RAW or JPEG

Bountyphotographer · March 16, 2012

I have always been shooting JPEG but everybody I know who shoot portrait SWEAR by shooting raw.
I have a old version of photoshop and LOVE picassa 3 saying that if I shoot raw what is the main difference than shooting jpeg?
I heard that its easier to alter the image?
Can someone show me a picture shot with jpeg and one with raw?

Thanks

Bounty

adbsgicom · March 16, 2012

JPEG compressed your image down to an 8-bit per channel image (compression is lossy).
RAW is the 12 to 14 bit sensor data, unprocessed.

So for portrait work, if you find that you have some highlights blown, you can recover (1-2 stops) and still have data there. In JPEG, that would have been clipped to 0xff (255) and there is not recovery since the data is now gone. Similarly some under-exposed space has a bit more data so you can get detail in the blacks that would have been clamped to 0x00. Your white point is also easier to manage in RAW (IMHO), not just because you have all the data, but because you are working in color temperature and not just +/- offset to what the JPEG image is starting out as.

The biggest plus on JPEG is size and speed of the writes to the card (and copy time to the computer). Also you don't have to process the JPEG image. If you shoot RAW you are dedicated to processing it via some tool. You can't just print/post a RAW file.

ziggy53 · March 16, 2012

adbsgicom wrote: »

... Your white point is also easier to manage in RAW (IMHO), not just because you have all the data, but because you are working in color temperature and not just +/- offset to what the JPEG image is starting out as.

...

Just a clarification.

RAW files have no white balance until the white balance is defined in the RAW processing software. Just as you can set your white balance in-camera for JPGs and TIFFs, so too you can set white balance (WB) "after-the-fact" for the RAW data.

This means that if you accidentally set the wrong WB in-camera, all of the JPGs will be incorrect, and some correctability will be lost. RAW files would still be OK because there is no intrinsic WB set for RAW files.

The difference in data contained by JPGs versus RAW files is:

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.

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)

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/

Bountyphotographer · March 16, 2012

Wow more than I wantd to know, but am now convinced to shoot raw.

Thank you

Bounty

aj986s · March 16, 2012

FWIW, although the latest PS products can be pricey (...you get what you pay for), Lightroom would still be a great pic management tool that could otherwise handle your RAW to JPG conversions. Lightroom (especially via Education discount) is very affordable, and very, very useful. In fairness, LR is what I'm familiar with, but other pic management software, is out there, too, like Aperature. I know that LR has the abilitity to directly interface with other pic editing software, like PS or Elements, when you want to do something that's not possible within LR.

Matthew Saville · March 16, 2012

Elapsed time between question and WAY too much nerd-talk, ...nine minutes!

Bounty, the bottom lline is that until you feel like you're really missing something, you should stick with what you've got. Or, if you're simply adventurous and are looking to explore something you haven't mastered yet, just get out there and start testing! We can post test shots and data charts all day long, but most of it is either going to be overwhelming or just not very useful.

RAW images will give you more image quality. It will allow you to save bright highlights, deep shadows, and of course your white balance. But honestly? If you shoot in conditions that aren't ridiculously contrasty, and you're good at exposure / white balance, shooting JPG can save you TONS of time and money. While most purist photographers will scoff at anyone who shoots JPG, and RAW is indeed a higher quality format. But never listen to anyone who tells you that JPG is completely in-capable or un-acceptable. It gets the job done very well if you know your camera, and it saves lots of time and money.

Here's a blog post I wrote about JPG's and what you can achieve "SOOC" http://matthewsaville.com/blog/2010/05/17/for-photographers-what-does-sooc-mean/

Good luck experimenting! If your computer can handle it, give RAW / Lightroom 4.0 a try. I honestly still do shoot JPG a LOT when I'm just goofing around with friends / family, even for misc. photo shoots where I'm just doing quickie stuff for models or MUA's. But yeah, when I go out to shoot a hardcore landscape or architecture, and I'm only going to be shooting 50-100 shots in a few hours, then I shoot RAW of course.

=Matt=

jhefti · March 16, 2012

In simple terms, RAW gives you more editorial flexibility. Like others said, there is simply more data to work with, and small errors on exposure can usually be saved. YMMV. For me, the biggest plus of shooting RAW is getting the colors right. When I first got my dSLR (and with my film days waaaay behind me) I shot a soccer game in JPEG with the WB set to landscape (i.e. pushing the greens and blues). Well, despite some nice timing in the shots, they looked terrible: blue casts everywhere and totally unsalvageable.

OTOH, if you are shooting in nice conditions and get everything close to correct, JPEGs are certainly less work. That said, it's no big deal to convert in Lightroom or even the editing software that usually comes with any camera that can shoot RAW.

Maybe just spend some time shooting in RAW and see how it goes. I switched to RAW almost right away, and found it to be much easier that some had said. I suppose if I shot sports tournaments where I took many thousands of shots per day and was trying to sell them on site, I might switch back to JPEG. Dunno...

I'd listen to Matt; he's a real pro who does beautiful work, but he is also very practical and has a knack for giving advice that is appropriate for the skill level and needs of the person asking.

NedZ · March 16, 2012

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

I have always been shooting JPEG but everybody I know who shoot portrait SWEAR by shooting raw.
I have a old version of photoshop and LOVE picassa 3 saying that if I shoot raw what is the main difference than shooting jpeg?
I heard that its easier to alter the image?
Can someone show me a picture shot with jpeg and one with raw?

Thanks

Bounty

I use RAW all the time but I have PS CS4, don't know about picassa

T. Bombadil · March 16, 2012

"Can someone show me a picture shot with jpeg and one with raw?"

Lot's of good info in this thread. I would just add that any images you are shown online are JPG by the time you see them. A raw file can not be posted online as an image - and you wouldn't want to see it anyway, since it isn't "done" yet. So keep that in mind if you look at examples - they can support what the poster wants to tell you, but what matters to you is how it fits your own shooting patterns.

When you shoot raw, you are delaying some decision making until you have the file on your computer. The processing that your camera would have done to create a JPG must still be done - but you will do it in Lightroom or some other tool, and you will thus have the opportunity to do it differently than the camera algorithms would have done (if you wish).

So it really comes down to whether you get better images (and/or like having a little less pressure to get things perfect at the time of capture) using that approach, and if the time to process the files is a reasonable cost for you. With a little experience, you can probably get the processing time down to next to nothing (by applying some adjustments in a batch mode).

I think most serious photographers owe it to themselves to use raw enough to understand when it is useful to them and when JPG can get them what they want more efficiently. Personally, I shoot >90% raw - but the mix will be different for everyone.

Stuart-M · March 16, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Elapsed time between question and WAY too much nerd-talk, ...nine minutes!

Bounty, the bottom lline is that until you feel like you're really missing something, you should stick with what you've got. Or, if you're simply adventurous and are looking to explore something you haven't mastered yet, just get out there and start testing! We can post test shots and data charts all day long, but most of it is either going to be overwhelming or just not very useful.

RAW images will give you more image quality. It will allow you to save bright highlights, deep shadows, and of course your white balance. But honestly? If you shoot in conditions that aren't ridiculously contrasty, and you're good at exposure / white balance, shooting JPG can save you TONS of time and money. While most purist photographers will scoff at anyone who shoots JPG, and RAW is indeed a higher quality format. But never listen to anyone who tells you that JPG is completely in-capable or un-acceptable. It gets the job done very well if you know your camera, and it saves lots of time and money.

Here's a blog post I wrote about JPG's and what you can achieve "SOOC" http://matthewsaville.com/blog/2010/05/17/for-photographers-what-does-sooc-mean/

Good luck experimenting! If your computer can handle it, give RAW / Lightroom 4.0 a try. I honestly still do shoot JPG a LOT when I'm just goofing around with friends / family, even for misc. photo shoots where I'm just doing quickie stuff for models or MUA's. But yeah, when I go out to shoot a hardcore landscape or architecture, and I'm only going to be shooting 50-100 shots in a few hours, then I shoot RAW of course.

=Matt=

Matt makes some really good points about getting it right in camera. But IMHO it is definitely worth trying out RAW in some software like Aperture or Lightroom (both have free trials IIRC). You will be amazed at what you can do to rectify problems either due to lighting conditions, or human errors (e.g. forgetting to set high speed sync resulting in over exposed images, total disaster in JPEG, but maybe fixable in RAW).

Also, both of these programs do a lot to make your workflow more efficient, and that can offset the extra editing time Matt mentioned.

Brett1000 · March 19, 2012

Stuart-M wrote: »

Matt makes some really good points about getting it right in camera. But IMHO it is definitely worth trying out RAW in some software like Aperture or Lightroom (both have free trials IIRC). You will be amazed at what you can do to rectify problems either due to lighting conditions, or human errors (e.g. forgetting to set high speed sync resulting in over exposed images, total disaster in JPEG, but maybe fixable in RAW).

Also, both of these programs do a lot to make your workflow more efficient, and that can offset the extra editing time Matt mentioned.

I would also say you should try shooting in RAW because it is easier for adjustments in WB, exposure, color, etc.

TonyCooper · March 19, 2012

For someone just dipping his toe into RAW, I'd suggest two things:

1. Purchase the current or next-to-last version of Adobe's Elements. RAW can be processed
in Elements, and the program is much less than Lightroom or the full Photoshop.
A copy of Elements 9.0 can be purchased for $60/$100. Elements does just about
everything the full version of Photoshop does. (I have both)

2. If you camera has the feature, shoot RAW + jpeg. You won't have files you are
uncomfortable in working with, and you'll have the RAW file to learn with.

aj986s · March 19, 2012

FWIW, the comparison I've always liked is that RAW is like the original film negative from an old-skool camera. The negative contains exactly what the camera saw, but in a medium that gives you some broad flexibility to work out a final printed product. JPG on the other hand is like a Polaroid picture, where what the camera saw is translated into a medium that's not quite as flexible for further processing.

Bountyphotographer · March 19, 2012

BTW I have an old version of photoshop, not sure wich one.
Can all photoshop view,edit and convert RAW file?
Once the pictures are edited do they have to be converted to JPEG in order to show them around and print them????

ziggy53 · March 19, 2012

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

BTW I have an old version of photoshop, not sure wich one.
Can all photoshop view,edit and convert RAW file?
Once the pictures are edited do they have to be converted to JPEG in order to show them around and print them????

If you have a version of Photoshop that supports Adobe DNG files, you should be able to use the latest Adobe DNG converter on most RAW files and then use your ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to open and process the DNG files. You will not have all of the benefits of the most recent ACR technology, so you might want to upgrade to a recent version of Photoshop just for the ACR improvements offered.

In particular, the recent versions of ACR have much better noise reduction, so any older camera will actually seem to have an improved as well.

Here is the link to the Adobe DNG converter:

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

Bountyphotographer · March 19, 2012

Thank let me see after work if I can actually open any RAW file with my old photoshop.

divamum · March 19, 2012

Why I love raw: I can manipulate the files a great deal more, even fixing exposure/colour balance errors. Most importantly, LR's noise reduction and sharpening tools used on raw files are way, way, WAY better than the camera's jpg versions. WAY better.

Why I hate raw: the files are huge, slow to upload, load into software and save, take up obscene amounts of hard-drive space (I shoot a 7d), and windows file manager can't display them as images (only generic tiles, which is a nuissance when it comes to deleting them since I have to view them iin another program).

MarkR · March 19, 2012

Some interesting reading: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/06/jpegseriously.html

and a (non) rebuttal: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/03/jpegophobia.html

I had a lot typed up that I lost re: Jay Maisel and getting it right in camera. But the bottom line is that I'm a raw-only shooter. But I'm really trying to get it right in camera, rather than trying to "fix" things in PP

Matthew Saville · March 19, 2012

MarkR wrote: »

Some interesting reading: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/06/jpegseriously.html

and a (non) rebuttal: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/03/jpegophobia.html

I had a lot typed up that I lost re: Jay Maisel and getting it right in camera. But the bottom line is that I'm a raw-only shooter. But I'm really trying to get it right in camera, rather than trying to "fix" things in PP

Exactly. Never listen to anyone who argues that RAW is only for those who make mistakes or shoot sloppy, and likewise, never listen to anyone who argues that JPG is useless and a waste of your high-end DSLR... Both points of view are WAY too extreme for you to gain any worthwhile insight from; The bottom line is that any responsible photographer should be quite adept at shooting both formats, and know which one is right for THEM.

:-)

=Matt=

jmphotocraft · March 20, 2012

RAW = negatives.
JPG = slides.

Pupator · March 20, 2012

divamum wrote: »

Why I hate raw: ... and windows file manager can't display them as images (only generic tiles, which is a nuisance when it comes to deleting them since I have to view them in another program).

Diva - There are several plug-ins or programs you can quickly install that make the thumbnails viewable in Windows Explorer. Give it a google!

Bountyphotographer · March 20, 2012

OK, I have an old photoshop 7
I shot raw+ L and superexposed in purpose to see the real difference.
The following happen
I opened them up with picassa 3 and to my surprise the raw file looked almost decent while the jpeg was totally OVEREXPOSED
Then I opened my photoshop 7 and used the open button but could ONLY see the jpeg which I open.
Then I used the open as and could see both raw and jpeg but couldnt open any of them because of the following display " its not a valid photoshop document"???????
Does it mean that I can t open a raw file or just that I don t know what I m doing?

Thanks for any help

Bounty

divamum · March 20, 2012

No, you just need to convert the raw file to a tif or dng, as outlined earlier by Ziggy and others. It will work just fine once you've changed the format to something the older program can read (I do it all the time with my 7d and s95 files since I use Photoshop CS3 which doesn't support either of those cameras).

Bountyphotographer · March 20, 2012

Im soooooooooooo ashamed to ask yet I m asking how do I convert it to tif or dng, I know I know I lived under a rock for so many years

divamum · March 20, 2012

Post #15 upthread

Bountyphotographer · March 20, 2012

Of course thank you .
Its quit an adventure to do raw between the time that you take the raw picture, convert it to another file in order to actually being able to see it in photoshop, then you have to edit it and eventually reconvert it back to jpeg. Wow!!!!
No wonder I didnt do that earlier.

Last question , if you can bare one more.
What is the oldest photoshop.....other software allowing me to see the raw file without converting them first?

MarkR · March 20, 2012

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

Of course thank you .
Its quit an adventure to do raw between the time that you take the raw picture, convert it to another file in order to actually being able to see it in photoshop, then you have to edit it and eventually reconvert it back to jpeg. Wow!!!!
No wonder I didnt do that earlier.

Last question , if you can bare one more.
What is the oldest photoshop.....other software allowing me to see the raw file without converting them first?

Photoshop CS or CS2 had the first bundled ACR ... but it wasn't nearly as good as it has become. (Anyone else remember orange stop signs?

)

OTOH, there are a number of cheap or free converters that are pretty decent, including Raw Therapee and, apparently, Picasa.

Bountyphotographer · March 20, 2012

I hear you.
Ziggy mentionned this one http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

I LOVE picassa which is great if your pictures are good otherwise it cant compare to photoshop or other software.
THANK YOU ALL I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS

Bounty

jmphotocraft · March 20, 2012

Here is my take on it:

http://www.jmphotocraft.com/raw_v_jpg/

raw, jpg:

read the article for the details!

Sam · March 20, 2012

Bounty,

Do yourself a favor and buy Lightroom 4. (assuming you can do this and not miss any meals) The process of viewing, editing and exporting the images for digital or print use is seamless.

Yes there will a learning curve, but what a wonderful trip!

For me to process a RAW file with light room is almost as fast as processing a jpg, but while I can get acceptable results with an out of camera jpg I always get better results processing a raw image.

Sam

ziggy53 · March 20, 2012

MarkR wrote: »

Photoshop CS or CS2 had the first bundled ACR ... but it wasn't nearly as good as it has become. (Anyone else remember orange stop signs? )

OTOH, there are a number of cheap or free converters that are pretty decent, including Raw Therapee and, apparently, Picasa.

Bountyphotographer wrote: »

I hear you.
Ziggy mentionned this one http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw6-7.html

I LOVE picassa which is great if your pictures are good otherwise it cant compare to photoshop or other software.
THANK YOU ALL I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS

Bounty

As Mark mentions, your version of Photoshop does not have ACR, so RAW files and DNG files are not understood (except and unless you happen to have the rather ancient RAW plugin, which still would not help with DNG and would only help with a few old camera's RAW files).

Picasa does convert many RAW files, but I believe that it converts immediately to 8 bit sRGB internal processing, so a lot of the RAW advantage is lost.

The latest Raw Therapee does indeed have a very competent RAW converter, and it stays in 16 bit mode for internal processing, so it retains much of the massive data of the original RAW data. The latest beta also contains an amazing noise reduction section, which is very close to the latest ACR in capability, but complicated and slow by comparison.

Still, Raw Therapee may be the best bet for open-source/freeware and quality output. It does take a rather strong, powerful and modern computer in order to be productive.

http://rawtherapee.com/

Canon cameras do come with a very high quality RAW image processor software. It's not designed for large volumes of images, but the results can be pretty high quality. It's worth taking a look.

RAW or JPEG

Comments