RAW vs. JPEG?

[Meeskephoto]

Hey guys, simple question: What is the difference between a picture shot in the RAW file setting vs. a photo shot in JPEG? I know that RAW tends to be a better picture quality, but why? And is there any upside to JPEG?

Thanks!

 

[robbins.photo]

When you shoot RAW the camera takes all of the info it captured and writes it out to the memory card, allowing you to process it later. When you shoot jpg, the camera processes the image first, removes what it considers "unneeded data" and compresses it, making a smaller file but it also tosses out a lot of information. As a result RAW will give you the ability to edit the image a lot easier, changing things like color information a lot easier. A Jpg, on the other hand, while it can be edited and processed to a certain extent, since a lot of the info has already been removed it gives you a lot less room to make changes. It's a lot easier to make color/hue changes on a RAW file - a whole lot easier.

 

[480sparky]

Do a forum search... there's scores of thread that discuss this.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

RAW is not better quality than JPEG. The key difference is that a RAW image contains all captured information while a JPEG is a compressed format which has already been processed by your camera and much of the captured information is gone. The key benefits of shooting in RAW is much more flexibility in post processing allowing you to make the output decisions. The benefit of shooting a JPEG is that it is already a final-output file which does not require much post processing. In fact, depending on which camera you're using and what settings your camera is at, a JPEG will generally come out looking better than a RAW image.

 

[KmH]

This one was started just yesterday - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/343303-jpeg-raw.html

 

[manaheim]

Pointing out to a new user that they could use the forum search: Helpful.

Being REALLY nasty about it: Ban-worthy.

Let's keep this above board, please. Say something nice or don't say anything.

Thanks.

 

[elmhurre]

RAW is better than JPEG if you intend to do some post processing specially to correct the white balance of a photo because not all the time you can get the right exposure and white balance of a picture, even professional photographer still get it wrong sometimes so the only way to correct it is to post processing. Most wedding photographers shoot in RAW because of the conflict between the white wedding gown of the bride and the black tuxedo of the groom.
But don't make it as an excuse not to perfect your shoots because you can still post process it. RAW is just a back up in case you didn't got the shoot perfect.

hope this help

 

[hopdaddy]

The way this question made the most sense to me . A RAW file is like a Negative from a film camera where as a Jepg file is like a photograph ready to be framed . You can take the raw into your digital darkroom and make many more adjustments than you could with a already finished photo .

 

[Meeskephoto]

The way this question made the most sense to me . A RAW file is like a Negative from a film camera where as a Jepg file is like a photograph ready to be framed . You can take the raw into your digital darkroom any make many more adjustments than you could with a already finished photo .

This was actually a really good answer. Thanks you! And thanks for all the input everyone else, I now see it is quite the popular topic and I should have done a forum search first. I apologize and shall study up before posting next time.

I like the idea of post processing my pictures, especially if I am in a place where I may not be able to get the same picture again. My question is clarified, thanks! And as for the downside (File size) I have two 16GB cards so I don't worry much about space.