JPEG vs RAW (NEF)

[ericande]

I know that RAWs are higher quality then JPGs, but what exactly do you lose with a JPG? I mean, at a glance they appear identical. Are there certain types of details that JPGs are inferior at (skies, faces, gradients, etc)? I've been shooting in NEF+basic JPEG mode on my D50 anytime I'm planing on editing the photos but not sure if I need to.

Also, is there a website that describes in plain english what algorithms JPEGs use? I mean, how they actually compress the data?

Thanks...

 

[Big Mike]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

 

[Digital Matt]

what exactly do you lose with a JPG?

Most importantly, 4 bits of data, or 3840 levels of brightness. What does that equate to? Shadow and highlight detail that is otherwise lost in a compressed 8 bit jpg. You also lose the ability to accurately control white balance in post process.

You can find info on raw vs jpg all over the net. Here is a good reliable resource and a good technical explanation:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Check out the entire website if you can. It's full of great info.

 

[ANDS!]

RAW files allow for a greater level of post processing than JPEG's. RAW files altered retain their original "base" information, so that you can go in and edit them as much as you want and they will still retain their information to allow for further processing. The tradeoff is of course file size.

I personally cant tell the difference between a RAW and a JPEG (Fine) quality picture; I would say if youre not doing "professional" work, shooting in JPEG at the highest resolution and setting (I actually shoot at JPEG large res, basic quality) should suffice.

As for algorithims, you might be able to find that information on DPREVIEW.com - through a review of the camera they have. They sometimes have scientific info like that in the review.

 

[ericande]

good info.

so for JPEGs, a lot of the space savings is from the reduction in possibile brightness levels, then I'm guessing that higher compression saves more space by identifying patterns and recording that? Then you lose quality from the patterns that are "close enough" to be recorded as such?

 

[Alex_B]

I personally cant tell the difference between a RAW and a JPEG (Fine) quality picture; I would say if youre not doing "professional" work, shooting in JPEG at the highest resolution and setting (I actually shoot at JPEG large res, basic quality) should suffice.

in terms of resolution i agree that the jpeg compression does not really hurt. but in terms of everything colour and light related yo udo see a strong difference once you start postprocessing. Just try to brighten up the shadows of an image which were underexposed... in RAW you will still have smooth gradients, whereas in JPEG it easily gets mucked up with visible steps in brightness gradients. And this is not really for "professionals" only

 

[itoncool]

Great info guys... thanks for asking ericande
I have learning so much new information about RAW from here, before I only know I could have more option while doing RAW in photoshop...

I'm still new in digital, for personal reason I'd rather picked my analog camera than bought a DSLR
but, I couldn't resist D200, just have it few months ago when the price is already stable... so much to learn

 

[Garbz]

My little experience with my new camera and I already decided it's easier to just shoot jpeg providing the camera is setup properly. If I'm doing something important or I know I want to post process, or I can't get the exact exposure I need RAW provides you with some fantastic extra options to touch up a missexposed or otherwise camera miss-processed image.

 

[newrmdmike]

yes raw has tons of benifits, however . . . if you get to be really good is it worth the trouble? xsight.com.au he shoots .jpg. also, i've done both and the workflow with rax is SUCH A PAIN, and takes so much more processing power.

but then again, every little bit that makes you better we should be working for.

 

[Digital Matt]

if you get to be really good is it worth the trouble?

RAW is not just to correct mistakes. It gives you a higher dynamic range and lots more colors than jpg.

 

[Don Simon]

Hmm... maybe the RAW/Jpeg thing should be a sticky, seems to get asked almost daily.

FWIW I do notice the difference in dynamic range in Jpeg vs Raw and the ability to fine-tune white balance later is something I wouldn't want to give up.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

With RAW you gain detail (see above) but you loose a lot of space in memory. So what do YOU want?... Memory is very cheap these days, and once detail has been lost in compression it is irretrievable.. For granny on the beach JPEG is fine. Ifyou want to sell images RAW is best..

 

[Alex_B]

RAW is not just to correct mistakes. It gives you a higher dynamic range and lots more colors than jpg.

Right, but the dynamic range is exactly what you need when correcting images

for printing 8 bit is often enough, so sending a jpeg to the printer is fine most of the time.

(and I am not defending jpeg here, as I personally am shooting RAW only)

 

[ericande]

Well, I haven't shot too much since my original post but I now shoot mostly in NEF+basic JPEG. I don't sell photos, mostly just edit the ones out of a set I like to send to friends, post on the web or print. So I haven't noticed a difference in workflow... If I'm going to open in photoshop it's only one quick extra step.

 

[newrmdmike]

look, i understand that raw is technically better and gathers more information.

however, if your a one man show and its causing you extra time at the computer THEN is it worth it?

bambi cantrell shoots raw, jerry ghionis, jpg. JERRYS LOOK SO MUCH BETTER. and he's shooting with a lower res camera.


its a ton of extra space with raw, and while space may be cheap its still money, and with jpgs you invest a fifth as much as with raw.

i shoot both, but still say its easier to shoot jpg.

is it worth the time, if so then raw kills jpg. otherwise its just an extra step.