How to convert RAW files to JPEG?

[rkulkarni]

I have a bunch of raw files and I am not sure how to convert them to JPEG.  I sure would appreciate some help with this.  Thank you

[alxkohn]

50D,, had the SAME issue with my 60D

[ebiggs1]

"I have also used picasa,, think I'll try it again.  I just got annother canon (50D) and am trying to "stick to" raw format."

If your goal is to use on the web, RAW will not help.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I have also used picasa,, think I'll try it again.  I just got annother canon (50D) and am trying to "stick to" raw format."

If your goal is to use on the web, RAW will not help.

---

If you're good enough to shoot JPEGs with just the right exposure level, tone quality, and white balance every time, then I suppose you don't gain that much by using RAW. I'm not that good, and I'll bet there are many in this forum who aren't either. My experience, with the editors I've used, is that editing a JPEG is more difficult, and the result less satisfactory, than editing a RAW file. So even when I'm creating images for use on the Web, I find that RAW definitely does help.

[ebiggs1]

" I'm not that good, and I'll bet there are many in this forum who aren't either."

And neither is the internet.  That is the point.  Do you really think Fakebook benefits from RAW conversion?  

[TCampbell]

BTW --  Canon Digital Photo Professional (aka DPP) has a "batch" mode in which you can point it at a whole directory full of RAW images and let it churn.  I believe you get the choice of converting either to TIFF (larger, but non-lossy) or JPEG (for more compressed, but lossy).

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

BTW --  Canon Digital Photo Professional (aka DPP) has a "batch" mode in which you can point it at a whole directory full of RAW images and let it churn.  I believe you get the choice of converting either to TIFF (larger, but non-lossy) or JPEG (for more compressed, but lossy).

---

You can choose TIFF (huge) or any of ten quality levels of JPEG. What you can't do (but I wish you could) is tell the program how large a JPEG file you can tolerate, and/or the minimum number of pixels in either dimension, and have it determine the highest quality level that will work. I don't care how long it takes to do the calculation; it's bound to be faster than iterating like one has to do now.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

" I'm not that good, and I'll bet there are many in this forum who aren't either."

And neither is the internet.  That is the point.  Do you really think Fakebook benefits from RAW conversion?  

---

I guess that is what I'm saying. I'm not a great fan of mediocrity, as it happens. I can't remember when, if ever, I looked at a picture on Facebook. But in general, anyone who can't see the difference between correct and incorrect exposure and color values on the Web needs to find a good optometrist.

[alxkohn]

They are from my new canon 50D.  I am trying to STICK to RAW format,, I did take you advice and downloaded the picasa program.   IO have had THAT program before.  also ONE-Drive will also allow me to view the raw images,, but,, I just am not "warm and fuzzy" with having to use hotmail log-in to gain access to  one drive.

[ebiggs1]

"... correct and incorrect exposure and color values on the Web needs to find a good optometrist."

And if they can tell the diffrence between a jpg or RAW edit on Fakebook, they are truly gifted.

[Skirball]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... correct and incorrect exposure and color values on the Web needs to find a good optometrist."

And if they can tell the diffrence between a jpg or RAW edit on Fakebook, they are truly gifted.

---

You can only push/pull the shadows/highlights so much in a jpg.  A person's skill in PS will allow more manipulation without too much noise, but you can't manipulate data that are not there.  RAW files have access to data that aren't there in the JPG.  Cleaning up shadow noise is one thing, but blown highlights on a JPG are nothing more than white pixels;  with RAW there's often still data there. 

I also prefer to adjust my exposure, if needed, during RAW conversion because it's cleaner.  But I agree with your overall point - that you can 'bend' the exposure of a JPG in photoshop (a reasonable amount) without being noticeable in a web-sized picture.

I also find color manipulation, particularly skin tone for glamour/portrature, to be much easier and smoother in RAW.  But I do posses the ability in Photoshop to make similar changes.  Though if Facebook has taught me anything, it's that the majority of people out there do not possess this ability.