JPEG vs RAW

[Lebogang Kgosana]

Hi, may someone please assist me here. what is the difference between JPEG and RAW?

 

[Ysarex]

Hi, may someone please assist me here. what is the difference between JPEG and RAW?

JPEG* is a processed RGB photo derived from the camera's raw data file. A raw file is the data created and saved by a camera at the point where the sensor signal has been digitized. Further processing is required to convert that raw data file into an RGB photo. The camera will do that additional processing but it is also possible to save the raw file so that the photographer can process it later by hand.

The raw data is all the data recorded by the camera. Any processed RGB image is a subset of that original raw data.

*JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) is a unique type of RGB image in that the data is compressed to reduce the file size. JPEG compression requires that JPEG files be limited to 8 bit and the compression is lossy as in data is altered to increase redundancy.

 

[Original katomi]

well said Ysarex
I would add that the OP look up the difference between in file formats and pay particular attention to lossless vs lossey formats. As OP was talking about jpg . Whilst I am normally adverse to links, this will explain
Image File Formats | ExposureGuide.com

 

[Soocom1]

Another way of saying this is generic vs. brand.

Being an overly simplistic answer let me expand.

JPEG as Ysarex stated is a file system that was designed to save on space on computers when memory was a premium back in the late 1980-1990s.
RAW is the full file produced by the camera as he stated.

The diff. between them is stark.

JPEG is a GENERIC image system, whereas RAW is proprietary (brand name) to the manufacturer.
RAW for Nikon is diff from that of Canon and are not interchangeable.

JPEG is used universally for all photos on almost all computer systems because of its simplicity.

 

[Original katomi]

JPEG suffers from what us old timers knew as xerox failure where as a copy is copied over and over the image degrades
In my limited knowledge
JPEG looks at an image and decides that that shade is very close to another and callers them the same to save file size
Do this over and over, and in time even half blind humans can see the loss in quility

 

[480sparky]

 

[SquarePeg]

Short cut answer - the raw file has more data so you have a bigger range of options when editing.

I love the ease and quality of Fuji jpegs but if I plan to do a lot of editing I use the raw files.

 

[Ysarex]

JPEG suffers from what us old timers knew as xerox failure where as a copy is copied over and over the image degrades
In my limited knowledge
JPEG looks at an image and decides that that shade is very close to another and callers them the same to save file size
Do this over and over, and in time even half blind humans can see the loss in quility

There will always be someone who will use a kitchen knife to pry up nails and break the tip off the knife. In other words use the right tool and use the tool rightly. JPEG was designed as an archive format. The creators were clear about that. Once the compression is applied no further changes to the file are appropriate. Used as designed, JPEG is great -- fantastic in fact given the benefits we've derived from it.

The issue of degrading a JPEG by re-saving and therefore re-compressing it is pretty much a non-issue but not because it's harmless. It's interesting that it gets brought up as often as it does without mentioning what happens if you edit a JPEG and make changes to the tone/color of the image. It is true that opening and resaving a JPEG will further degrade it but the loss is very slight. On the other hand a single edit change to the image's tone/color will likely cause more degradation than opening and re-saving the image dozens of times. I like this analogy: You have a nut (walnut, pecan, etc.) on the table in front of you. In one hand you have a jeweler's hammer (2.5 ounces) and in the other hand a ball peen hammer (2.5 pounds). Tapping the nut with the jeweler's hammer is re-saving and re-compressing it. Hitting it with the ball peen hammer is editing the tone/color. After one hit from the ball peen hammer why worry about a tap from the jeweler's hammer.

 

[Soocom1]

JPEG suffers from what us old timers knew as xerox failure where as a copy is copied over and over the image degrades
In my limited knowledge
JPEG looks at an image and decides that that shade is very close to another and callers them the same to save file size
Do this over and over, and in time even half blind humans can see the loss in quility

There will always be someone who will use a kitchen knife to pry up nails and break the tip off the knife. In other words use the right tool and use the tool rightly. JPEG was designed as an archive format. The creators were clear about that. Once the compression is applied no further changes to the file are appropriate. Used as designed, JPEG is great -- fantastic in fact given the benefits we've derived from it.

The issue of degrading a JPEG by re-saving and therefore re-compressing it is pretty much a non-issue but not because it's harmless. It's interesting that it gets brought up as often as it does without mentioning what happens if you edit a JPEG and make changes to the tone/color of the image. It is true that opening and resaving a JPEG will further degrade it but the loss is very slight. On the other hand a single edit change to the image's tone/color will likely cause more degradation than opening and re-saving the image dozens of times. I like this analogy: You have a nut (walnut, pecan, etc.) on the table in front of you. In one hand you have a jeweler's hammer (2.5 ounces) and in the other hand a ball peen hammer (2.5 pounds). Tapping the nut with the jeweler's hammer is re-saving and re-compressing it. Hitting it with the ball peen hammer is editing the tone/color. After one hit from the ball peen hammer why worry about a tap from the jeweler's hammer.

I use a 4 lbs sledge, so all bets are off..



Interesting analogy though.

 

[Original katomi]

I bow to someone with more knowledge
Personally I only use jpeg for two things
Post images here
And for some reason the printers I use require images in jpeg

 

[weepete]

If you don't want to edit and aren't concerned with archiving shoot jpeg, otherwise shot raw.

 

[Gavin@VUTSA]

RAW it is a file that is uncompressed, that contains all information that camera sensor has collected such as shadows and white balance.

JPEG are compressed files, some information has been removed from the images, they are already processed files by a camera software.

 

[Scott Whaley]

JPEG suffers from what us old timers knew as xerox failure where as a copy is copied over and over the image degrades
In my limited knowledge
JPEG looks at an image and decides that that shade is very close to another and callers them the same to save file size
Do this over and over, and in time even half blind humans can see the loss in quility

There will always be someone who will use a kitchen knife to pry up nails and break the tip off the knife. In other words use the right tool and use the tool rightly. JPEG was designed as an archive format. The creators were clear about that. Once the compression is applied no further changes to the file are appropriate. Used as designed, JPEG is great -- fantastic in fact given the benefits we've derived from it.

The issue of degrading a JPEG by re-saving and therefore re-compressing it is pretty much a non-issue but not because it's harmless. It's interesting that it gets brought up as often as it does without mentioning what happens if you edit a JPEG and make changes to the tone/color of the image. It is true that opening and resaving a JPEG will further degrade it but the loss is very slight. On the other hand a single edit change to the image's tone/color will likely cause more degradation than opening and re-saving the image dozens of times. I like this analogy: You have a nut (walnut, pecan, etc.) on the table in front of you. In one hand you have a jeweler's hammer (2.5 ounces) and in the other hand a ball peen hammer (2.5 pounds). Tapping the nut with the jeweler's hammer is re-saving and re-compressing it. Hitting it with the ball peen hammer is editing the tone/color. After one hit from the ball peen hammer why worry about a tap from the jeweler's hammer.

I used to always shoot in RAW and have been shooting in Jpeg for several years now. I process my photos in LR. All of the photos I post on the forum were Jpeg originals. It just depends on what you like. Jpeg works fine for me.

 

[Ysarex]

JPEG suffers from what us old timers knew as xerox failure where as a copy is copied over and over the image degrades
In my limited knowledge
JPEG looks at an image and decides that that shade is very close to another and callers them the same to save file size
Do this over and over, and in time even half blind humans can see the loss in quility

There will always be someone who will use a kitchen knife to pry up nails and break the tip off the knife. In other words use the right tool and use the tool rightly. JPEG was designed as an archive format. The creators were clear about that. Once the compression is applied no further changes to the file are appropriate. Used as designed, JPEG is great -- fantastic in fact given the benefits we've derived from it.

The issue of degrading a JPEG by re-saving and therefore re-compressing it is pretty much a non-issue but not because it's harmless. It's interesting that it gets brought up as often as it does without mentioning what happens if you edit a JPEG and make changes to the tone/color of the image. It is true that opening and resaving a JPEG will further degrade it but the loss is very slight. On the other hand a single edit change to the image's tone/color will likely cause more degradation than opening and re-saving the image dozens of times. I like this analogy: You have a nut (walnut, pecan, etc.) on the table in front of you. In one hand you have a jeweler's hammer (2.5 ounces) and in the other hand a ball peen hammer (2.5 pounds). Tapping the nut with the jeweler's hammer is re-saving and re-compressing it. Hitting it with the ball peen hammer is editing the tone/color. After one hit from the ball peen hammer why worry about a tap from the jeweler's hammer.

I used to always shoot in RAW and have been shooting in Jpeg for several years now. I process my photos in LR. All of the photos I post on the forum were Jpeg originals. It just depends on what you like. Jpeg works fine for me.

No it doesn't just depend on what you like. There are objective facts involved and those don't change based on what you like. If you process a JPEG file in LR and alter tone/color, your processing causes degradation to the image that would not occur if you did the same processing to an uncompressed image. That fact has nothing to do with what you like. Whether the damage is enough to matter to you in how you use the image or whether you can even see it doesn't make it not happen. For many people especially today with the higher res files in use the damage that results from processing JPEGs isn't severe enough to be a problem. That doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else who may have other requirements.

Fine for you doesn't mean it's fine for the person who asked the question.

 

[Scott Whaley]

It has everything to do with what you like. Some people like CD quality sound while others are happy with MP3s. Now, if I were going to market my photos then I would most likely go with RAW. As it stands, I am happy with my Jpegs.