ARW to JPG

[licinio]

I shot pictures in arw format with my recently bought Sony Alpha 6000. Then I converted them with or without Adobe Camera Raw settings, into jpg, but in either case the results were baffling:

- loss of quality and detail in shadows and highlights

- lens correction applied whether or not it was added in Camera Raw.

I attach two screen captures to exemplify.

Why is this? What is the correct workflow?

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[baillieswells]

Why not shoot in RAW + JPEG?

 

My normal procedure is to play around with the RAW image, and save this as a tIFF.  Then any final adjustments,  as to size, resolution etc can be done on the TIFF image and  these saved as  JPEG. (However, if I want colour prints, I print directly from the TIFF files)

[Guest all8]

The JPEG would have been sharpened and had its highlights/shadows adjusted - all automatically by the camera.

 

The RAW file needs _you_ to make those adjustments, typically in a tool like LightRoom, Capture One, or similar (I'm trialling something called ON1 Photo Raw which is also fairly easy to use).

 

Processing a RAW file will always get better results, however you need to learn how to use software. For a lot of people the JPEG from camera is good enough. From those two pictures, a well processed RAW file will look much better than the JPEG.

[a6k]

Forgive my bias, but the a6000 and the a6300 raw files can be viewed directly on a Mac computer with Preview or Photo.

 

In addition, there is a free tool from Sony that runs on either Mac or Windows which converts ARW to TIFF and works on the a6500, too. I have also used other tools. They all give different results initially. The Sony app is called Image Data Converter. 

 

It is true of all conversions from raw to jpg that there will be losses because jpg is a "lossy" compression format. In addition, you will have an issue with choosing the color palette (is this the right term?). You may see choices for Adobe, Wide Gamut and some version of standard. The a6000 can create its jpg's in either normal or Adobe. The ARW format contains a wider range of colors and of dynamic range and thus the way you tweak the "negative" into a printable  or merely viewable file is up to you. Some monitors are more able than others to show wide gamut colors.

 

Here is a link to a powerful if clunky tool for the Mac:

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html

 

I am the farthest thing from an expert on this but I'm sharing this little knowledge that I have because the little that I have learned on these kinds of forums has been very helpful.

[HappyMartin]

The camera jpg is a bit like shooting a Polaroid. You can get really good results but there is not much wiggle room to change things after the fact. ARW is a raw file and as such is a bit like shooting a negative in the old days. Lots of room to change things after and every "print" you produce leaves the negative unaltered and ready to produce new interpretations. Not a perfect analogy as the jpg does allow a fair amount of adjusting but it is all destructive so a light touch is best.

 

The downside to the ARW file is some work is required after shooting to produce a file you can share, show or print from. There is a learning curve. Some experience is a help. Poor skills will result in a worse file than the camera will produce automatically when you shoot jpg. For best results you will need proper software like PS or LR.

 

If you wish to get the max out of the camera and shoot you in tricky conditions or just like playing around then ARW is the way to go.