raw vs .jpeg

[walter_groves1]

i am very new to digital ,own a d200. i still do not understand why one would choose raw

vs. jpeg fine, from what i have seen the quality of the final prints seems to be the same. i

have been told that there is more work involved in a raw file. also for ex. with a wedding

after shooting in raw is the client given a cd of raw files? if they are changed to a jpeg for

the customer why not just shoot jpeg in the first place?

[myount777]

Very good question.

[ecarter]

Mostly, shooting RAW lets you more easily adjust the photo after the fact - applying curves, adjusting white balance, changing the color space or doing other custom processing tweaks. You can do these things to jpg files, of course, but not as well - once an image is converted to a jpg, whether it is done in camera or out of the camera in a computer, the conversion process has tossed away some of the information in the image captured by the sensor. RAW files preserve exactly what the sensor recorded, so if you need to post-process an image you have more to work with.

 

For a lot of people, though, jpg fine is just that - fine. It's really a matter of personal preference. I shoot raw files because I prefer to have the "latent image" information to make any adjustments - I don't mind taking the time to process the image to get the most out of it. To me, it's just a matter of keeping all my options open - to someone else, jpg may be all about the convenience of not having to convert raw files.

[walter_groves1]

i am assuming you would convert the raw to a jpeg or tiff for the client?

[ecarter]

Yes, depending on what they want, they'd get either jpeg or tiff files. Most of the time when I was doing any shooting for money, though, the clients were more looking for prints and were not too interested in the files - in those cases, I'd put together a digital "proof sheet" they could look at on-screen from screen resolution jpegs after I'd done my magic and created high resolution tiffs or jpegs from the raw files. They'd choose what they want printed, then I'd have the prints made from the high res processed files.

[peter_nelson1]

The raw file holds a lot more information. Not only does it have shooting information but it also holds pixel value information to a much higher degree of precision, which is important when you are adjusting brightness, contrast, or color.<P>

 

Your question is rather like saying, "If I can fit my meal on a dinner plate, why do I need a kitchen counter, any bigger than a dinner plate to prepare it on?" Or, "If I'm building a house, why do I need a worksite any bigger than the foundation itself?"

[walter_groves1]

thanks guys, it seems to me that though i am saving money on film and processing there

is a lot more computer related work to do. i used to take my mf film to the lab get the

proofs, give them to the client. if i know shoot nefs[ which seems to be the way to go] i

know have to go through 500+ photos convert them to jpgs or tiffs. i have not actually

shot a wedding yet with the camera but isnt this an awfull lot of work?

[wiseguyvisuals]

so what software do you all use for importing and editing/converting raw files?

 

I have photoshop cs2 and rawshooter essentials (never used). I dont shoot in raw but I'm thinking i might just start once I get more storage and start my archive process.

[conrad_hoffman]

I'm just a casual shooter and have no use for raw whatsoever. What people forget is you can set the amount of jpeg compression to several different values from "reasonable" to "train wreck", both in the camera, and in your image editing program. The huge loss of quality people worry about isn't always that huge. OTOH, if you're doing pro work, and need every advantage, raw is probably the only way to go. You can afford the storage and the time required to process the images.

[digitmstr]

>>i still do not understand why one would choose raw vs. jpeg fine,<<

 

Right, it is a *choice* dictate by different needs/requirements.

 

A good camera will produce excellent JPGs, if the photographer knows how to use it. A little post processing if/when needed will indeed make the final JPGs great for printing and/or web display. Even when working with JPGs a good program like Photoshop allows even for radical adjustments. Of course, it is worth nothing that one should only save a JPG file ONCE since every time it is saved it re-compresses.

 

However, there are times when shooting RAW and converting later is a better choice. Generally speaking, a JPG converted from a good RAW conversion program will have higher dyn range, better shadows and tonal range. I say this from experience using C1PRO for converting. Other programs may give different results. So, when I want the absolute best I shoot RAW. But, for the most part I shoot JPGs.

[troyammons]

More information. 12 bits per channel raw opposed to 8 bits for jpeg. Also doing a saveas saveas saveas can propogate jpeg artifacts. You toss about 1/3rd of your color information with a jpeg.

 

A jpeg is also processed inside the camera so you have no control.

 

With a raw file you have complete control in processing it however you want as many times as you want.

 

For instance, on a Kodak slr for example you can shoot in combination mode jpeg and raw, and if you have a blown out area in the jpeg, you can open the raw file and usually recover that info. With jpeg alone that is not possible.

 

A raw file is more like a negative.

 

I dont shoot anything but raw, unless its snapshots.

[wiseguyvisuals]

i can see how a control freak would love having the options that RAW editing offers, but dont forget that a JPEG can be edited in the same ways using photoshop. of course this assumes your image was good to begin with. bottom line seems to be, in my opinion, that if you shoot with any kind of technical skill or expertise you shouldnt need to waste your time and energy with transfering and producing (for the purpose of viewing jpegs) RAW files. It is only a crutch that trains you to shoot less technically since 'you can always fix it later'. which is why i dont. not to mention the hassle (or as they say in portugal, fiasco) of keeping your files useable by upadating to the latest in overpriced RAW-dedicated software from the money-grubbing folks at Mitsubishi (Nikon) or Canon and other manufacturers. Until RAW becomes at least as universally accepted as JPEG, it fails to have even the slightest relevance for the serious photographer. *whew* well i was thinking twice about pulling out the old soapbox, but it feels good to let it out sometimes.

[zhi_da_zhong]

What RAW is:

A Raw file is more like an undeveloped piece of film than a negative/slide. Having the Raw

file around allows you to use different converters/settings -- it's like being able to re-

develope the same piece of film multiple times using different processes. You can achieve

similar effects through editing JPEGs, but with less room to work

w/ and sometimes lower quality -- a JPEG is more like a final print.

 

Overhead of RAW processing:

You need a serious computer setup (a whole other topic) and software designed to work

with large numbers of Raw files. Check out Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom, both of

which are in

early stages of their evolution but already quite promising.

[godfrey]

You should find a copy of "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS[2]" by Bruce Fraser.

Read the first two chapters. The will explain what the difference between RAW format and

JPEG is, and why you would choose RAW to work with, better than anything I've read here.

 

Godfrey

[zhi_da_zhong]

Re: quality difference (or lack of) between Raw and JPEG:

 

If you compare JPEGs out of the camera to Raw files converted using the camera

manufacturer's own software, they may indeed look similar. But in many cases --

depending on the manufacturer, the Raw version will still give you better details because

the software has the luxury of more computing power and/or longer processing time.

Canon's JPEGs apparently look just like their Raws. Nikon's JPEGs seem to be lower in

quality.

 

If you convert the same Raw file using different raw converters, then you'll get much more

varied results. So it's helpful to try a few to see which one you like more. It's like choosing

a favorite film, developer or development process in the film days.

[zhi_da_zhong]

I second the recommendation for Bruce Fraser's book. (Although I'm now moving away

from ACR for Raw conversion.)

[lex_jenkins]

Here's a recent thread on the "Wedding and social event photography Forum" discussing the same issue:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fte4&tag=

[v.anisimov]

I was reckless enough to raise a similar question some time ago and was molested by RAW nazis, here's the link:

</p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EiSi" target="_new">Tired of RAW, learning to shoot JPGs!</a>

[v.anisimov]

All other things being equal, a properly exposed JPG is always better than a poorly exposed RAW.

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto, Vladimir. For some folks, RAW has become a religion based on legalisms. Me, I've been excommunicated and shunned for consorting with JPEGs.

 

I expose very carefully with the goal of getting JPEGs that are ready to print right out of the camera. My approach is pretty much like shooting slides. Most of the time I succeed. Even when I shoot NEFs and JPEG-Fine simultaneously, most of the time the NEFs go straight to CD/DVD and I never work with 'em.

 

Despite the naysayers it is entirely possible to get excellent results from JPEGs even when it's necessary to do some minor tweaking. Some specialized software, such as iCorrect EditLab Pro from PictoColor, introduces no apparent image degradation when JPEGs are edited and resaved. I've compared 'em magnified up to 800% and pixel for pixel the edited files are very faithful.

 

Losing "1/3" of your color information with JPEGs? Sorry, it just ain't so. That's oversimplifying a fairly complex process that goes on inside the camera. The thread on the wedding forum to which I referred has more accurate information.

 

Working with RAW files is faster? Nope. No way. That makes absolutely no sense at all. RAW files are much larger than JPEGs and take longer simply to open them, let alone do any editing. I've tried at least a dozen RAW converters and generalized photo editing programs and in no case was it faster working with RAW files, individually or in batching, unless you count RawShooter which doesn't work with JPEGs so there's no way to make comparisons.

 

If you shoot digital as a substitute for film and want the best possible results, by all means, shoot RAW. Most of my digital photographer is oriented toward photojournalism. I need quick turnaround and have little time for editing, which I don't enjoy anyway. I still use film when I want the best results - for my purposes. If I used a 10+ mp dSLR, maybe my approach would be different.

[witold_grabiec]

RAW isn't as pure as some may think. Remember that what camera sees (any camera that is) is an analog data that needs to be processed so it can become a digital file once passed through the sensor. While RAW does the absolute minimum in terms of in-camera processing, JPEG goes way beyond that. Some cameras give you quite a bit of control as far as how far that in-camera JPEG processing goes. Some do not. The latter is the case with simpler point-and-shoots which by definition are meant to give instant good results. These cameras also lack in amount of control you have over the exposure.

 

There is no argument that shooting straight JPEG can give great results, especially if some processing parameters can be altered by the user.

 

There is also no argument that RAW file (substantially larger, which by the way may not always be what you need or want) gives you almost total control over the final outcome. This is however, a very involved and initially time-consuming process, and it is not for everyone.

 

Best approach would be to shoot a RAW + JPEG, something that's not available on most cameras. This creates a master file in RAW that can later be fine tuned (or not) plus an instant gratification file(or not) in JPEG.

[Ed_Ingold]

Putting the religious overtones aside, the RAW file contains all of the information the camera is capable of capturing, before color space, before white balance, and to some extent before exposure corrections. The RAW file has 12-bit resolution (more in MF backs), which gives 4096 density steps in each channel (color) compared to a mere 256 steps in an 8-bit file. There is usually no compression, or if compressed, the compression is non-lossy. In short, the RAW file is the digital equivalent of a negative. If you are the sort that keeps the drugstore prints and tosses the negatives, stop reading here.

 

A JPEG file is limited to 8-bit depth per channel, and is subjected to a lossy compression of various degree, depending on the "quality" selected. Blown highlights are gone forever, whereas there is as much as 4 stops of recovery possible in a RAW file.

 

Most digital images benefit from post-processing. RAW and JPEG files are no exception. This need not be laborious. The conversion process is easily automated. NikonView converts a batch of RAW files to JPEG with a single key click. Adobe Bridge (and LightTable) allows most corrections to be performed in Adobe Camera Raw, which is very fast since it does not need to open the file in Photoshop. Once done, the files can be converted in a batch while you do something else. If you shoot fairly consistently (a good idea with film, too), and have a reasonably fast computer (Lex's 250MHz computer excepted) you can edit 100 or more raw files per hour, or convert over 400 files without editing in the same time.

 

If you feel comfortable resting your reputation with the high school kid running the Fuji Frontier machine, just take your un-corrected JPEG conversions down to Wal-Mart on a CD. That worked for film, didn't it?

 

I have a lot of time and effort invested in an image by the time it sits on my CF card. Why throw away more than half of the product by shooting in JPEG mode up front?

[pjmeade]

Hello Walter,

 

Here is a review which may help answer your question.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml

 

I hope I haven't further muddied the water. P

[Brian]

Edward's logic sounds incontrovertible on the face of it. More information must be better, right. This will appeal to those whose photography is the pursuit of perfection, and those who are always lusting after more megapixels. But for those of us who just want to capture the image, and are pragmatic about how we get it, if we get it right in-camera, the jpeg can be printed with acceptable quality.

[robert_martin5]

Edward, excellent input. I shoot RAW plus JPG with a Nikon D200 and to date I have converted the RAW and deleted the JPG because I get better results from the RAW files. I convert the RAW by first making adjustments to ACR in Photoshop without converting the RAW file and then running an Action to make the conversion and save in a folder. Takes a little more time, but I think the results are worth the investment in time and memory card space.