Shooting in jpeg files

[Goldcoin79]

I have a Cannon power shot sx30 bridge camera and after searching the manual and looking through the camera settings it seems to me I can't shoot in RAW. If this is the case how will this effect my photography, I understand that you can't edit as much as in RAW but I have used jpegs on photoshop before and managed to edit photos.

Advice will be appreciated.

James

 

[Trever1t]

can you control the aperture and shutter speed on that camera? How about manually controlling the ISO? Shooting in JPG limits the ability to pull back highlights and lift shadows. Also Jpgs are lossy files so when you edit you lose some detail every time you save as.

In my honest opinion if you really want the most from the art of photography you need to work in RAW format. Post editing has as much to do with the final product as the data received by the sensor. Not that you can't take and edit jpgs, not at all but it is limiting.

 

[jaomul]

Most cameras don't give you a raw option, only ones in the upper end of the market (pros are frowning but 90% of cameras are lower end). Some pros only shoot jpeg, as you cant shoot raw it may be worth playing with the settings to try and get in camera settings for shots straight out of camera you like. Also you can edit jpegs but don't have the same scope as raw, but if you get it right you wont need as much.

In photoshop ACR you can open a jpeg in the raw converter with the "open as" command, and you do have a little scope.

 

[480sparky41 40]

The only effects it will have is:

1. You will not be able to change any incorrect settings in post (ie., WB set to fluorescent and you shot in sunlight)
2. You can edit only to a certain degree. Minor changes are OK, but you will run into trouble if you start to make large or sweeping changes.

 

[Goldcoin79]

My camera can shoot in full manual, shutter speed priority mode, and aperture priority mode and iso can be adjusted. It has all manual functions but can't shoot in RAW.

 

[480sparky41 40]

That'll take care of most of your potential problems.

 

[jrizal]

My camera can shoot in full manual, shutter speed priority mode, and aperture priority mode and iso can be adjusted. It has all manual functions but can't shoot in RAW.

Most P&S cameras including bridge cameras don't shoot in raw. Manufacturers often reserve them for more expensive models such as DSLRs and compact mirrorless cameras. But for the most part, if you can edit your photos in PS you're basically good.

 

[480sparky41 40]

Most P&S cameras including bridge cameras don't shoot in raw......

Technically, not true.

ALL cameras 'shoot' raw. Just not all of 'em SAVE the raw data.

 

[KmH]

JPEG is a ready-to-print file type.

Though your camera doesn't give you the option to record the Raw image data to the memory card, a Raw image data file is what a JPEG is made from.

A Raw file has a 12-bit color depth or a 14-bit color depth. (12-bits = 4096 distinct colors per color channel. 14-bits = 16.384 distinct colors per color channel. 8-bits = 256 distinct colors per color channel)
JPEG only has an 8-bit color depth, which means that about 80% of the color information the camera recorded is disarded. Plus, the pixels are divided into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixel blocks called Minimum Coded Units.
The 8-bit color depth and MCU's are what severely limit the editability of a JPEG image file.

 

[Solarflare]

As a programmer, I have to object.

If the camera does not support RAW files, there wont be even any code to create such a file present.

What the camera produces is the image data in the internal memory.

And then, from this image data, it produces a datafile on the memory stick.

But this datafile can be any format - RAW, JPEG, TIFF, PNG, whatever. There is nothing forcing the camera computer to ever produce a RAW file if none is needed.

 

[KmH]

The Raw file exists as output from the A/D converter. The image processor software in the camera then applies the JPEG algorithms to the Raw image data.

 

[Solarflare]

On second thought, forget it. "The camera shoots raw" is something that will drive a programmer nuts, because its incorrect, but to the ordinary person its probably understandable this way. The more correct way would be to say "Raw files contain all data the camera collects for a picture", though.


Original text:

No, that is NOT a raw file. That is raw data, if you want to call it that, or just image data, or even just data.

But its not a file. A file is a sequence of bytes from 0 to n-1, or 1 to n, n being the filesize, stored under a filename in a persistent filesystem, and marked by a magic number to distinguish it from other binary files, and very likely compressed, and so on.

Image data is all over the place in the image memory, and its not persistent, it has no name, it has no magic marker, it is not compressed, it most likely occupies more space, and so on.

As a very simple example, imagine a programmer has a textfile for error messages. He just numbers the error messages from 0 to n. Error 0, the first line, reads "no error", and so on. So what will the programmer do with loading this file ? He will continuously read every line from the file, allocate enough memory for the message, terminate the line with a zero or otherwise remember the length of that particular line, save the pointer to the error message in some data structure (most likely one called array, as this allows to access the pointer to the message in minimal time).

In short, the data representation of the textfile in memory will look nothing like the original textfile, and it will be much easier to work with for the programmer. Granted, the example is trivial enough that actually just reading the file from start to end and select the corresponding line would be a valid option, but thats the problem of chosing a simple example. Files stored sequentially can contain very complex structures that quickly are no longer feasible to parse every time you need a piece of information from them.

Same with image data and raw files. You can write the image data in all kinds of ways into a file. You can skip parts you dont need any further, you can preprocess it (lossless compression of raw files are very common, and jpeg is a lossy compression).

In fact, TIFF for example is an extensible file format. You can store all information stored in a RAW file into a TIFF file as well. It wont look anything like an image if you try to display it, since its the "raw" format from the camera, but its possible to store any information in TIFF and thus its possible to store the image data in a TIFF.

Thus, if you claim the camera would "shoot RAW" you could just as well claim it would "shoot TIFF".

 

[Steve5D]

I know my G12 shoots RAW files. Pretty sure my G10 did, too. Come to think of it, so did the G9.

I only recently started shooting RAW. I started with DSLR's back in 2004, and shot my first RAW images ever about a month or so ago. Somehow, in the eight years in between, I was able to shoot only large JPEG and actually work and make money doing it.

While there are certainly advantages to shooting RAW, there are those people who will try to tell you that failing to shoot in RAW is the photographic equivilant of cutting your wrists, and that's just not true...

 

[jrizal]

On second thought, forget it. "The camera shoots raw" is something that will drive a programmer nuts, because its incorrect, but to the ordinary person its probably understandable this way. The more correct way would be to say "Raw files contain all data the camera collects for a picture", though.

[/QUOTE]

The more descriptive term as camera manuals and site FAQs use is "shooting in RAW mode" implying that the file is saved as is but often referred to as shooting RAW. But really if all cameras can "shoot in RAW", then why are point and shoots cannot save it in RAW format and only in JPEG? Why the additional algorithms? Marketing ploy I suppose.

 

[480sparky41 40]

The more descriptive term as camera manuals and site FAQs use is "shooting in RAW mode" implying that the file is saved as is but often referred to as shooting RAW. But really if all cameras can "shoot in RAW", then why are point and shoots cannot save it in RAW format and only in JPEG? Why the additional algorithms? Marketing ploy I suppose.

People who are out to 'just take pictures', whether it be vacation, kid's birthday, snapshots, etc., really aren't interested in learning to process raw files, or may not want to take the time required to do so. They're content to let the camera's software make all those decisions for them. So the ability to save the raw file is not included in the low-end cameras.

It may be because it's a price-point issue. In order to get a camera down to a given price so it can succeed in being marketed to it's target market, the ability to save the raw data is not included.