# Digital Photo Professional



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

I’m use Canon’s, Digital Photo Professional (3.9.2), to edit RAW CR2 images and then use DPP to ‘Convert and Save’ as a Exif-JPEG, at full image (10) quality, 350 dpi and with the ICC profile embedded. I do not resize the image. 

Now here is my problem. I do not get anything close to the image quality with the JPEGS, as I do with the edited RAW images. I would say that the brightness, contrast, colour, and most surely, the sharpness of the image is really bad as a JPEG. But if I view the JPEG using DPP, it appears that it’s comparable to the RAW image in quality. 

Photos are from the Canon 50D with a 70-200, 2.8 lens. Photos are edited and viewed on a glossy screened 24 inch 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Mac, with 4 GB of RAM. 

I’ve tried other programs to view the JPEGS, and still no joy. Nothing compares to the edited RAW image when viewed with DPP. The JPEGS are so bad that I feel I’m wasting my time editing those RAW images to something akin to professional quality and then converting them to substandard JPEGS. 

As for why I’m shooting RAW. I take photos of my niece’s hockey games in arenas that resemble nightclubs when it comes to the lack of sufficient lighting and lighting that continually cycles, giving peculiar colour casts. 

So, am I beating a dead horse and I should simply except that I won’t be able to get JPEGS that are even close to the quality of those edited RAW images. Or, is there a problem somewhere?

I also want to stress that hopefully this will not become another flame war about the pros and cons of RAW and JPEG images. Also, I like the way DPP works and I want to stay with it.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Gene B said:


> I’m use Canon’s, Digital Photo Professional (3.9.2), to edit RAW CR2 images and then use DPP to ‘Convert and Save’ as a Exif-JPEG, at full image (10) quality, 350 dpi and with the ICC profile embedded. I do not resize the image.
> 
> Now here is my problem. I do not get anything close to the image quality with the JPEGS, as I do with the edited RAW images. I would say that the brightness, contrast, colour, and most surely, the sharpness of the image is really bad as a JPEG. But if I view the JPEG using DPP, it appears that it’s comparable to the RAW image in quality.
> 
> ...


Hi

You have to accept it but maybe changing the dpi will help? It should

I'm not flaming jpeg bc I use it at ties but raw is like that big juicy triple decker club sandwich. You squish it with your hand and then you get your jpeg. It's the same sandwich and it may taste the same but it won't ever resemble the same. 

But I think alot of ppl shoot raw then edit into higher quality jpegs

Hope that helps


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2010)

I would avoid embedding the ICC profile in the images. It's very likely that the exported JPG might also be trying to stay in Adobe RGB colourspace because of this (if this is what you set the 50D to shoot in, and if not you should  ). 

Many viewing applications and most web browsers don't display the full gamut of the Adobe RGB colourpsace and this is likely why they look so different -- because it's literally just ignoring a large part of the colour data. When outputting to JPG make sure that you have them output to standard RGB colourspace and then they should look much closer to the RAW files. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin is correct, check what ICC profile you're editing in and embedding.

My recommendation for all but custom lab prints is to convert to sRGB and work in that colour space. 

sRGB will is perfect for web, other applications and even printing in consumer labs (Blacks, Costco, Walmart, etc.) as most of their equipment is calibrated for that profile.


----------



## Frank Rizzo (Aug 17, 2007)

*300dpi TIFFs for printing 72dpi JPGs for screen viewing*

Your JPGs are compressed, therefore file info is gone forever (lossy). For printing save as Tiffs, which are not compressed (lossless). When I view a JPG and the RAW file it was created from, on a LCD monitor the two files are indistinguishable . Now if your talking printing the image, thats a different story. 
I output everything as high quality JPGs at 72dpi, for screen viewing only. Anything else is overkill. And if you ever plan to make a print of your photo(s), you just output a TIFF from your RAW image. Never work off your JPG afterwords. A TIFF can be opened and saved forever, and lose no information. TIFF files are much larger, so I output them only when needed.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Be sure whatever app you are viewing the images in is set to 25%, 50% or 100% of original size. Not all apps do a really good job of interpolating oddball sizing.


----------

