Another RAW/JPEG LR/Elements question

[davek]

Hi fellow togs,

Still having loads of fun with LR3.

With a very slight reference to my last question on RAW/JPEGs:

Can anyone tell me what I can do with RAW that I can't do with JPEG?

eg I can open my D90 files in LR or Elements 6 (using Camera RAW 5.6) in both formats. I can adjust/revert etc with both formats. I can change the white balance/exposure on both (usually stated as the main reason for using RAW). I can save multiple versions of each and save the original. Indeed, I can't find anything different in using the formats (except there are are some preset WB options if you use a RAW file but you can manually dial these in on the JPEG anyway).

And I can't see any difference in the quality if I use the same settings in LR/Camera RAW on each format.

So, tell me please, what can't I do with a JPEG that I can do with RAW? Am I missing something obvious?

Ta!

 

[Gazamonk]

The most important thing is that when the camera Processes the jpeg in camera it ditches huge amounts of the images data/pixelsif you will by using interpolation algorithms. In laymans terms it dumps loads of the photo. You will notice this most when you try to make a print of any decent size. The raw file dumps nothing its a digital negative and retains all data. Just zoom in to areas of shadow in a jpeg then do the same in a raw, the jpegs image integrity breaks down very quickly and looks grainy/noisy. Things like sharpening a slightly soft image are very difficult with any degree of success on a pp'd jpeg. Try the same with all the raw data available and you will immediately see the benefit. Exposure latitude is much greater in a raw pic if the shot you want to keep is over or under exposed. Jpegs are stored as 8bit files Raw as 12 or more often now 14 bit so the amount of colours and subtle tones they hold is massively different.

If you dont notice any difference then keep using your jpegs if you are happy with the results. If you want total control of your finished image and plan on printing or displaying anything other than postcard sized images then raw is the way to go. Inevitably the choice is down to your own criteria and taste.

Just as a footnote to this, I did an important paid shoot a couple of years back and shot all the indoor shots at ISO 1000 by mistake, i felt physically ill I can tell you. Fortunately I shoot everything in RAW and with a fair bit of deft coaxing and tweaking I was able to salvage 90% of the shots. I know for a fact that if they had been in jpeg format I would have been shafted good and proper.

 

[swanseamale47]

A correctly exposed raw will have more shadow and highlight detail that can be brought out, more white balance options (you'll probaly only have 3 with jpeg) and depending on how you shot 12 or 14 bits of data (8 for the jpeg) thats a lot on information being throw away by the camera with a jpeg.
A jpeg has the whiite balance "baked in" a raw shot has all the choices you had in camera, a jpeg also has had sharpening applied, with a raw shot you can use masking to avoid sharpening any noise.

 

[awp]

Look at the difference in file size between a jpeg an a raw - the raw is much larger - for a very good reason!