raw converted jpegs vs camera shot jpegs

[feathers]

PS: Oh, implicit in the foregoing is that the resulting in-camera jpegs may not be very good.
May, mind you, depending on the scene.

Question. I'm curious. If l were to take a perfect in camera jpeg shot, would you notice any difference if a raw shot was fired simultaneously?. As l would understand it you would now have to PS the raw image to bring it up to the jpeg standard, if that makes sense and please keep your answer simple, as l have the brain of a goldfish ><> ><>

[farmmax]

Question. I'm curious. If l were to take a perfect in camera jpeg shot, would you notice any difference if a raw shot was fired simultaneously?. As l would understand it you would now have to PS the raw image to bring it up to the jpeg standard, if that makes sense and please keep your answer simple, as l have the brain of a goldfish ><> ><>

If you do not have any in-camera 'picture styles' applied, (Canon, but called different names in other brands of camera), the jpg will come out looking very similar to the raw file. The Picture Style is where the camera applies sharpening, saturation, brightening, noise reduction etc. effects, to the raw file when producing a jpg for you. Most people seem to have some in camera effects turned on, so yes, then the jpg comes out of the camera with some processing done. Then, if you want your raw file to match the jpg the camera produces at the same time, I guess you would have some PP to do.

For years, I had no camera applied effects turned on, so my camera (50D) produced jpgs looking very similar to my raw files.

Many raw files already have a full size jpg embedded in them. I never figured out why anyone wanted to shoot raw + jpg, when it is extremely easy to extract the jpg already in the raw file. I just use IJFR (Instant JPG From Raw) if I need jpgs. IJFR puts an item in your Right Click Menu so you can click on a folder containing all your raw files and it extracts the jpgs to a folder very quickly. It can do 100's in a few minutes.

These days I do have Picture Styles turned on in my camera. I discovered the power of them for cutting PP time down. In canon you can create your own personal picture styles (probably in other cameras as well.) I made one which suited my processing needs. Now the jpgs in my raw files have my picture style applied to them, so if I were to extract the jpgs, they wouldn't look at all like my raw files, but come out partly processed for me.

I don't use jpgs normally, but have found a way to open my raw files in photoshop with my camera picture styles applied. Cuts down basic processing time dramatically.

Probably just confused you all the more

[feathers]

If you do not have any in-camera 'picture styles' applied, (Canon, but called different names in other brands of camera), the jpg will come out looking very similar to the raw file. The Picture Style is where the camera applies sharpening, saturation, brightening, noise reduction etc. effects, to the raw file when producing a jpg for you. Most people seem to have some in camera effects turned on, so yes, then the jpg comes out of the camera with some processing done. Then, if you want your raw file to match the jpg the camera produces at the same time, I guess you would have some PP to do.

For years, I had no camera applied effects turned on, so my camera (50D) produced jpgs looking very similar to my raw files.

Many raw files already have a full size jpg embedded in them. I never figured out why anyone wanted to shoot raw + jpg, when it is extremely easy to extract the jpg already in the raw file. I just use IJFR (Instant JPG From Raw) if I need jpgs. IJFR puts an item in your Right Click Menu so you can click on a folder containing all your raw files and it extracts the jpgs to a folder very quickly. It can do 100's in a few minutes.

These days I do have Picture Styles turned on in my camera. I discovered the power of them for cutting PP time down. In canon you can create your own personal picture styles (probably in other cameras as well.) I made one which suited my processing needs. Now the jpgs in my raw files have my picture style applied to them, so if I were to extract the jpgs, they wouldn't look at all like my raw files, but come out partly processed for me.

I don't use jpgs normally, but have found a way to open my raw files in photoshop with my camera picture styles applied. Cuts down basic processing time dramatically.

Probably just confused you all the more

What makes you say that(a good read) Thanks MM, Geoff, farmmax I just read some stuff on the net that gives jpeg a more positive representation
Tho the files are compressed and loose some information, it was shown side by side with a raw file, and you would be checking very carefully to tell the difference. It didn't knock raw files, but showed jpegs as another useful option. Processing, and file sizes has been my concern. Cheers.