RAW vs. JPEG

IronDogPhoto

Would someone tell me the benifits of shooting in RAW vs. JPEG?

I shoot a 40D and have the Canon software that came with the camera. I also use Paint Shop Pro X2.

I shot some images over the weekend (with flash - 5.6 @ 1/100) in both RAW and JPEG. The resulting images looked quite similar and when I batch processed both sets (in PSP X2) for density, color, and contrast I couldn't tell much difference.

There wasn't a noise issue to deal with, so I didn't have to process for noise, although when I shoot action in low light (like when I shoot indoor dog agility in poorly lit venues - F2.8 @ 1/400 or 1/500) I always have lots of noise to deal with.

I'm just trying to decide which format is best for me and why.

Thanks.

- Gary

Candid Arts

Raw files on the 40D run on an average about 9-12MB, where as a JPEG file is gonna be in the 3-6MB range. That means about 200-300% more information to work with when editing. A JPEG file adds different things to the photo (well the camera does when you shoot it), sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc... A RAW file is just that...RAW. No processing done to it, just a RAW file. In post processing, when adding or taking away different things (exposure, contrast, fill light, recover, saturation, hue, clarity, etc...) you'll get less artifacts from editing with a RAW file.

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time...always.

JustPlainMe

I am a brand-new newbie, only been shooting RAW for about two months (since I've had my dSLR), and I tell you, I shoot in RAW + JPEG only so I can preview my pictures quickly and immediately delete the ones I don't want. When I decide what to keep, I delete all the JPEGs and start processing the RAW files that I want to save.

I was ambivalent about RAW until I did a series of shots for a friend about a month ago that looked "great" on the JPEGs. I thought I had the lighting and everything figured out, but I didn't, and their beautiful, rich, red/orange cabinets came out looking gray in the JPEGs. When I opened the RAW files and adjusted the curves and did some minor tweaking, they looked wonderful. I could not have fixed the series without the RAW capabilities.

I strongly recommend shooting in RAW. Storage is so cheap; 1 TB EHD for $120, space is no longer an issue.

Just my 2 cents!

Sarah

Ric Grupe

Think of your camera as a "raw file converter".

Many like the ability to convert as they see fit...thus raw.

Once your camera does the conversion...that's it.

The only reason I can see to not shoot raw is...if you are shooting at a continuous high frame rate. (full buffer...have to wait)

arodney

Long but worth the read, after which you'll be hard pressed to shoot JPEG and not Raw:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

IronDogPhoto

So if I am reading you correctly, when I run my files through noise reduction, the occassional "artifacts" that I see sprinkled in various areas of the image won't be there if I start with a RAW image?

I have been running two batch processes in Post Production with my JPEGs in Paint Shop Pro X2. #1 is One Step Photo Fix which takes care of exposure by correcting brightness, saturation, color balance, etc. #2 is One Step Noise Reduction. After applying the noise reduction step, I notice two things. First the image appears to be softer. Second is the appearance of "artifacts", which look like a tiny bit of the noise was left behind in several places on the image.

If processing from the RAW file will take care of these two issues and leave me with a properly balanced image, I'll be a happy camper.

Thoughts?

Candid Arts wrote:

Raw files on the 40D run on an average about 9-12MB, where as a JPEG file is gonna be in the 3-6MB range. That means about 200-300% more information to work with when editing. A JPEG file adds different things to the photo (well the camera does when you shoot it), sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc... A RAW file is just that...RAW. No processing done to it, just a RAW file. In post processing, when adding or taking away different things (exposure, contrast, fill light, recover, saturation, hue, clarity, etc...) you'll get less artifacts from editing with a RAW file.

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time...always.

Candid Arts

Not 100%, but yes, it will be A LOT better.

IronDogPhoto

Am I correct in my thinking that it's the noise reduction step that is softening the images, or is it just my imagination?

Candid Arts wrote:

Not 100%, but yes, it will be A LOT better.

Candid Arts

IronDogPhoto wrote:

Am I correct in my thinking that it's the noise reduction step that is softening the images, or is it just my imagination?

Havn't done NR software, so couldn't tell ya. But possibly. It's trying to blur the edges of the pixels together to an average to try and get rid of the noise. So maybe.

Anthony

Raw & Jpeg - a personal point of view

IronDogPhoto wrote:

[..]


Thoughts?

First I declare an interest; I only shoot raw (I don't do any high speed frame rate stuff). Secondly, my time spent in film photography (and darkroom processes) is much longer than my time spent in digitial. Would not go back mind you, I really enjoy digital.

Whilst the saying "...raw is your digital negative" can be overworked, it does represent a fair analogy of how a raw image might be perceived in processing terms. The same picture-taking criteria still applies in terms of obtaining the raw/negative; get it the best you can in the camera. And in terms of the print/web picture/whatever, produce the best image you can which shows your vision of what you wanted to express when the picture was in the viewfinder.

Bearing in mind all the above, it makes logical sense to have the maximum flexibility with the maximum amount of information in your hands at all stages of the process. Jpegs are dead easy to produce from raw and you already know from the information you have given in your posts how to do some 'quick-and-dirty' adjustments to give you acceptable pictures for you run-of-the-mill requirements. What you will enjoy is taking those better-than-average shots to an entirely new level as you come to really exploit the potential available in the image editing software and your raw images.

My intention is to offer a view to supplement the excellent technical advice given our colleagues in this thread. Oh, and do read the document recommended by Andrew; it's a very comprehensive exposition of the reasoning behind using raw over jpeg and I would have said required reading for serious photographers of all abilities.

Anthony.

aj986s

FWIW, Consider Lightroom (or other similar batch processing/management software) to review and edit your photos. Lightroom lets you view the Raw files just like any other, to speedily flag the rejects, etc. Avoids the hassle of working with 2 simulataneous versions of the pic. Even as a photo hack, I've accumulated nearly 50,000 pics since I started using digital in 1999. About 2 years ago I learned about Lightroom, and its been one of the best investments I ever made! GREATLY simplifies the management of my photo files.

catspaw

AND Lightroom has a full feature 30-day trial, so it's worth the try to see what sort of images you get and how much you can change them (try purposefully over or underexposing and see how much you can fix a JPG vs. RAW file).

Candid Arts

catspaw wrote:

AND Lightroom has a full feature 30-day trial, so it's worth the try to see what sort of images you get and how much you can change them (try purposefully over or underexposing and see how much you can fix a JPG vs. RAW file).

good idea. do this. also, note when doing this to zoom in to 100% on a edited RAW file AND a edited JPEG file. look at the difference. you'll only shoot RAW again.

zoomer

Noise reduction definitely will soften your images.
Invest in a camera that will let you shoot at iso 1600-3200 (d700,d3 or equivalent Canon) with little or no noise if possible then you will not need noise reduction.

I looked at your website. Shooting the highest quality jpeg will make your life simpler and give you all the quality you need.
The differences in RAW are very hard to see.

The main benefit of raw used to be that you can adjust your exposures.

With Lightroom that benefit is no long unique to raw because you can do the same thing with your jpegs.

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.
Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

zoomer

Of course having said that, shooting raw or jpegs and processing them in Lightroom is essentially the same process.
Then the benefit of shooting jpegs is processing speed and file size.
If I were you, shooting what you shoot I would shoot the highest quality jpegs you can and never look back.

T. Bombadil

zoomer wrote:

. . . The differences in RAW are very hard to see. . . .

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.
Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

two perfectly exposed images (one sent from the camera as a JPG, one RAW) will be identical. the advantage of RAW is that you have more latitude when you need to recover from less than ideal capture.

you can demonstrate the benefit of RAW to yourself. take some photos with the white balance deliberately set incorrectly (capturing JPG and RAW). the RAW file can be perfectly adjusted, the JPG might be unusable (if the white balance error is big enough).

the camera's white balance setting is of no consequence to the RAW file because the camera hasn't applied that processing. the camera's WB setting is applied to the JPG and can only be partially mitigated if wrong.

there _is_ a real cost to shooting RAW, but there is a real benefit. whether the benefit is worth the cost is a personal decision, but for my money RAW is well worthwhile.

most of what i shoot would be fine if i captured it as JPG, but (for me) it is worth the cost of RAW to ensure my occasional (OK, frequent) mistakes can be corrected after the capture. (hey, most of what i capture is out of focus and badly composed - but that is another thread).

Candid Arts

I'm gonna have to disagree with this:

zoomer wrote:

The differences in RAW are very hard to see.

The main benefit of raw used to be that you can adjust your exposures.

With Lightroom that benefit is no long unique to raw because you can do the same thing with your jpegs.

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.

As stated, WB is also a huge factor. In addition, if you need to adjust fill light, recovery, saturation, among many other adjustments, the artifacts that WILL be produced in a JPEG file, that won't attain the same results as RAW due to lack of editing options, will be way greater and noticeable vs a RAW file. Exposure is one large benefit of RAW, but one among MANY.

With JPEG's, your editing options are severly dropped, as well as the amount of information that you have to edit. Imagine this, a song ripped at 320 kbps versus one ripped at 25 kbps (HORRIBLE sound quality). For those few times when you shoot the photo perfect out of camera (everything is perfect, exposure, wb, saturation, blacks, contrast, etc...) then jpeg is fine, yes, but I wouldn't trust my camera to make the perfect shot 100% of the time.

zoomer wrote:

Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

This too I disagree with. It really depends on what you are doing to the photo. If you take the JPEG, put it in LR and bump contrast +1. Then at the same time put a RAW file in LR and bump contrast +1 and that's all you need to do, then yes, you can't tell the difference. But once you need to adjust exposure, blacks, contrast, fill light, highlights, shadows, saturation, camera profile, hues, luminence, white balance (and the list goes on) the JPEG file will become un useable where as the RAW file will look fantastic still after all your editing.

pathfinder

Read "Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS4" By Jeffe Schewe and Bruce Fraser before you decide.

While it is true that in camera jpgs can be very good when shot under ideal circumstances, in my world, I rarely get ideal circumstances, and RAW saves my bacon at very little cost, since I am going to run my files through LR either way.

arodney

T. Bombadil wrote:

two perfectly exposed images (one sent from the camera as a JPG, one RAW) will be identical.

Well the exposure for Raw will be "under exposed" to produce a proper JPEG!

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

Even taking proper exposure into account, the two would not be identical since the camera is processing the Raw to JPEG using proprietary methods and the Raw is processed in any number of ways depending on the Raw processor and how you've configured the defaults for rendering, then optional slider manipulation.

In the end, there's not much in similarity between a Raw and a JPEG:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

jfriend

arodney wrote:

Well the exposure for Raw will be "under exposed" to produce a proper JPEG!

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

Even taking proper exposure into account, the two would not be identical since the camera is processing the Raw to JPEG using proprietary methods and the Raw is processed in any number of ways depending on the Raw processor and how you've configured the defaults for rendering, then optional slider manipulation.

In the end, there's not much in similarity between a Raw and a JPEG:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.

Of course, it's the opposite situation (in camera settings were not ideal or the scene was very challenging to capture) where RAW provides it's biggest advantages.

T. Bombadil

jfriend wrote:

I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.

Of course, it's the opposite situation (in camera settings were not ideal or the scene was very challenging to capture) where RAW provides it's biggest advantages.

yes, thank you - that is what i was trying to say. you and others have done a better job expressing it than did i.

arodney

jfriend wrote:

I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.

There's no more dynamic range in the JPEG or the Raw at least in terms of the data provided, however, the in camera processor could clip data in producing the JPEG that's less then ideal. That's why we shoot Raw.

I agree that a JPEG can be lovely. It can also be not so lovely and you're stuck with it. Rendering is very subjective. You can let some auto algorithm do it in camera (and toss away a lot of bit depth and color gamut), or you can do this yourself.

T. Bombadil

arodney wrote:

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

your links are good reading, and show why i wish for cameras with greater bit-depth more than i dream of more pixels.

jfriend

arodney wrote:

There's no more dynamic range in the JPEG or the Raw at least in terms of the data provided, however, the in camera processor could clip data in producing the JPEG that's less then ideal. That's why we shoot Raw.

Uhhh. I think we agree that there are lots of good reason to shoot RAW, but I'm puzzled why you said there's no difference in the dynamic range captured in a JPEG vs. a 12 or 14-bit RAW?

arodney

jfriend wrote:

Uhhh. I think we agree that there are lots of good reason to shoot RAW, but I'm puzzled why you said there's no difference in the dynamic range captured in a JPEG vs. a 12 or 14-bit RAW?

Because there isn't. The native dynamic range of the camera is what it is. The Raw can reflect this (using proper exposure). To say Raw has more is not really correct. It has what it has, it has the potential to render a wider DR than a rendering in camera that is lower. But you could just as easily slam the tone range in a converter and get less DR than that in camera rendering. The good news is you have control over the DR with Raw, you don't with the JPEG.

With proper rendering, an in camera JPEG can has the same DR as a Raw you process. But it might not.

Oh, bit depth and dynamic range are totally separate spec's. You can have a wider DR in a lower bit depth capture or vise versa.

jfriend

arodney wrote:

Because there isn't. The native dynamic range of the camera is what it is. The Raw can reflect this (using proper exposure). To say Raw has more is not really correct. It has what it has, it has the potential to render a wider DR than a rendering in camera that is lower. But you could just as easily slam the tone range in a converter and get less DR than that in camera rendering. The good news is you have control over the DR with Raw, you don't with the JPEG.

With proper rendering, an in camera JPEG can has the same DR as a Raw you process. But it might not.

Oh, bit depth and dynamic range are totally separate spec's. You can have a wider DR in a lower bit depth capture or vise versa.

To capture detail in a specific dynamic range, you need a certain bit depth. The two are not independent. I'd like to see you capture detail in 8 stops of DR in a 4-bit image. It is not possible because the result would have such giant step functions in the tonal values that the image would be quite posterized and you would not have successfully captured 8 stops of detail. The two are clearly not independent.

The math tells us that to fully record what the sensor can capture, we need a bit of depth for each stop of DR the sensor can record in order to record the detail without throwing information away. If you have less than that, then you start losing detail somewhere, usually shadow detail. Now, how many stops of DR the sensor actually has depends upon many things, but is often largely gated by the noise floor since there's no point in adding additional bits of shadow detail if the extra bits are purely random noise.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the DR of the sensor can be compressed into an 8-bit JPEG without clipping if the camera settings are perfect. That might be true for some situations (and is not true for other situations), but that isn't the same as actually capturing the full DR of the sensor in a RAW file because you've irreversibly thrown away lots of tonal detail when it was compressed into the 8-bit JPEG. By my definition, you did not capture the full DR because you threw away some detail somewhere in the tonal spectrum in order to cram it into an 8-bit JPEG.

Anyway, the whole point here (which I actually think we agree on) is that a RAW captures the entire extent of what the sensor recorded so you, the photographer, can decide at a later date what the best way is to render that data for viewing, printing, sharing, etc...

Converting to a JPEG in camera makes a bunch of decisions at shoot-time that are irreversible. If the capture isn't too challenging and the camera settings are just right, the JPEG can come out pretty darn good. But, if the scene is very challenging or some of the camera settings are not just right, the RAW image will give you a much, much better chance of making a great image out of it.

arodney

jfriend wrote:

To capture detail in a specific dynamic range, you need a certain bit depth. The two are not independent. I'd like to see you capture detail in 8 stops of DR in a 4-bit image. It is not possible because the result would have such giant step functions in the tonal values that the image would be quite posterized and you would not have successfully captured 8 stops of detail. The two are clearly not independent.

Yes it would look real ugly but it would still represent the DR from end to end. There's no question we need a minimum bit depth (that being less than 8 but for the simplicity and speed of the math, 8-bit per color works out well). Still, no bearing on the actual dynamic range. One is an encoding specification, the other a range of tones.

The math tells us that to fully record what the sensor can capture, we need a bit of depth for each stop of DR the sensor can record in order to record the detail without throwing information away.

Again, I agree that throwing away encoding data to the point the data doesn't appear contone is bad.

If you have less than that, they you start losing detail somewhere, usually shadow detail.

I don't see how if we're still talking dynamic range. The lowest value (zero) shouldn't change because we are encoding all the other values finer or less fine numerically.

Now, how many stops of DR the sensor actually has depends upon many things, but is often largely gated by the noise floor since there's no point in adding additional bits of shadow detail if the extra bits are purely random noise.

I fully agree that the resulting DR values are vague because as you point out, we rarely know the level past a certain amount of noise, we say "start". But if we agree that is well defined, all things being equal, why should the bits defining the numbers from end to end affect the values end to end?

It sounds like what you are saying is that the DR of the sensor can be compressed into an 8-bit JPEG without clipping if the camera settings are perfect.

I'm saying short of a properly exposed (for Raw) scene referred capture, we can't even start to define the DR. I'm saying there's a fixed DR and that depending on what you (or the camera) does with the Raw, the DR might be significantly different from the scene referred data.

That might be true for some situations (and is not true for other situations), but that isn't the same as actually capturing the full DR of the sensor in a RAW file because you've irreversibly thrown away lots of tonal detail when it was compressed into the 8-bit JPEG.

Yes, the rendering could throw away tonal detail. That's got nothing to do with 8-bits. And then there's the data thrown away in making a JPEG but lets not go there. Its quite possible the camera could render the full DR in 8-bits and build a JPEG. But its more likely it will not and that toothpaste is out of the tube. At least with Raw, we've got, well Raw. Its like Tivo for your images....

By my definition, you did not capture the full DR because you threw away some detail somewhere in the tonal spectrum in order to cram it into an 8-bit JPEG.

There's rendering and encoding. You can render and throw away tonal data. The encoding happens next. If you can cram the tonal data in your Raw converter, you can end up with an 8-bit document with that DR.

Anyway, the whole point here (which I actually think we agree on) is that a RAW captures the entire extent of what the sensor recorded so you, the photographer, can decide at a later date what the best way is to render that data for viewing, printing, sharing, etc...

Yes.

Converting to a JPEG in camera makes a bunch of decisions at shoot-time that are irreversible. If the capture isn't too challenging and the camera settings are just right, the JPEG can come out pretty darn good. But, if the scene is very challenging or some of the camera settings are not just right, the RAW image will give you a much, much better chance of making a great image out of it.[/QUOTE]

jfriend

arodney wrote:

I fully agree that the resulting DR values are vague because as you point out, we rarely know the level past a certain amount of noise, we say "start". But if we agree that is well defined, all things being equal, why should the bits defining the numbers from end to end affect the values end to end?

I believe that the technical community has a different definition of what it means to capture a specific DR which is more than you are making it out to be. It doesn't just mean that you've got some bit in your image that loosely corresponds to something on the bright end of what the sensor captures and similarly on the dark end and then you've squeezed the hell of out the middle to make that work.

Instead, it means that you've actually captured the detail in the whole DR that the camera had to start with. To do that the math says that you need at least one bit per stop of original DR. An 8-bit container can only capture full detail in 8-stops of DR. Since the best dSLRs today have somewhere in the 9-11 stops of DR (depending upon who is measuring, what they're measuring and how they do it), that info won't fit in an 8-bit container without throwing significant data away.

If you want to capture lossy DR, you can squeeze the hell out of what the camera captured so it fill fit into any size container you want, but that isn't actually capturing that DR - it's throwing data away so that you can do fit into a container that is too small to hold all the information it contains.

arodney

Again, a simple question. If you've got a DR of X, what does the encoding of that data have to do with the DR? One stop of DR or 8 stops can be defined in 24 bit color using a zero to 255 set of values.

aim&shoot

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?

Thanks

Candid Arts

aim&shoot wrote:

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?

Thanks

Correct on both accounts.