO in the photo mode so don't think this is a photo thing like DJI say it is. But will find out today hopefully...

 

[thearborist]

It wouldn't surprise me that the Mavic 4 Pro has better jpegs than the Sony since it's not unusual for more enthusiast level cameras to have weaker jpegs I assume with the expectation users will be mostly using raw files. I was happy with Olympus jpeg files but when I changed to the Nikon D700 despite the much more impressive sensor the jpeg files were poor which is what forced me into learning raw processing to get advantage of the sensor. It is possible for the camera to produce better dynamic range with its jpeg engine doing the same as a manually processed raw file.

Understand that every image sensor brand and model has slight differences, and there can even be differences between individual cameras with the same model sensors. Comparing SONY to Mavic or Canon or other brands will not always lead to similar results. For those that remember the old Kodachrome film, the colors were quite saturated compared to other similar films. Same with the digital sensors- each has its own profile. You can make these adjustments in your pics with the management software, and even apply your custom adjustments according to the camera when you import new images. It gives you a start on making further adjustments as needed.