The difference between Raw and high Q?

[LisaMarie]

Ok so i get that Raw is supposedly "better quality" so now i have been only shooting in High quality and raw, but what i dont get is when it comes time to upload my images onto my computer using adobe lightroom, i don't really notice the difference while formatting contrast/colour/the different style modes, ect? Do i just not have enough experience yet to notice the difference, or am i missing something, cause besides file size im not noticing much??

 

[Ecas32]

in raw format, you can change things such as white ballance and other shot settings you cant with a jpeg. Jpegs willl have worse image quality once you edit them in post alot

 

[LisaMarie]

Thanks for the reply, thats kind of what i figured but i thought i would ask to be sure!

But with that being said would anyone happen to know a list of all the settings that can only be used to edit RAW off the top of there head??

Thanks again!

 

[rufus5150]

You can change the white balance of a jpeg file. (I don't know why people say you can't.)

JPEGs will always contain less pixel information than an accompanying raw. They're 8 bit, they have their limits. It's a lossy format. Raw files contain a great deal more information about pixels so that when DO adjust things like white balance, you may pull in tones that are no longer there in the jpeg file.

Because RAW gives you a lot more to work with, it's a safety net of sorts. Even a high quality JPEG will sometimes clip highs and lows that are preserved in the RAW file. You can't recovery them from the jpeg.

You can't save things back to raw, however. Bridge, lightroom and ACR and all give you the ability to nondestructively apply a template of changes to each raw, but they're saved as a separate set of metadata instructions on what transformations to apply to the raw file when it's pulled into an editing program. You can save them into lossless formats, though, but even TIFF or PSD or XCF, if you've imported from the raw, you're going to lose bits of information (chances are you won't notice, ever, though, esp with the native data formats with the higher-end editors).

Jpegs however apply their compression algorithm each and every time they're opened and closed. The more you open and close them, the lower quality they'll become. They'll block up, they'll start to look horrible.

My workflow and my thinking demands that once a jpeg has been set out into the wild, I'm done with it. I never open it again. It's the last step. Do everything else in some other format. If I need to make a change, go back, and make another resultant jpeg.

 

[rufus5150]

But with that being said would anyone happen to know a list of all the settings that can only be used to edit RAW off the top of there head??

Anything you can do to a raw image, you can do to jpeg. You just may not have the same amount of source material to work with.

 

[Sherman Banks]

Jpegs however apply their compression algorithm each and every time they're opened and closed. The more you open and close them, the lower quality they'll become. They'll block up, they'll start to look horrible.

I had a photography teacher tell me this but I thought he meant everytime it was opened/saved it would lose quality. So just opening and closing a jpeg will cause its deterioration?

 

[LisaMarie]

I am wondering the same thing, because i always open my pictures to marvel at them, lol!! So even without saving, some quality of my picture is lost just from viewing!?

 

[adamwilliamking]

Anything you can do to a raw image, you can do to jpeg. You just may not have the same amount of source material to work with.

Which you don't, because its a jpg.

And if this is true than how come when you open a jpg in photoshop the exposure adjustment option goes away?

 

[adamwilliamking]

I had a photography teacher tell me this but I thought he meant everytime it was opened/saved it would lose quality. So just opening and closing a jpeg will cause its deterioration?

No, it will just never load the same way twice.
None will be any better than the other.

 

[LisaMarie]

Ok, now that we are on the picture quality topic i have another question, so say i was to post one of my pictures on a website such as facebook/flikr/a webpage, ect. Now say i decided that i wanted to copy paste my old posted picture back from the website back onto my computer, now assuming that the picture is the same size as when i uploaded it, does it become of less quality from doing the copy pasting?

 

[tsaraleksi]

JPEG degradation only occurs when you save the image.

Lisa: many sites like facebook apply compression algorithms that reduce the quality of the image. If you're using something that allows you to upload a full-res image and doesn't apply any sharpening, etc, to the image, then it will be roughly the same though it will have been compressed a bit even still.

 

[rufus5150]

Which you don't, because its a jpg.

And if this is true than how come when you open a jpg in photoshop the exposure adjustment option goes away?

If you set photoshop to open JPEGs in ACR, the exposure slider works just fine (I literally just did this). Once the jpeg is opened into photoshop proper, let me check here... *twiddle fiddle, fusss* exposure adjustment from image->adjustments->exposure works just fine.

 

[manaheim]

JPEGs will always contain less pixel information than an accompanying raw. They're 8 bit, they have their limits. It's a lossy format. Raw files contain a great deal more information about pixels so that when DO adjust things like white balance, you may pull in tones that are no longer there in the jpeg file.

Nice (and slightly different than usual) way to explain that. :thumbup:

 

[rufus5150]

Nice (and slightly different than usual) way to explain that. :thumbup:

Thanks. Someday I'm hoping to reduce it down to 'Raw is mathematically superior. It is not always aesthetically superior but it is more flexible. It always requires an extra step or two in the processing.'

"Better" is such a subjective term and most things in photography I hate to speak of in absolutes.

 

[manaheim]

Thanks. Someday I'm hoping to reduce it down to 'Raw is mathematically superior. It is not always aesthetically superior but it is more flexible. It always requires an extra step or two in the processing.'

"Better" is such a subjective term and most things in photography I hate to speak of in absolutes.

How about "RAW sucks less"? :lmao: