topic Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense. in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

EOS 7D RAW photos blown out but JPGs are OK

MNshutterbug — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:03:21 GMT

I shoot the Canon 7D and this camera I've typically used for wildlife and jpeg was always good enough for my purposes. Recently I've been shooting in RAW plus jpeg and I noticed this evening after shooting images of swans that the RAW files all showed blown out areas that I was unable to recover. However, the jpegs showed detail in the highlights and shadows. I'd expect it to be the opposite. This makes no sense to me.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

shadowsports — Sun, 20 Apr 2025 03:54:55 GMT

Greetings,

Please use a file sharing service and post a link so we can download and evaluate these photos. Post 2-3 of each. We will be happy to take a look at them for you.

If you are not using Canon glass, tell us about the lenses and accessories you're shooting with.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Peter — Sun, 20 Apr 2025 06:50:45 GMT

Dropbox, WeTtansfer, Google Drive (don't forget to right click and share the files if you use Google Drive).

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:31:22 GMT

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HTwtzu2n3yZnpJyL7 https://photos.app.goo.gl/5FS1vAYtTXGMUHLR8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Jo6Li3HnRGrfXE6c8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/9iynRUuNzviMcyiL9

The first of each pair is the Raw file. The highlights are blown a little on the jpegs but not near as bad as the CR2s. What's interesting is, I took a photo of my neighbor's back yard today with a white playhouse and purposely over exposed a bit and saw the opposite this time with the RAW files showing more detail in the highlights.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Peter — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 06:18:10 GMT

Don't use Google Photo because Google Photo destroys the CR2 files.

See details here how it destroyed the raw files for another user https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/EOS-R6-Mark-II-Noisy-Lack-of-Sharpness-help-not-ISO-related/m-p/544602/highlight/true#M132129

Use Google Drive (don't forget to rightt click and share if you use Google Drive), WeTansfer or Dropbox.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:51:54 GMT

They actually came from my Google Drive and I copied and pasted the links. Guess I better check out drop box and see what that's all about.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:13:00 GMT

Let's see if this works - [removed link for safety]

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Stephen — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:25:13 GMT

You should be able to upload directly now.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:43:53 GMT

Can I just share the link for each photo from drop box? If I choose upload, it wants to upload to my Google Drive.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Stephen — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:01:39 GMT

You should be able to drag and drop your raw file into the box below

OR
tap the camera icon and make sure the red upload button is active instead of URL & drag & drop the files onto the canvas:

BUT YES, you can share a Dropbox link.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:15:32 GMT

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/070rwlv45czcht77m2gii/_MG_5432.CR2?rlkey=y4jflnp61dy0oa10q34qb75cf&st=oq41mbvh&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/35abiqy0dd35ym06ooyl7/_MG_5432.JPG?rlkey=8w07b23k1iejtqum06xo6hhwp&st=y9ikhiue&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fsi5156l2fu0twirphqjw/_MG_5438.CR2?rlkey=v363dx33ncy9soevb7t972c17&st=9tqqi9ej&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/056h3o23bv9fgeh0y5vsm/_MG_5438.JPG?rlkey=u37801kzxa5ybzpehk7245h0a&st=eizgl1ec&dl=0

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:51:08 GMT

Those options from your screen shots don't show up for me and every time I post links, they disappear after a couple minutes so I'm just going to give up. As long as I continue shooting in both RAW and jpeg I'll still have the 2 options to go with. Thanks anyway.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Stephen — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:26:23 GMT

Sorry, the spam filter rejected the links. I released them. 😊

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:32:54 GMT

So that's what happened. Thank you. I was confused. I see my links from my attempt last night showed up now too.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

johnrmoyer — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 15:15:46 GMT

When I open _MG_5432.CR2 in Canon DPP software, I notice it was shot with picture style "Neutral" and white balance auto and that the highlights on the neck of the bird are clipped.

Changing picture style to "Standard" and white balance to "Daylight" I get

If it were my photo, I would change input white point in DPP from:

to:

And then the dynamic range is increased slightly and nothing is clipped.

Other software might choose dynamic range differently, but DPP does it much like the camera does it if the picture style is "Standard" in the camera. I would suggest not using picture style "Neutral" in the camera if one wants to use the out of camera JPG file instead of the CR2 file.

Other ways to deal with the clipped highlights while editing the CR2 file include

darkening the entire image
decreasing highlights
using curves to darken the highlights
increasing the dynamic range

I hope some of this helps.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

MNshutterbug — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 16:23:31 GMT

I'm not really that concerned re: the processing, especially with the highlight that far gone in the Raw files. There is nothing to recover there. I'm interested in why the jpegs retained more data than the Raw files but it doesn't happen every time. I went out and shot a couple ducks and a turtle this morning and the raw files looked much better in a few of the photos but in a couple of them, the jpegs looked better. I'll just learn to live with it. At least one of the files is typically looking good.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

johnrmoyer — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:24:19 GMT

@MNshutterbug wrote:

I'm not really that concerned re: the processing, especially with the highlight that far gone in the Raw files. There is nothing to recover there. I'm interested in why the jpegs retained more data than the Raw files but it doesn't happen every time. I went out and shot a couple ducks and a turtle this morning and the raw files looked much better in a few of the photos but in a couple of them, the jpegs looked better. I'll just learn to live with it. At least one of the files is typically looking good.

The JPG file did not retain more data. There is much more data in the raw file, but software decides which data to discard when creating an image from the data. Use different software to view the raw file or tell the software what you want. The picture style "Neutral" caused the contrast to be reduced. The software you were using to view the CR2 file did not reduce the contrast like in the out of camera JPG.

I suggest using picture style "Standard" or maybe "Landscape" and using exposure compensation to choose between highlights and shadows for auto exposure.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

Peter — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 07:25:27 GMT

@MNshutterbug wrote:

I'm not really that concerned re: the processing, especially with the highlight that far gone in the Raw files. There is nothing to recover there. I'm interested in why the jpegs retained more data than the Raw files but it doesn't happen every time. I went out and shot a couple ducks and a turtle this morning and the raw files looked much better in a few of the photos but in a couple of them, the jpegs looked better. I'll just learn to live with it. At least one of the files is typically looking good.

Reconstructed from non clipped highlightsRaw clipping

Something like this?

One clipped colour channel is often workable. Then you can reconstruct details from the other two colour channels. The problem is when all three are clipped, as you can see to the right, even if it still looks OK.

Your second raw file looks good. Only green channel and not much at all.

Re: EOS 7D RAW photos blown out but JPGs are OK

ebiggs1 — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:45:34 GMT

"Recently I've been shooting in RAW plus jpeg ... the RAW files all showed blown out areas... the jpegs showed detail in the highlights and shadows. ... This makes no sense to me."

It makes perfect sense to me. To answer your specific question, the only real thing that a raw file has to have is exposure and focus. That's all. A jpg is a processed version (by the camera with settings of your choice) of that raw file so it has the advantage of being processed by your camera. People get confused by that because in certain situations or conditions the jpg looks better.

The big difference here is who or what does the editing or processing. You or the camera. I didn't see it but did you mention what editor you use? You may need a few tips on how to use your software.

I haven't shot a single jpg for over 20 years they just are not necessary. I use Photoshop and Lightroom, BTW. The most current version of Adobe Raw is fantastic.

Re: RAW vs jpeg not making sense.

ebiggs1 — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:52:56 GMT

All the examples look like small jpg can you u/l a full raw file.?