cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EOS 7D RAW photos blown out but JPGs are OK

MNshutterbug
Enthusiast

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. 

25 REPLIES 25

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.

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

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

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.

johnrmoyer_0-1745247853798.png

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

johnrmoyer_1-1745247944368.png

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

johnrmoyer_2-1745248019556.png

 to:

johnrmoyer_3-1745248112083.png

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.

 

 

 

 

 

MNshutterbug
Enthusiast

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. 


@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.


@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 highlightsReconstructed from non clipped highlightsRaw clippingRaw clipping

Something like this?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.

Skärmbild från 2025-04-22 09-15-49.png

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

"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.

EB
EOS 1DX and many lenses.

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

EB
EOS 1DX and many lenses.
EOS R6 V RF20-50mm F4 L IS USM PZ Lens Kit
Announcements