Jpeg and RAW

ruthwebb

ruthwebb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
319
Name
ruth
Edit My Images
No
Hi all. I was wondering what the different was between shooting Jpeg and shooting RAW. I have googled it but I don't really understand the answers that were given. I am nearly a student so it was a bit complicated when explained on google. Any help would be brilliant.

Thanks in advance
 
Hello Ruth :) I used to shoot always in jpeg before I wanted to start shooting properly. Now I shoot everything in raw.
The most important difference is when your editing you image. With a jpeg every alteration you make degrades the image just a little but in time you will notice, when you edit a raw file the image quality stays the same all the way up until the point when you have to convert it to jpeg (tiff ++++) I hope that makes sense it took me a little while to grasp but if you edit your photos raw is better.

Mark
 
Him mark. Thanks for the lovely reply. If I shoot in RAW and a client wants to buy a disc full of images, will they still be able to print them off in jessops, tesco and asda etc or will I have to convert them before I put them into disc xxx
 
I would imagine you would have to convert them first but as I havent used them I could be wrong :(
 
Raw will help you get the best from your images in pp (photoshop
, Gimp) or whatever software your using. The better you can edit your images the better it will look for the client.
 
markyboy isn't quite correct. A jpeg only deteriorates at the saving stage as the compression algorithm does it's work to reduce the size of the file. You can open and resave a jpeg a few times before the degradation becomes apparent.

Apart from that the biggest difference between a raw file and a jpeg is that the raw file isn't actually an image, but is the raw data as captured by the sensor. As such it needs to be processed to turn it in to an image. A jpeg is a raw file that has been processed by the camera. So why do people shoot raw? Principally because jpegs are only 8-bit files, whereas a raw file is typically 14-bit and, as such, contains a lot more data.

What this means in the real world is that a raw file can be manipulated to a greater extent than a jpeg because it contains more data to play with. It also means that the photographer is in control of how the image is processed before converting it to a jpeg, tiff or whatever, rather than leaving it to be done by the camera.

I wouldn't think that anywhere like Jessops will be able to make prints from a raw file as they vary considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer, and even from camera model to camera model. For printing, the raw file will need to be converted to an image file such as jpeg or tiff which can then be used to produce prints.
 
When the camera first takes a picture it has the raw data to begin with. Then it does all that stuff to the raw data which can cause clipping, and then it throws loads of detail away in reduction to 8 bit files and JPEG compression. The raw data then gets discarded by the camera, and you are left fudged, with possibly blown highlights and limited scope to make adjustments.

If you shoot to raw then you can freely make many adjustments to the data before conversion to the final JPEG, thus making sure that nothing you do forces any pixels into clipping (if they weren't clipped at the time of capture). Even if there was some clipping in one or two channels, good raw software can make an educated guess about what the data might have looked like, if it only has to "mend" one channel, or perhaps two. You also have a lot more data to play with, giving finer tonal gradation and less risk of posterisation when pulling and pushing data. JPEG is fine if you can shoot perfectly in camera, but if you want to retain freedom to fix up some problems, or simply squeeze the maximum IQ from your camera, raw is the way to go.

Shooting raw is not about "taking photographs". It is about "capturing data". The idea is to capture as much data as possible, which means applying a different approach to setting exposures, specifically exposing to the right. You will make the photograph later, in your own good time, and not accept whatever conversion the camera spews out based on the settings you had at the time. If you prefer, shooting to JPEG is like having a baked cake. You can't unbake it. Shooting raw is like assemblling all the ingredients from which to make the cake. You then do the baking later on. If you don't like the results you can go back to the ingredients and try again. From a post by ttodd.

Basically you convert your raw files to jpegs, but you decide how to develop your image rather than the camera. If the jpeg is processed within the camera, you have less scope on how the final image looks.
 
When you we used to shoot with a film camera we got a roll of film shot some photos & the roll of film was developed & you had photos & you got your negatives back as well.
Shooting raw files they are like your negatives which you can develop over & over.:thumbs:
 
All images start as Raw, but they're just data and need to be converted to a viewable image, ie JPEG, before you can do anything with them. You can either have the camera convert them automatically, according to the picture styles and other presets you've applied, or do that yourself manually with software on a PC, and produce a custom JPEG that way.

In practical terms, a JPEG from the camera is finished and ready to use. You don't need a computer at all. But if you are going through a PC anyway, then it makes sense to work from the Raw file (basically 'uncooked') because all the data is there and it's totally fluid, so you can do anything you like with it.

You can also post-process and modify a JPEG, and still change it quite a lot, but the Raw has more scope.
 
jockwav said:
When you we used to shoot with a film camera we got a roll of film shot some photos & the roll of film was developed & you had photos & you got your negatives back as well.
Shooting raw files they are like your negatives which you can develop over & over.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

This is a great way of putting it!! before i shot RAW a film photographer told me he didnt mind spending time developing his shots and i should be doing the same with mine via a RAW file
 
Last edited:
markyboy1 said:
Hello Ruth :) With a jpeg every alteration you make degrades the image just a little but in time you will notice, when you edit a raw file the image quality stays the same all the way up until the point when you have to convert it to jpeg (tiff ++++)
Click to expand...

Be careful with that... if the image is under, or over exposed, then it's already degraded. I know most on here know this already, but just a word of warning to the beginner.. while on causal inspection it appears that you CAN correct poor exposure, the image quality will be compromised as a result. By how much depends on how much you over or under expose it by.
 
I agree with the raw/negative analogy - look at a jpg straight out of the camera as a "print" (it's been "optimised" in the camera), and the raw file as the negative, which can be processed to give all sorts of different results. If you're a "social photographer" churning out hundreds of shots at a go, it can be pragmatic to use the camera facility to shoot raw and jpg - then go through the jpgs - if they're satisfactory, they are your "result", if you've got something like blown highlights, then work on the raw files to get them back, and replace the camera-made jpgs with the optimised ones.
As a photographer who did most of his work with film, I tend to view the idea of spending hours faffing with the files as a total pain (I'm used to throwing a pile of films at my processor, and picking up the finished results a week later...), and find that a lot of work nowadays is "over-photoshopped" - frame it right, get the exposure right, and faff with the results as little as possible.........
 
Apologies for my inexperienced advice
 
Last edited:
Eh mark don't put yourself down. Least you took the time to reply. Alot don't bother with the 'student' type if photographer. Thank you for your advice. I was very helpful x
 
in RAW you can also change things like white balance after the event (say if you had the camera set to shade and you were under tungsten lighting) which you cannot do easily in jpeg.

RAW is generally the better option if you need to process your image to any degree but if you are just doing snapshots then jpeg should be ok as you probably wont need to change them too much.
That's my take on it anyway:)


Just a thought - if you set jpeg quality to 100% when you save - do they still degrade over multiple saves? I think the standard setting is about 80% but I always up it to 100%
 
Last edited:
JulesP said:
Just a thought - if you set jpeg quality to 100% when you save - do they still degrade over multiple saves? I think the standard setting is about 80% but I always up it to 100%
Click to expand...

Yes - it still degrades - it's just a slower process. I seem to remember reading somewhere that with the "best" JPEG settings the image degredation starts to be noticable at around the 13th generation.
 
The way I think about the difference between RAW and the image formats like JPEG and TIFF is a bit like cooking food - I likes food :)

The RAW file contains the basic ingredients for a meal. The camera settings at the time of image capture (white balance, sharpness, picture style etc.) are the recipe. You take a picture and the camera puts the ingredients through the recipe an hey ho you have a JPEG cake.

All well and good - but what if the recipe was a bit off (i.e. a setting) - you can't take the flour out of the baked cake and start again if it didn't rise properly. Similarly if the recipe was for a stew that turned out too salty you can't take the salt out - you might be able to add other ingredients to compensate (i.e. post processing) but it's unlikely that the stew will taste as good as if you got the salt right in the first place.

So JPEG is the finished food - cooked by the camera in the way it wants. A RAW file stores the original ingredients and the recipe separately so that you can always go back and start cooking from scratch if you want to improve on the taste.

I'm now off to cook my lunch cos I'm starving after that :)
 
ruthwebb said:
Eh mark don't put yourself down. Least you took the time to reply. Alot don't bother with the 'student' type if photographer. Thank you for your advice. I was very helpful x
Click to expand...

Thanks Ruth :thumbs: x
 
Krisstiffer said:
So JPEG is the finished food - cooked by the camera in the way it wants. A RAW file stores the original ingredients and the recipe separately so that you can always go back and start cooking from scratch if you want to improve on the taste.
Click to expand...

That is actually taking it too far. While you can make changes with less degradation than a JPEG you cannot completely change all the ingredients of the shot. You are still working off of the same exposure at the time.

Too much salt could be say blown highlights. You can't always get that salt back out...
 
True - but blown highlights would be intrinsic to the original sensor data i.e. you're cooking with poor ingredients. Getting the exposure right would be the equivalent of going to a good butcher for the meat............ :)
 
I think you are now trying to push the analogy too far :)
 
I'm getting hungry now with all this talk of food:lol:
 
Toss me a burger quick.:p:lol::D
 
I shoot my day to day shots in jpeg normally, sometimes in both jpeg and raw and in raw for any commissioned jobs or really important shots. TBH the engineers at Canon are more likely to know how to get a great quality image out of the camera than I am with photoshop. I've got my cameras set up to create the image I want and 95 times out of 100 I'm happy with the jpeg results it produces. If I'm doing any PP on my jpegs I generally only have to save them once or twice at the most, I've never had to save one more than that, and never 13 times or more.

I don't really make that many changes to my raw files either, maybe a levels adjustment, contrast and then a bit of sharpening is usually my recipe, unless I've made a botch job on the white balance or exposure which isn't that often,
 
markyboy1 said:
I used to shoot always in jpeg before I wanted to start shooting properly. Now I shoot everything in raw.
Click to expand...

I still shoot in jpeg most of the time :(
 
What about. Raw and Tiff ..????

If you shoot in RAW, open your photo, edit and save. Is this good enough when you convert it to a maximum jpeg file, for burning onto a disc then giving it to a client to print ?

Or you shoot in raw, open your photo, edit and save as a Tiff. Then convert it to a maximum jpeg file and burn to a disc for print ??


Any thoughts on how to properly save your finished edited photos before burning them to a disc for a client to print a high quality photo??

Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated. I find myself lost and stressed out
 
You've already asked this on another thread and had some good answers. :thinking:

Besides, if you don't know how to save and export images, I'd be worried if you had any clients to send them to yet.
 
TCR4x4 said:
You've already asked this on another thread and had some good answers. :thinking:

Besides, if you don't know how to save and export images, I'd be worried if you had any clients to send them to yet.
Click to expand...

Yes and great advice it is
I just want to be sure I understand everything before actually starting this
A few people seem to go about it in different ways. And where I don't know anything about this really. I want to be sure. And don't want to ruin any photos
 
As long as you keep the original RAW and never delete it, you can't ruin anything. I'll post my workflow in your other thread.
 
I tried RAW...... too much fussing too much space.

Shoot everything in Jpeg now. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
 
If you use iPhoto (on Mac) to store and edit photos then using raw really isn't time consuming at all. The images transfer to iPhoto in same way whether jpeg or raw and editing them is exactly the same. A raw file doesn't need as much editing as a lot of people may assume but the editing that is done gives better results.

Obviously if you are looking to take image straight from camera and use it then raw is a no-no but I usually end up tweaking my jpegs anyway so end up with same amount of 'work' with either.
 
ernesto said:
If you use iPhoto (on Mac) to store and edit photos then using raw really isn't time consuming at all. The images transfer to iPhoto in same way whether jpeg or raw and editing them is exactly the same. A raw file doesn't need as much editing as a lot of people may assume but the editing that is done gives better results.

Obviously if you are looking to take image straight from camera and use it then raw is a no-no but I usually end up tweaking my jpegs anyway so end up with same amount of 'work' with either.
Click to expand...

Alright, yes I do use mac
Thanks
 
phil8139 said:
I tried RAW...... too much fussing too much space.

Shoot everything in Jpeg now. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Click to expand...

What are you using to measure the WB? Do you use a colorimeter or are you just guessing?
 
I also tried Photoshop cs5, too much for my needs. sometimes the simple things are just that - simple.

As for your question, white balance is set in camera for the scene/lighting. Most times auto wb unless im doing indoor sports, then I use a custom setting. Or preset if using my studio lights.

I think some people can over complicate their answers to posts, and although not intentional, they may not have an understanding of who is asking the questions or why. Ruth is struggling in a few aspects of her photography, and it seems (to me) that she is looking for answers to problems that really don't exist. She is a capable photographer but has lost a little confidence or looking to fast track over mastering some of the basics.

Raw has a place, on that I fully agree, but it's not imperative in getting good images out of the camera. Some of it depends on what the photographer wants to do with the final image, but for me, it's not worth the extra work / space it takes up. As for the loss in image quality in saving Jpeg's over and over, I would love to see some examples. I have gone back to some of mine time and time again, still printable / viewable.

Phil.
 
Fair enough.
 
I will agree with you there Phil. I just want to feel a big more confident and to find out about my camera a bit more x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top