JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[Heather Koch]

Found this article and for me I always thought RAW was best...

Thoughts?


JPEG vs. RAW

 

[astroNikon]

It did say that too
Even the article stated
"Don’t let anyone tell you that JPEGs are just as good as RAWs because the bottom line is that they are not."

But there are instances where jpegs are handy

 

[Josh66]

He assumes that pictures will not be edited, in which case JPG wins.

 

[Ysarex]

Thoughts about what? The article? Full of false assumptions and faulty thinking. The author knows enough to think he/she can write and internet article and not enough to have skipped having the article edited by someone who understands the topic. More misleading internet drivel.

Raw vs JPEG? I like raw.

Joe

 

[Rick50]

If you do an on line search of "JPEG vs RAW" an array of interesting articles will pop up. In simplicity a RAW file is not really
an image and requires processing on your computer and the advantage is you get all the information from the Camera sensor. A JPEG
file is an image and has been processed by your camera and it has thrown away plenty of information in the process of creating the image
before giving it to you.
If at all possible it is best to shoot RAW and process later. As you learn you can always go back and re-process yourself as you don't lose
the original info.

 

[Overread]

Generally there is no best - there are variables that are more viable for some situations over others.

JPEG offers:
1) Smaller file size - this means more shots on the card; less storage space needed for shots on the computer; larger burst of shots on the DSLR before the buffer is full; easier/quicker to transfer online.

2) Print/display ready - no editing, no corrections. You can take the JPEG and make full use of it right from the get go.

3) Lossy file format - not really an offering as such, but this file format will degrade the more times you save the JPEG. Chances are you won't see any degradation for the first few saves; so you can edit and save a good couple of times before you'd see any potential loss of quality.

RAW offers:
1) No fixed white balance - you can adjust it easily with the sliders, more so than with JPEG (apparent in more tricky situations).

2) As full a picture of data from the sensor as possible. This means that you've more information, more data to work with in the shot. This is most evident when you edit more heavily - or when the dynamic range was greater (sometimes you can process twice and get one for the darks and one for the whites and then blend them - where-as on a single JPEG it wouldn't be possible).

3) Loss-less save format - this means that you can save as many times as you want and no data is lost between saves (technically you never edit a RAW file, RAW processing software makes a file up which details the changes you set with that software and applies them to the original RAW each time - you then save that out-put in a format of your choosing so the RAW itself is never altered)



JPEGs are often used in situations where you want shots fast from the camera. Often journalists and sports photographers will use them since they can quickly get print-ready files to be sent to the printers with the least amount of lag-time. Plus the nature of journalism means that editing is restricted so there is less need for the benefits of RAW.

JPEG are also great when you just want print-ready shots right from the camera. No editing - no fussing - no fiddling - just print/display ready.

 

[jake337]

I like raw+jpeg. I really don't have the urge to edit every single family snapshot anymore but when they're is one I really like I have the RAW file to work with. Also If I want to adjust wb, exposure, DL lighting, vignetting, etc I can do that, in-camera, with the raw file as well.

 

[KmH]

With Raw ". . . you get all the information from the Camera sensor. . . " is not really accurate.

Information is lost at the A/D converter where the analog voltage a pixel develops is converted into a digital number before those numbers are written to the memory card. The A/D converter in entry-level cameras can usually output 12-bit numbers, and higher tier digital cameras can output 12 or 14-bit numbers.

12-bits can represent 4096 (212) values. 16-bits can represent 16,384 (214) values.

The JPEG file type is limited to an 8-bit color depth or 256 (28) values per each of the 3 color channels or RGB.
So JPEG is often called a 24 bit file type (8 bits x 3 color channels = 24 bits)
Note: The pixels on the image sensor in a digital camera cannot see or record color. Color has to be interpolated (Demosaicing) by a software Raw converter.
Cameras that can produce JPEG image files have an on-board Raw Converter software application in their Image Processor chip.

 

[JustJazzie]

I didn't read the article, but I've always thought of it like this. (I'm sure it was someone else's wisdom, but I'm not sure who told me)

In the film days you either
a)shot film and brought it to a store for printing. In this case you were entrusting someone else to finish your artistic vision.
Or
B) shot a roll of film and you invested in your own darkroom setup and devoloped the final image yourself. Being in control of the process from start to finish ensured the photo turned out exactly how you wanted it.

Same with jpeg and raw. Jpg is choosing the editing on your final photo based on an "arbitrary" algorithm.
Raw is taking your own digital negative and manipulating it to your intended artistic vision.

 

[Overread]

Jazzi that is a good way of putting it. The difference though is that the different types also affect how you shoot sometimes. RAW files are bigger so the camera will fill its buffer quick, if you really need a longer burst of shots then JPEG is the way to go.

It also affects storage space which can be important. I know people who go on holiday or who end up running out of space will shift to JPEG mode (you can't always just buy more cards or afford more cards).

 

[bribrius]

I didn't read the article, but I've always thought of it like this. (I'm sure it was someone else's wisdom, but I'm not sure who told me)

In the film days you either
a)shot film and brought it to a store for printing. In this case you were entrusting someone else to finish your artistic vision.
Or
B) shot a roll of film and you invested in your own darkroom setup and devoloped the final image yourself. Being in control of the process from start to finish ensured the photo turned out exactly how you wanted it.

Same with jpeg and raw. Jpg is choosing the editing on your final photo based on an "arbitrary" algorithm.
Raw is taking your own digital negative and manipulating it to your intended artistic vision.

could be. I never had my own dark room when I shot film I sent it out.

 

[photoguy99]

JPEG is processed by camera algorithms which may do a better job at certain things than you can. RAW+JPEG is a good choice when you'd like to use the camera algorithms for this or that.

 

[bribrius]

when I shoot jpeg + raw it is because I am relying on the jpeg first and the raw if that ends up screwed. Also with jpeg I know how to revert back to the original with a click if I don't like something I did. With the raw I don't know how to revert back that easily so end up playing with the sliders until it looks like it might have originally. seems soon as I save the raw the original is gone. People say it isn't but I don't know how to get it back? I don't know how to get around that. jpeg, right click revert original and seems quicker, also quicker on transfer if I am not tweaking it much. But I can load up just jpegs look through, if there is something I know I need the raw for then I go pull the raw for that one.
if I look at the jpeg and it looks about where I want it I can ignore the raws. If I screw up the jpeg either in camera or in post I have that option of reverting back to the original or just pulling the raw. if any of that makes sense.. Just because you shoot raw +jpeg you don't have to pull the raw file. And if you are transferring for some reason you can keep the raws but only transfer all the jpegs without having to convert them.

 

[KmH]

No caps and no paragraphs is harder to read than using the appropriate caps and some white space between paragraphs.

JPEG is processed according to algorithms a group of camera software engineers decided was the middle of the road for photo finishing.

To make a JPEG file the camera software has to first convert the Raw file. So DSLR cameras have an on-board Raw converter in the image processor chip.
Since the image sensor cannot 'see' or record colors and doesn't work like human eyes the Raw converter, at a minimum, has to - interpolate the colors in the scene photographed (demosaicing), and apply a gamma curve. Tone mapping, sharpening, and noise reduction may also be done.

With menu options a DSLR has, the photographer can make some crude, limited adjustments to the JPEG algorithms making the road wider and the JPEG editing to one side or the other of the road..
The photographer has no direct access to the on-board Raw converter.

 

[bribrius]

No caps and no paragraphs is harder to read than using the appropriate caps and some white space between paragraphs.

JPEG is processed according to algorithms a group of camera software engineers decided was the middle of the road for photo finishing.

To make a JPEG file the camera software has to first convert the Raw file. So DSLR cameras have an on-board Raw converter in the image processor chip.
Since the image sensor cannot 'see' or record colors and doesn't work like human eyes the Raw converter, at a minimum, has to - interpolate the colors in the scene photographed (demosaicing), and apply a gamma curve. Tone mapping, sharpening, and noise reduction may also be done.

With menu options a DSLR has, the photographer can make some crude, limited adjustments to the JPEG algorithms making the road wider and the JPEG editing to one side or the other of the road..
The photographer has no direct access to the on-board Raw converter.

you can make some pretty extreme in camera adjustments. And one of my cameras only shoots jpeg raw isn't even a option. And they are quick. I wont pretend I know all involved in the in camera processing of a jpeg. But I know it is quick you make it seem like a drawn out process. it would almost seem like the natural development of the camera is to process in camera and shoot jpeg, and shooting raw is the extra component. why else would cameras come with shooting jpeg only and be able to hammer down on continuous high with jpegs? I understand what you are saying, but it seems the cameras are developed to shoot jpeg first and process that way, and the shooting raw is a secondary component available on some.