Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Heather Koch, Nov 22, 2014.
Found this article and for me I always thought RAW was best...
JPEG vs. RAW
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
He assumes that pictures will not be edited, in which case JPG wins.
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.
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.
Generally there is no best - there are variables that are more viable for some situations over others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
could be. I never had my own dark room when I shot film I sent it out.
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.
Separate names with a comma.