JPEG vs RAW (NEF)

[Katier]

In simple terms JPG is a lossy compression algorythm. As such data get's lost ( even on fine ) when it's compressed. RAW is just that, RAW data hence the much bigger file size.

I believe png is lossless, as is TIFF.

 

[dEARlEADER]

In simple terms JPG is a lossy compression algorythm. As such data get's lost ( even on fine ) when it's compressed. RAW is just that, RAW data hence the much bigger file size.

I believe png is lossless, as is TIFF.

Good argument!

But... isn't the camera just throwing away the information that we can't see anyways?

 

[Katier]

Good argument!

But... isn't the camera just throwing away the information that we can't see anyways?

Nope, to an extent yes but it's narrowing your capability to adjust the picture and JPG's tend to look a bit noisier.

 

[dEARlEADER]

true...


they say you can't adjust white balance on a jpeg, but my picasa has a colour temperature slider?

whats the difference?


plus... my raw files always come out sooo bland.... like hardly any colour and really dull looking....

 

[Arch]

why is a thread thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?

 

[Katier]

why is a thread that thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?

Good question

 

[dEARlEADER]

oh sorry..

i had some questions so i did a search...

then I had some more questions...

 

[ANDS!]

why is a thread that thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?

Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones? "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.

 

[mrodgers]

Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones? "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.

The problem for me is, there is no question in the following post of which restarted the thread....

bump

 

[Captain IK]

The way I see it, all digital photos start off in RAW. That's the file the camera uses when you snap a picture. If you are shooting in jpeg then you are allowing the camera to decide which data is important and which is not. The camera makes that decision for you and discards the data it deems unnecessary.
When shooting in RAW, the camera saves ALL the data and lets you make the decision as to what should be kept and what should be discarded yourself.
If the end result is that both formats render the same photograph...then the camera was right in the first place. If however, the camera was wrong...RAW gives you the opportunity to make those adjustments yourself.
I shoot in RAW...because every now and then...I like to think I'm smarter than my camera
That's how I see it.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Captain, Interesting observation!

but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space

 

[dEARlEADER]

Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones? "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.

Hey Mister,

we are all trying to learn here

thank you

 

[Captain IK]

Captain, Interesting observation!

but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space

Thanks,

RAW does require a lot of real estate on a drive, but I guess that the price you pay!

 

[mrodgers]

Captain, Interesting observation!

but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space

Only if you keep the RAW files (which before people jump on this, I know you would want to keep original files.)

Upload 40 mb RAW to computer (general file size.)
Process RAW to finished JPEG.
Save finished 5 mb JPEG to your liking over camera presets.
Delete RAW file.

Takes the same space as shooting JPEG to begin with.

 

[ksmattfish]

Hard drives are about 30 cents a gb these days, and only getting cheaper. I can remember my Dad commenting on the PC I got in the early 90s "You'll never fill that 170mb hard drive in your lifetime!" Now I've got just over a terabyte stacked next to me.

All digital photos start out as raw data, and most end up as jpegs when they are finished image files. Setting the camera to jpeg or raw is just choosing the processing software. If the camera is set to jpeg the in-camera processing software is used. If the camera is set to raw I get to choose the processing software.

I find the in-camera options limited; there's a couple of slider bars for contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc... with a few positions each. I prefer the wider range of control choices and precision adjustment I get with Lightroom or Camera Raw. I also like processing on large, calibrated screens. Yes jpegs can be reprocessed, but it makes sense to me to try to just do it right the first time. For many situations it probably doesn't make much difference one way or the other, but every once in a while, particularly when I'm trying to pull detail out of the shadows, I'm really glad I'm working with a 16 bit psd created from all of the original data, and I have the option of setting the tone curve for the very first time. But not everybody wants or needs that, and plenty of pros and serious amateurs shoot only jpegs with no problems.

When I first started shooting digital I saw a difference in the noise and contrast between in-camera jpegs vs processing raw files myself, so I've always gone with raw. I admit I haven't done much practicing with jpegs, nor experienced what newer processing software allows for processing jpegs. When I started white balance alone was enough reason for me to shoot raw over jpeg.

Raw files often look drab when they pop up on screen processed with the default software parameters. You need to figure out your basic processing settings, and save them as the new default or a preset. I am not familiar with the Nikon software, but Canon DPP (the raw processing software that comes with the DSLRs) can be set to process raw files as if it were done in-camera. All the same picture modes can be chosen, etc... So it should be possible to create a jpeg identical to an in-camera jpeg. With other software it would just be a matter of some practice and testing to figure out settings that would give similar results to the in-camera processing.

The in-camera software is only going to get more and more sophisticated. Every DSLR I've bought has more and better options than the last. I don't think it's going to be long before we'll be able to install our own choice of in-camera processing software in our digital cameras (I've already hacked my digital compact with CHDK). Instead of jpeg or raw the cameras will create smart objects or something that offers both options and more from the same file. Raw vs jpg will be a thing of the past, although out-of-camera processing will probably continue to be popular. At least until our cameras can display large holograms in the air, or jack the images straight into our brains.