raw vs jpeg

[KmH]

If a Raw file is not compatible with your Raw converter you can use Adobe's free, open source (Digital Negative - Wikipedia) software and convert the file to DNG.

There are many proprietary Raw file types, well over 100 of them, and more with the release of new camera models.
Nikon and Canon are just the main 2 that use proprietary Raw files and each new camera that uses a proprietary Raw file, by necessity, has it's own Raw file type.

So if you have complaints about proprietary Raw files, complain to the camera makers, not the Raw Conversion software writers.

Some camera makers use the free, open source, DNG file type Adobe provides.
Proprietary means the camera makers don't provide the Raw file type information to the developers of Raw converters.
The Raw converter software people have to reverse engineer each new proprietary Raw file type.
Doing so takes a lot of work

Use of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,[4] and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[5] Adobe stated that if there were a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.[6] Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.

More info and get the free software here: (Digital Negative (DNG), Adobe DNG Converter | Adobe Photoshop CC).

 

[dasmith232]

A JPG file is a digital representation of a picture. It *is* a picture. The world considers a JPG file to be a picture.

A "raw" file is not a picture. It's a proprietary format that has data that if manipulated correctly can be converted to a picture. Raw is sooooo commonly spelled as RAW, but it's not an acronym. However, this common usage (treating it as an acronym and spelling it uppercase) is beyond retrieval at this point.

Dealing with the "raw" data of a JPG file is easy. It's been done for decades. This is actually the core of a broader issue about JPG files being or becoming obsolete.

Dealing with the "raw" data of a RAW* file is not easy. But the resulting quality is much better.

* = See, even I'm using the wrong naming - but it (maybe) makes the distinction clearer...

 

[ashleykaryl]

With Jpeg you basically get what Canon or Nikon decide your image should look like and it's nowhere near capable of showing the full tonal range of your camera. Jpeg is also awful at handling post-production edits, so it's a "lose lose lose" situation.

Stick with Raw 100% wherever possible, not just for what it offers now, but also the possibilities in the future. Personally I convert all my Raw files to DNG.

 

[fmw]

Let me suggest an Adobe product called Photoshop Elements. It handles most of the things an amateur needs to deal with the camera's output data. It is isn't enough for graphic designers but I'm assuming you are not one of those. You can buy it for well under $100 on line. It will accept your raw files right out of the camera or the memory card.

 

[greybeard]

As everyone else has written, raw files give you much more latitude with editing and you can produce, with work, a better looking picture when shooting raw than with JPEG. There are, however, times when one needs a smaller file and that is where JPEG comes in handy. For instance, my D7000 will only shoot 7 or 8 shots (raw) before the buffer fills up when shooting in burst mode. It can however, shoot 24 shots standard JPEGs in burst mode before the buffer fills and the camera seems to do a descent job of noise reduction when shooting high ISO. So, when I'm shooting sports or birds in flight, I use JPEG standard instead of raw because of the improved buffer performance. Ideally I would have a camera with a large enough buffer to accommodate raw files in burst mode and that may be something I get in the future. (D500)

 

[nickgillespie]

Just try both. No need to ask for opinions... shoot for a while in raw and a while in jpg. Then edit them and see which you like better.

You will have more editing options with raw - exposure, contrast, colors, highlights, shadows, etc. Jpg... you're pretty much locked into what the camera gives you.

 

[Lacrossedad]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my post, I really appreciate it. When it comes to Photoshop/Lightroom, I found that I can buy for $150 or $11 per month. Are there that many updates to justify the monthly charges? Keep in mind I am just getting back into this and doing it for the fun, no intentions of ever trying to make money at it.

 

[Derrel]

Computing the price/value of a $150 standalone software product versus the monthy charge of around $11 involves a few variables. If the SW app can convert your camera's raw files, and you keep the camera for more than a year and a half, buying seems like a better value, especially as time marches on. As for updates: they seem to come at a very slow pace now that Adobe is on the monthly rental fee course and the cash cow has settled into her new pasture quite contendedly; Adobe seems intent on trying to f*** over every other company that does business on the web, and Apple in particular, by constantly and needlessly updating Flash, but Adobe doesn't seem to be doing squat for its monthly racket customers who use PS CC and LR CC. My vote is to buy Lightroom and learn to use it, and ignore Photoshop until such time as you know that you absolutely need it.

Regardless of your intentions regarding making money off of photography, I think you will find that Lightroom will develop and adjust 95-plus percent of your images in a fast and efficient manner, including dodging, burning, selective sharpening, teeth whitening, redeye reduction, skin smoothing, highlight recovery, and adjustment of tone curve, exposure, brightness, contrast, and black point, as well as several other things like chromatic aberration reduction, lens profile corrections, selective color enhancements, and cropping and rotating. I just listed the most-common image parameter adjustments: Lightroom does all those things better than Elements, and faster than many apps can do them, due to the parametric image editing method it uses. (look up parametric for more info on the process)

Lightroom is, I would say, the single best thing to happen to hobbyist and enthusiast image processing in 25 years. I bought a copy of it, and stopped going into Photoshop, stopped using Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw to develop files; before long (24 months), my monthly rental copies of Photoshop and Lightroom CC were discontinued by me: I got sick of paying for no updates, for apps I found inferior for my needs. But everybody is different! If you want to be able to edit one or two images, heavily, at the minute pixel level, Photoshop is very,very good for that, as well as for complex operations. But in the end, Lightroom is the application that, over the last five or six years, has really revolutionized the way many people handle their digital image files on a daily basis.

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my post, I really appreciate it. When it comes to Photoshop/Lightroom, I found that I can buy for $150 or $11 per month. Are there that many updates to justify the monthly charges? Keep in mind I am just getting back into this and doing it for the fun, no intentions of ever trying to make money at it.

The monthly charge for LR/PS seems on a month by month basis as quite minor, but over time that makes LR/PS the most expensive photo-processing software available. LR is still available as a single license product without PS but we're not sure how long that will continue. LR is the photographer's software of choice and it has a lot to recommend it. I would recommend LR as an excellent choice. If you're an enthusiast and cost conscience you can avoid the LR/PS monthly subscription. LR alone will serve for much of what you need to do but not 100%. To make up the difference something like Affinity Photo for $50.00 will more than adequately fill in for PS.

Or consider going Adobe free. This is excellent software and a good replacement for both LR and PS and it's on sale right now: ACD Systems - Photo Editing Management Software You get a good replacement for both LR's database and raw conversion functions as well as PS's pixel level editing functions.

There are lots of options including some free options, although some of the free options force you into a more complicated workflow -- maybe not worth it.

Joe

 

[table1349]

At a mid range price you might also want to take a look at Capture One Pro from Phase one. I have used LR and Derrel is correct as far as LR being an excellent piece of software. I however prefer the results I get from Capture One. I still have CS6 but rarely use it these days.

One thing about Joe's recommendation, If you are a Mac user the ACDsee software for Mac is lacking. In fact it is not worth purchasing at this time if you are a Sierra user as is doesn't work. I am beta testing their new replacement product and it does look promising. ACDsee has finally realized that then need to produce Mac products having put together a dedicated Mac team.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

They both have their place and purpose.
Why do you have to pic one. Record both - rinse and repeat

 

[Ysarex]

They both have their place and purpose.
Why do you have to pic one. Record both - rinse and repeat

Because you can't optimally expose for both at the same time. Given the way current camera manufacturers design and adjust their hardware, if you expose and get and excellent JPEG from the camera you're going to have a sub-optimal raw file. You'll still be able to use the raw file and get a good result but if you're after the most you can possibly get from the raw file you'll end up with a ruined JPEG. Saving both you have to compromise one or the other.

Joe

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

They both have their place and purpose.
Why do you have to pic one. Record both - rinse and repeat

Because you can't optimally expose for both at the same time. Given the way current camera manufacturers design and adjust their hardware, if you expose and get and excellent JPEG from the camera you're going to have a sub-optimal raw file. You'll still be able to use the raw file and get a good result but if you're after the most you can possibly get from the raw file you'll end up with a ruined JPEG. Saving both you have to compromise one or the other.

Joe

Are you sure about that?

 

[Ysarex]

They both have their place and purpose.
Why do you have to pic one. Record both - rinse and repeat

Because you can't optimally expose for both at the same time. Given the way current camera manufacturers design and adjust their hardware, if you expose and get and excellent JPEG from the camera you're going to have a sub-optimal raw file. You'll still be able to use the raw file and get a good result but if you're after the most you can possibly get from the raw file you'll end up with a ruined JPEG. Saving both you have to compromise one or the other.

Joe

Are you sure about that?

Completely. The more you expose a raw file the better it gets. The more you expose a raw file the more DR you capture. Just don't expose a raw file so much that you clip the highlights. For the very best raw file expose so the highlights are as close to the clipping threshold as possible. That's a risky thing to try and do. So the camera manufactures hedge a little and adjust both the camera's metering system as well as the JPEG processing software to produce a best JPEG when the raw file is between -.3 to as much as -1.3 underexposed. An average half stop underexposure isn't going to make a huge difference in a raw file (unless you want the very best) so the camera manufacturer's apply that hedge.

It's easy to test for. Shoot a bracket set of a high contrast scene. Find the first JPEG that clips highlights (crash and burn) and then check the raw file. Those same highlights won't be clipped in the raw file.

Joe

EDIT: Here's a visual for that using my camera. It's spring now and I'm out photographing the flowers. Here's a photo of pear tree blossoms.

On the left is the camera generated JPEG which is arguably overexposed. The highlights in the flower petals are blowing out. That's a ruined JPEG. The middle photo is my processing of the raw file. The right photo is the camera's re-processing of the raw file with the exposure pulled back -.7. My camera's raw processing software is accessible for re-processing with modifications so I put the raw file back on the camera card and generated a new JPEG with the exposure pulled back 2/3 stop.

To get the JPEG on the right when taking the photo I would have had to reduce the exposure by 2/3 stop. That would of course have reduced my raw file exposure by that amount. In this photo I nailed the raw file exposure:

That's a histogram of the raw file exposure. I added the magenta line to indicate the clipping threshold of my camera's sensor. Notice how close the green channel is to that line -- any more exposure and I crash and burn. But as it is I have the best possible raw file.

What I'm doing is very risky. I've pushed to the point where I have no more latitude or room for error. What the camera manufacturers are doing is arguably smart. Building in a little hedge can save a lot of folks a lot of ruined photos. The difference between two raw files with a 2/3 stop exposure variation isn't a big deal. This is pretty esoteric and unless you're going to run meticulous tests of your camera hardware you're better off ignoring nut-job nerds like me trying to squeeze out every last little drop of IQ. I'm retired and nobody's paying me to take photos so I can push the edge and no real harm when I push too hard. When I get it right, it makes me happy.