raw vs. jpeg

[hoonie]

Thank you for your time and knowledge that you guys are giving me

through Photo.net.

My question is, can anyone please help me to understand about Raw Vs.

jpeg (I will be shooting highest image quality and size for jpeg)

Also when I get the file from my CF after the shooting I will

converted to tiff or smaller jpeg file to use it for computer or

print graphic. So please someone can explain about raw vs. jpeg,

thank you very much.

I am a graphic designer and just got into taking photo with D70.

I will be shooting at a music concert (indoor with really good stage

lights)

My graphic print might get printed size around 20X30 inch (that�s a

finish size of graphic work not the photo that I took but I do have a

software that can enlarge the picture file without compromising the

quality/pixel)

So in this case RAW or JPEG? And what is the difference?

Thank you for your time.

[peterlyons]

Think of RAW as a digital negative. It contains all the information that your camera

recorded during the exposure. It is not a finished image. It won't look like a typical

negative image, that is, the colors won't be reversed, but it will require you to make

decisions regarding color balance, hue, exposure adjustment, contrast, brightness, etc.

before you can save it to a final image format, such as jpg or tiff or psp.

 

This is in contrast to shooting JPG, where your camera makes some final decisions inside

the camera, and then actually discards data that it outside the "range" of the jpg file. For

instance, the saved jpg cannot record the full exposure range that are recorded in a RAW

file. Also, remember that jpg is a compressed (lossy) format, though I expect any DSLR

will allow you to save the jpg with minimal compression, so the image can still be very fine

quality.

 

RAW comes at a price. There will be an extra step in your workflow. But for me, now that

I've tried both ways, I always shoot RAW. Only you can decide what makes the most sense

for you.

 

There is a great deal that could be said on the subject. There are books dedicated to it; do

a search for "camera raw" on Amazon, and dig in.

 

Have fun!

Peter

[lee hamiel]

Raw & tiff's are the only lossless formats & jpeg's have artifacts although shooting at high res it's not really noticable unless printing really large. If you're going to print at 20x30 I would shoot raw.

[ilkka]

Yes, think of RAW as digital negative as mentioned above. And think of jpeg as a print. Highest quality jpeg is like a large print. You can make it smaller without losing quality, but when you start adjusting it, you can only adjust what is there in that finished print. Eventually you will start losing detail. The negative will have more detail that was not captured in the print but is still there to be used if necessary. A small jpeg is like a small print. It can look nice in its original size but cannot be enlarged or modified much before it gets really bad. Would you shoot colour negative film, get 4x6 or 8x10 prints and then throw away the negatives? This is essentially what you do when you shoot jpeg instead of raw.

[angus_wong2]

Here's some additional key info about RAW (it's proprietary between vendors!). I don't have a camera with RAW support but I would assume one needs to be sure the editing software supports the specific RAW format for your specific camera.

 

"RAW file formats are proprietary, and differ greatly from one manufacturer to another, and sometimes between cameras made by one manufacturer. In 2004 Adobe Systems published the Digital Negative Specification (DNG), which is intended to be a unified RAW format. As of 2005, a few camera manufacturers have announced support for DNG, including Leica (native camera support) and Hasselblad (export). Other manufacturers, however, appear to have little interest making their RAW files easier to read: cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony and others include elements of encryption designed to make it harder for others to decode the format. The Leica Digital Modul-R (DMR) was the first camera back to use DNG as its native format."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_raw

[chris_leck]

I shoot concerts and I shoot raw whenever practical -- nearly always. The main reasons I *might* shoot JPEGs are 1) not enough CF capacity, 2) rapid-fire sequences where I might overrun the camera buffer, and 3) I'm sure that JPEGs will be adequate, for whatever reason.

 

In addition to what has been mentioned already, raw files are 12 bits/pixel. They can be brought into Photoshop as 16-bit TIFFs. As such, they tolerate large tonal moves much better than 8-bit JPEGs.

 

OTOH, large fine JPEGs are suitable for many uses. They can be captured more quickly than raw, can be processed in fewer steps (and fewer programs if you use Capture or similar for raw), and require much less storage space.

 

I really don't like the 'digital negative' analogy for raw files, it's really a forced fit.

[rwhillman]

"I really don't like the 'digital negative' analogy for raw files, it's really a forced fit."

 

Maybe, but it does express the idea that the raw file is something close to the orginal source, certainly with less programmed alteration than jpg. Like a print negative, the final product is very much a function of what the photographer does with the file.

[ronbudway]

To me the major difference is this: with a jpeg irreversable decisions have been made by a

tiny image processor inside the camera about what to do with information captured by the

sensor, with a RAW image you make the (reversable) decisions on your computer using

sophisticated software programs. What that means theoretically is that a person skilled in

the use of say, photoshop, should be able to get better results with regard to detail, noise,

dynamic range, color management, wb, etc. than can be generated by the camera's image

processor.

 

I shot jpeg fine for a while thinking it wasn't necessary to shoot RAW, then I experimented

with RAW and found that I liked having more control over the image. I don't know if my

pictures are better or worse or the same because of it, but I think it's the right thing to do

for me.

[leicaglow]

I learned a few things about this subject the hard way recently.

 

1. The quality of RAW over JPEG was quite surprising to me, but I didn't know about it until I bought the Nikon Capture 4.3 program. I had no idea how much information, particularly color, was lost in JPEG format.

 

2. I sent my files off to a popular printer who proceeded to discard any quality advantage I may have gained by shooting my recent stuff in RAW mode. I had converted the files to TIFF using the Nikon program and they looked just about like the RAW files when I sent them off.

 

3. I had an 11x14" print made and it was marginal for my tastes (but then I shoot a lot of medium and large format stuff).

 

4. I made the mistake of using ISO 1600 because I needed the speed of higher rates of fire for action and was taken back by the noise it produced in the final image.

[angus_wong2]

1) Blame vendor marketing for pushing the "negative" concept, which is inaccurate but something consumers quickly grasp. (Another example is "cable modem").

 

2) I would assume to take advantage of RAW, one edits the photo on computer first, making the decisions that normally the camera does, and then exporting a JPEG or other format image which you then take to the printer.

 

Still have yet to try RAW. Blew my budget on a new camcorder this Xmas so any upgrades to my camera equipment have to wait a year... :-p

[StuartMoxham]

You should really try them both for yourself and see which works for you. I have only just begun with RAW and I am very suprised at how much under exposure can be recovered and even more suprised that overexposure can also be recovered too. I think that the images may look a bit sharper too. I don't believe that you should use RAW as a substitute for bad exposure, but use it as a tool to extact the best from your images. With the D70 you can shoot both RAW and JPEG(basic) at the same time so you can use the JPEG files for quick viewing and proofing and use the RAW files when you have decided which images to use.

[rdkirk]

All analologies have failure points, but comparing RAW to negative film and JPEG to transparency is a start. Like a negative, RAW provides the more post-camera control and flexibility. Like a transparency, JPEG provides less. Like a negative, RAW always requires additional labor overhead before reaching a final result, like a transparency, JPEG does not.

 

However, both RAW and JPEG provide far more flexibility and control than do either negative films or transparency films, respectively. I'd say JPEG is about equal to negative films in flexibility, in fact, while having a RAW is more like having unlimited opportunties to make new choices of film and developer types after the picture has been taken.

 

As for the proprietary nature of RAW files, while that does blunt the above paragraph a bit, it's not a killing blow, and it certainly has no bearing on whether to capture the image in RAW or JPEG. If/when one feels uncomfortable holding RAW files, then convert them to DNG or TIFF. TIFF certainly limits options compared to RAW, but TIFF still provides more options than a processed negative ever did.

 

Our cups overflow, and people complain that they don't overflow ENOUGH.

[ilkka]

I wouldn't make the analogy that RAW is negative and JPEG is transparency. Transparency is like a negative, with all the information that the camera captured. I would compare jpeg to a print, especially since jpegs can be made in small or large versions just like prints can be made small or large. Best quality jpeg is like a large print, can look very nice straight out of camera (or photolab). But if the print is small, there is no way to make it bigger without losing a lot, and if the colour is off, there is very little additional information left to make proper adjustments. The only difference is that one can make unlimited identical copies of the digital print, something that is not possible from an actual print. I find this the easiest way to explain the difference to people who are not so familiar with digital.

 

And Angus, one key benefit of raw is that you can export uncompressed tiff file (and in high bit-depth as well) without suffering the huge file size penalty in the field. If raw is used just to make jpegs it still has benefits but much less than what is possible. Raw file is not that much bigger than the best jpeg and much smaller than 8 bit tiff in camera.

[angus_wong2]

I found that my "old" digital camera (Canon Powershot G2) supports RAW format! I didn't know what that was before.

 

And looks like Aperture supports the G2!

 

http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/

 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/cameras.html

[angus_wong2]

Oops. Maybe it doesn't. I didn't see the 'RAW' label next to 'G2.'

 

Oh well, I think Photoshop CS2 supports the G2 via the Camera Raw plug-in; need to look into this stuff...

[jon_noble]

The cameras may have a small processor but remember it isnt running anywhere near the same amount of tasks at the same time like a PC