RAW vs JPEG
JSPhotography
Registered Users Posts: 552 Major grins
OK, so I catch the camera bug a few years ago and start shooting and reading a lot. Everybody says to shoot RAW so I shoot raw. I sing the same tunes about how much better it is to make adjustments, the camera is not changing my image, etc, etc, etc. 2 weeks ago I'm shooting an event and I realize I have screwed up and I am going to have a card/storage issue. I switch over to JPEG. Next day I'm dreading the processing becouse I have never learned how to process JPEG, (cuz I'm supposed to shoot RAW remember). Piece of cake, Maybe I can't move a slider to adjust exposure but I can lighten shadows and darken highlights. Now I can adjust individual colors that I couldn't before. WOW, the sharpening tool works a lot better too. This is a piece of cake and my pics look better out of the camera than my "processed" RAW images ever did and my processed JPEG images are so much better I'm embarresed. Maybe it would be prudent to tell people to shoot in RAW "IF" and that is a big IF they are very good at processing. I am really second guessing this whole RAW thing. For the last few weeks I have been shooting RAW and JPEG and comparing. Just thought I would throw out this contrary thought and see what others have to say.
0
Comments
thats exactly the reason why they build in that feature ; RAW + JPG
if the auto-image looks fine , no need to edit
[ although i prefer RAW ]
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
All image acquisition starts with what equates to RAW data from the sensor. All JPG does is use in-camera processing according to some rules set there by the manufacturer's camera engineers.
There is absolutely nothing that JPG files can do "better" than RAW files because they both have the same starting point.
Do persist in your knowledge of RAW capture and RAW image processing because it really will lead to more total control over your images. It need not be too time consuming either. I processed 1300 images recently, after an event, and it took about 2 weeks to get very nice looking JPGs from the RAWs in one of the worst shooting conditions I have ever encountered. I measured more than 5 stops difference between the several zones I had to work in and some of the images required some detail from both the dark shaded regions as well as bright, direct sunlight regions. (More than 12 stops of dynamic range in the scene. Most cameras capture around 6-8 stops in a JPG file. I was able to recover around 10.5 stops by shooting and processing RAW files, and then I used some additional techniques to synthesize just a little more DR to smooth transitions.)
There is absolutely, positively, no way that JPGs would have served in those conditions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Do this. Take a RAW plus JPG photo. Bring them both up and play with the RAW until it looks like your jpg. This will give you a good idea on the jpg in camera setting is doing.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Exactly. And you can easily download camera profiles for most popular makes and models to give you the same result as your in-camera jpg file. So you can take this difference away ...
Although ACR now lets you "adjust" jpg files, most of the corrections on a jpg file are not anywhere near as good as the same type of adjustment on a RAW file. In the jpg file, the cake is already baked, and you're trying to undo and re-bake some of the cake (which is a pretty impressive trick!). The problem is, if you save the file and come back to edit the image again, you are re-baking the re-baking. It just can't be as good
That being said, a jpg workflow can be faster for some photographers, due to their smaller size (faster buffering in camera, faster transfers to the computer). So, if speed is your concern, jpg could be the way to go.
But for me (and I would expect for the others posting here), the advantages of RAW far outweigh any perceived time differences in workflow. I can import many photos with minimal or no adjustments, as I have set my default RAW processing to my liking.
Not to say that RAW has no issues, the one obvious downside to RAW is the file size. But storage these days is pretty cheap!
In the end JSP, this is your personal choice, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents to say that the differences you are seeing in the end results are easy to eliminate ...
Regards,
www.digismile.ca
if your photo,s are correct , you dont need to edit them
in-camera processing works very well in modern camera's
if the result is satisfactorily to you , then why take the hard way
and , ahum ,,,, it does nothing
JPG is a file-type , just as NEF and CR2
the only difference is JPG is compressed , RAW's are not , and thats the only different
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Every time you just open and save a jpg it re-compresses the already compressed file...so you lose some more of it and you have no control over what is tossed out to the wind......
Your statement is absolutely untrue.
RAW files do not have an assigned white balance. They are, in essence, the RGB data readout from the imager. JPG files have been assigned white balance.
RAW files are "linear" data from the imager, before gamma curves are applied.
RAW files are typically 12 or 14 bits of data, compared to the 8 bits of data that JPGs contain.
RAW images will always have more dynamic range (DR) and more maleable tonality than JPGs. JPGs out of the camera have established white and dark points and may clip highlights and shadows (especially newer cameras which often use heavy noise reduction in the shadow regions of JPGs, effectively reducing the DR even a bit more.) Clipped highlights and squelched shadows are where information is truly lost forever. With RAW files the extended highlights and relatively open shadows mean greater opportunity for recovery if needed.
RAW files contain the most DR you can achieve with a given camera and a 14 bit RAW contains (potentially) 16,384 shades per color channel, for a total of 49,152 color shades per pixel for an RGB imager (after interpolation). Compare this to JPGs 256/768 shades and you start to see some of the potential that is available in the RAW image file data. Color combinations are even more telling with 8 bit systems able to represent a total of 16.7 million colors, while 14 bit systems can represent 68.7 billion colors.
While 8 bits/16.7 million colors is generally accepted to be the minimum needed to accurately represent a lifelike color spectrum for human vision, if you start with just that amount, normal processing will generally only reduce the available palette of colors. JPG compression only reduces the available palette even more.
According to Luminous Landscape, the first 5 zones in 12 bit versus 8 bit systems are as follows:
A 12 Bit raw File
An 8 bit JPG File
(Referenced from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml)
JPGs are also processed with a given white balance (WB), where RAW files may have a WB bit set, but WB is not assigned until after the RAW file is processed. Post processing WB, and even processing shadows and highlights with different color balance, is often reason alone for using RAW.
Can you capture and manipulate JPG images and create wonderful renditions of scenes? Of course you can, but a RAW file gives you more DR in the resulting file, more hues and shades per pixel, and the ability to set WB in post. Those are the indisputable facts.
If you need to process the image at all, a RAW file will always give greater flexibility and options, and very often a RAW file will allow better results.
Most modern dSLRs allow a greater continuous shot buffer depth and faster overall image cycling (especially including file write times) when using JPG. JPG files are also smaller and more JPG files fit a given storage card.
When I shot sports I used JPG files exclusively. I was happy to have the extra shooting throughput and effectively greater storage that JPG shooting allows.
When I shoot weddings and events and pretty much any paying gig I use RAW for the extra margin of safety in exposure, the extra dynamic range and the smoother gradations of color than JPG capture reliably allows.
By all means, try different methods and use what works. Ultimately it's whatever gives you the best results that will ultimately decide what's best for you as an individual.
Some links to explore:
http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
http://photodoto.com/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/
http://www.prophotoshow.net/blog/2010/04/30/jpeg-vs-raw-example-conclusion/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
but still my statement is true
guess this is one of my weird language issues
RAW and JPG they DO nothing at all
its the software that DOES create the compressed file , not the other way around
and what is compression
the software removes un-used bites from the original file [ RAW in this case ]
and create a new file with only the used bites [ JPG ]
thats why its difficult to edit JPG , the extra levels are gone
hope you understand my point
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
I think that I do now understand the point that you were trying to make.
JPG and RAW files are just containers for data. The distinction is that RAW files from the camera are much less processed than JPG files from the camera and RAW files contain the maximum amount of image data that the camera can save. (I think we agree on this point.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you are using PSE 9.0 for your images, then you are working with 8-bit editing. The only time the difference shows up in in the RAW converter. I found processing RAW files in PSE to be clumsy, time-consuming, and a storage hog since you are saving a new file when you convert to JPEG from RAW with your tweaks. I struggled with the quality of my RAW conversions as well. I know more now, and it may just have been lack of experience with the converter in PSE.
I decided to upgrade to LR at the end of last year, and now I find the RAW image process not as time consuming or clumsy. I like having several versions of the same image without having many file copies. I like the LR library better as well now that I have gotten used to the difference between the LR library and the PSE organizer (except it doesn't handle as many file types). I like the integration with SMUGMUG, facebook, picasa, etc. much better as well. I now use RAW 100% of the time, and I have my import presets set to my camera profile as my starting point.
I have started down that slippery slope, and every time I am asked to reduce the color depth to 8-bit when I want to use layers in PSE, I wonder if I should upgrade to the full PS 5.0. But thats a different post.
So I have been where you are, and I would stick with JPEGs until you are ready to go to LR.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
Post fixed.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
The key is the processing and getting comfortable with it. It takes practice but once you are familiar with it you can make your conversions look better than the in camera conversions. Promise.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact