Can RAW-processing software be useful for JPEG images?
Asked 9/9/2015
5 views
2 answers
0
RAW converters are usually discussed in the context of editing RAW files. If I’m shooting or working with JPEGs instead, is there still any point in using software like LightZone, Darktable, RawTherapee, or Lightroom? Are there useful adjustments or workflow benefits, or is it mostly pointless compared with editing actual RAW files?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
8
Programs like LightZone, Darktable, or RawTherapee — or proprietary software like Adobe Lightroom — have RAW conversion as a centerpiece function, but they're more than that.
They're also (to greater or lesser degree depending on the program) photo library management tools, with functions for sorting, labeling, and publishing images. This aspect can generally work on JPEG files as well as RAW originals.
And, in addition to simply loading and converting RAW images, they all have editing functionality. These editing functions can usually also be used on JPEG files, with some limitations inherent to not starting with a much data as RAW provides. (See "the value of RAW" answer to Good examples of RAW's advantages over JPEG? for details on what exactly that means.)
There are two reasons you might do this:
First, these programs are focused on photography, while general-purpose image editors aren't.
For example, on Linux, Gimp is the premiere image manipulation program, and its feature development recently aims for graphic design and image creation as primary tasks. So, it's nice to use a tool which actually is centered around photographs. See What are the key photography-related features from Photoshop that are missing in GIMP? for some things Gimp doesn't do — many of these aren't missing from LightZone, Darktable, or RawTherapee.
Second, and in general rather than just on Linux, these tools have non-destructive editing as a fundamental design — the "edits" you make don't change the actual image file, but are recorded as a series of steps to apply. This can actually be particularly good for JPEG files, because if you (for example) spend some time doing photo touchup, save the image, and then later realize you also wanted to do some color correction, your normal choices are a) do the touchup over again or b) accept extra quality loss from recompressing the JPEG a third time. With a non-destructive editor, you simply add in the new adjustments and re-export. (Compressing a second time is inevitable, but two is better than three, and if you start from a very-high-quality JPEG, is usually a non-issue.)
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes. RAW converters are often full photo workflow and editing programs, not just tools for opening RAW files. Many can organize, label, sort, and publish JPEGs as well as RAW files.
They also usually provide useful adjustments for JPEGs, such as white balance, exposure, and other tonal edits. So using them on compressed images is not pointless.
The limitation is that JPEG has already been processed in-camera and contains less data than RAW. That means you generally have less latitude for heavy edits, and some corrections won’t hold up as well as they would with a RAW original.
So the short answer is: yes, these programs can still be beneficial for JPEGs, especially for workflow and moderate editing — just don’t expect the same flexibility you’d get from RAW files.
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can free RAW editors match my camera’s JPEG look by default?
How can I match a camera’s in-camera JPEG look from a RAW file?
Can RAW processing recreate the look of Fujifilm Velvia 50?
Is a touchscreen laptop worth it for photo editing?
Can corrupted Nikon NEF maker notes be repaired after accidentally copying JPEG EXIF into the RAW files?