JPEG v RAW - any difference?

[redhed17]

So the RAW file and the JPEG file both had the same settings applied to them - and produced identical results.

If you are not going to make any changes to the RAW file than what the camera would have done, then of course they will look the same. :bang:

It is when you want to make changes that the RAW format comes into its own, and your ability to edit of course. If you don't like editing, and don't wish to learn how to edit a RAW file, then stick to Jpegs out of the camera if you're happy.

As an example, here is a pic I took at a friends gig (oh my god 5 years ago ). Now I'm not saying it's a great pic, but the subject was happy with it, and for that picture that's all that matters. But this is to show how much more information is in the RAW file which may be recoverable.

This is the Jpeg out of the camera.

And here is an edited Jpeg from the RAW file.

Now I was stunned when I saw how much detail was in the background which just isn't there in the Jpeg. And this was with CS1 and whatever version of ACR was about then. The technology has moved on and I may be able to get a better version if I tried now. :shrug:

 

[petersmart]

Where in my post have i said one format is better than another where in my post have i said you should be able to tell the difference

All this post proves is the OP can process a RAW file to look the same as in -camera processed raw file.......

Totally pointless.............

It's certainly not pointless if I can extend the range of my photographic techniques and gain a few advantages by using JPEG rather than RAW - and I can.

As I hace already stated elsewhere the advantages are:

1. Smaller file sizes so less space needed to back them up and no need to waste money on more memory cards - on a 16Gb card with RAW I can only fit on 869 pics at 1600 ISO - with JPEGs I can fit 2615 pics on - more than 3 times with a subsequent money saving.

2. I can take 20-30 continuous shots with JPEG but only about 5 with RAW - and this has already come in handy.

And since I can produce pictures from JPEGs which are identical to the pics I can produce from RAW - as far as I'm concerned - every one's a winner!

.

 

[Lynton]

hmmm, if you have the camera set to JPEG and RAW - you press the button once and the camera saves 2 files.

1 JPEG where the camera makes its "best guess" at what should be good. Reasonable in several situations, more so with the snapper as opposed to the photographer.....(By that I mean my mum has a point and shoot, and a picture is a memory etc etc.... I class myself as a photographer, and at times the camera's best guess is not good enough.

therefore

2) RAW file as in lots of 1's an 0's which a clever / silly algorithm has not altered but gives me greater flexibility to do so in PP editing.


I really don't get the original post in that yuo have recreated the effects of a JPEG from the RAW format - well done.....

and then posted a completely different jpeg of the petrol station, whereby the clouds are not blown...........

 

[petersmart]

hmmm, if you have the camera set to JPEG and RAW - you press the button once and the camera saves 2 files.

1 JPEG where the camera makes its "best guess" at what should be good. Reasonable in several situations, more so with the snapper as opposed to the photographer.....(By that I mean my mum has a point and shoot, and a picture is a memory etc etc.... I class myself as a photographer, and at times the camera's best guess is not good enough.

I don't know why some people talk about a "best guess" - no camera can "guess".

therefore

2) RAW file as in lots of 1's an 0's which a clever / silly algorithm has not altered but gives me greater flexibility to do so in PP editing.


I really don't get the original post in that yuo have recreated the effects of a JPEG from the RAW format - well done.....

and then posted a completely different jpeg of the petrol station, whereby the clouds are not blown...........

It was NOT a different JPEG it was the same JPEG simply darkened to show another poster that the JPEG had more detail than could be seen in the original.

And if you think that you can't process JPEGs to give excellent images just check my Flickr site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/

Where all the images in the last 6 months have been taken in JPEG.

.

 

[BandyQuill]

why is this thread worthy, you preffer jpeg because its easier for you, others preffer RAW because it works better for them with how they process... easy as that... *yawns* this seems to be turning into a bit of a 'my pictures are better than yours because i shoot in RAW'

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

:bang::bang::bang::bang:

It's certainly not pointless if I can extend the range of my photographic techniques and gain a few advantages by using JPEG rather than RAW - and I can.

As I hace already stated elsewhere the advantages are:

1. Smaller file sizes so less space needed to back them up and no need to waste money on more memory cards - on a 16Gb card with RAW I can only fit on 869 pics at 1600 ISO - with JPEGs I can fit 2615 pics on - more than 3 times with a subsequent money saving.

2. I can take 20-30 continuous shots with JPEG but only about 5 with RAW - and this has already come in handy.

And since I can produce pictures from JPEGs which are identical to the pics I can produce from RAW - as far as I'm concerned - every one's a winner!

.

:bang::bang: you obviously miss the point...........

And since I can produce pictures from JPEGs which are identical to the pics I can produce from RAW - as far as I'm concerned - every one's a winner!

One of the ideas of raw is to allow the editor to manipulate the image and make decisions that influence how the final image will look - not to match the camera's output......that just defeats the object.

Speed - fair point and one of the reasons I'll shoot jpg if using burst mode,

Number of images stored on a card - :Bink: come on - buy another if you need more storage or try thinking about what you are shooting a little more.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

And if you think that you can't process JPEGs to give excellent images just check my Flickr site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/

Where all the images in the last 6 months have been taken in JPEG.

.

Again your point is

checkout my flickr where all my shots are taken in raw.

it proves nothing - raw is better for some people - Jpeg for others its the same as in film days some people sent there negs away to be developed, some people developed at home where they had control over the finished output.

posting 2 images in a thread both processed with the SAME settings and saying they both look the same is pointless !

 

[john-oh]

Oh for Gawds sake...

If you are happy using JPGs then use them,
If you prefer RAW then use that.

This is obviously not a 'information' or even discussion thread, it's just a 'my methods better than yours' :razz:

Pathetic.

 

[BandyQuill]

 

[redhed17]

I don't know why some people talk about a "best guess" - no camera can "guess".

No the camera doesn't 'guess' it has a set of algorithms which it applies to every image, regardless of content. Your brain (sorry, a brain) edits the RAW file to get the best out of it, it may not take the fraction of a second the camera spends on the image, but hopefully you would end up with a better image should you decide the camera hasn't made the best of it. If you're happy with what comes out the camera then stick to Jpeg.

I showed an example of what can be done with the extra information in a RAW file but it seems to be ignored, suffice to say you would have got pic 1 in the same situation and been happy with it, because that is what came straight out of the camera. If not then you would only have the Jpeg to work with with the limited amount of data, and so options, as has been pointed out.

As I said in the other thread, if someone has decided that they are for or against Jpeg or RAW capture they probably won't change their mind. As long as you're happy, who cares. :shrug:

 

[petersmart]

Oh for Gawds sake...

If you are happy using JPGs then use them,
If you prefer RAW then use that.

This is obviously not a 'information' or even discussion thread, it's just a 'my methods better than yours' :razz:

Pathetic.

No what I'm trying to show those that are really interested is simple - that you don't have to follow the "accepted" methods blindly - that only by experimenting and listening to other points of view can your photography improve.

 

[hollis_f]

The images you've shown demonstrate nothing more than the fact that it is possible to process raw data to produce an image that is very similar to the jpeg straight from the camera. However, the true strength of raw is that it is often possible to produce an image that is better than the jpeg produced with the same settings.

As a test I shot a sundial using raw and jpeg. I deliberately used the wrong exposure settings and the wrong colour balance. Here's the jpeg straight from the camera -

As you can see, it's totally crap. Unusable. Fit for nowt but the bin. However, I did have the raw data to play with. And I came up with this -

Now, it's still got blown highlights, but at least the grass is the right colour and there's a lot more detail there.

 

[ShakyUK]

This 'a camera can't guess' thing is a little childish, the person saying the cameras best guess obviously means that by taking in information, the camera processes this information using on board software then creates a Jpeg. The person saying it's best guess is saying that because the cameras processing software may not produce the image you intended because the software will be filled with logic which is designed to produce a decent quality image, whereas the human mind wants an image to look a certain way.

I'm new to this but correct me if i'm wrong. A RAW file is the raw data the camera takes in before any processing is assigned. When you take a photo in JPEG mode, the camera takes the same RAW data, but instead of leaving it in the buffer to save in its entirety later (RAW format) it uses on board processing software to process the image, creating a JPEG and storing this JPEG in the buffer. By processing the image and make a JPEG file, which is actually just a form of data compression, data is lost. By producing a RAW file, the data to create a JPEG remains, but you also have excess data which you can manipulate to create an image.

I believe if you take a RAW file and a JPEG into photoshop, then photoshop (CS5 atleast) is programmed with processing options which match Canon, Nikon and Sony settings. Thus taking a RAW file into CS5 and taking a JPEG, then saving both as JPEGs would result in an almost identical image. But taking a JPEG and a RAW file into CS5 and editing them both would be much easier with the RAW format as there is more data to manipulate.

This if you do not want to be heavy on processing and want to take photos in rapid succession, you would shoot JPEG, as there is no discernable advantage over RAW.

If you want to be heavy on processing, don't mind reduced fps or would like the option to recover images easily, RAW format is for you. I think processed RAW images are also less noticeable when printed large as you're playing with the raw data rather than pixels.

Feel free to ignore me, chastise me or correct me. Its been a long day and so I cannot be bothered checking my spelling, apologies if there are typos.

 

[Lynton]

I don't know why some people talk about a "best guess" - no camera can "guess".



It was NOT a different JPEG it was the same JPEG simply darkened to show another poster that the JPEG had more detail than could be seen in the original.

And if you think that you can't process JPEGs to give excellent images just check my Flickr site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/

Where all the images in the last 6 months have been taken in JPEG.

.

Whoa - are you looking for a pedants award or what?

OK - guess is the wrong word, but the camera sees your lovely bumblebee or flower petal as a load of 1 and 0's and then using clever software / algorithms etc etc... makes an attempt at what it "thinks" (Yes, its silicon, plastic and all other things and is not capable of real thought) it should produce and voila - 999/1000 times it;s there or thereabouts.........


As you insist on being a pedant about the whole thing........... it is actually a different JPEG as a different file was saved (albeit from the same original image.) Either way, it's not really that exciting a picture compared to bumblebees et al.......

Um, just where DID I say that you cannot process JPG's to get excellent images?

Oh no I didn't did I?

What I will say, is that RAW will give you increased ability to manipulate / recover / alter over JPEG as the cameras process of creating a JPG dtrips data from the original file............


Personally, I couldn't care less if people use JPEGS, RAWS, etch a sketches, or use whatever in processing them...........it's the end result that counts........

 

[Almost_Invisible]

Having DPP use the exact settings as the in camera processing is much the same as shooting in manual and always making sure the exposure indicator is centred. You have effectively used a method capable of allowing more interpretation to do what the camera actually thought was right.
Until my camera has the processing power that my multiple core, large memory computer running Lightroom/CS5 has I will shoot RAW for times when I want to apply my own interpretation. For when I want to shoot multiple repetitive shots I will set the camera up to begin with and then shoot JPG.

 

[stumac]

No - they actually look the same on here - I don't bother viewing pictures on the camera screen - I use that for the histograms and the "blinkies".

.

i can see what they look like on here,im just saying they probably looked the same on screen regardless of weather you looked or not.im just trying to simplify what is now an out of contol thread.
if you want to take a pic and do very little with it then shoot jpeg if not shoot raw.simple

 

[AB22 Easy Tiger]

Is there any discernible difference between shooting in RAW or shooting in JPEG?

I used to shoot in RAW because I accepted the (almost) universal view that RAW was betterthan JPEG.

Until I checked it out - and found that, for me, there was no discernible difference.

There is a great deal of debate on here about the pros and cons of RAW v JPEG - But until now I have seen no comparisons between the two.

So here is a comparison.

For this test I set my 450D to produce both RAW and JPEG (large) from a single shot - so there can be no arguments that the two files were produced a few seconds apart.

These files were produced following the same techniques I use for processing both RAW and JPEGs.

From DPP they were converted to 16 bit TIFF files then using my editing program they were reduced in size to 800px on the long size and saved as a JPEG file at just under 200Kb to fit on here.

Nothing else was done - these files are just as they come from the camera without any other editing:



One is RAW and one is JPEG - but which is which?

I have more to show.

.

So one is processed and one isn't, so which should look better?

By the way, they look very different to me. As I'd expect.

 

[petersmart]

The images you've shown demonstrate nothing more than the fact that it is possible to process raw data to produce an image that is very similar to the jpeg straight from the camera. However, the true strength of raw is that it is often possible to produce an image that is better than the jpeg produced with the same settings.

As a test I shot a sundial using raw and jpeg. I deliberately used the wrong exposure settings and the wrong colour balance. Here's the jpeg straight from the camera -

As you can see, it's totally crap. Unusable. Fit for nowt but the bin. However, I did have the raw data to play with. And I came up with this -

Now, it's still got blown highlights, but at least the grass is the right colour and there's a lot more detail there.

But I don't take pics like that - that is why I use histograms and "blinkies".

 

[petersmart]

So one is processed and one isn't, so which should look better?

By the way, they look very different to me. As I'd expect.

They are both processed as I explained in the beginning.

And if they look very different to you....

And once converted to TIFFs (to preserve the original JPEG) you CAN process them exactly as you would a RAW file converted in the same way.

In other words JPEGs can be edited, sharpened, "De-noised" and altered in virtually any way you want.

And a great deal of data can be recovered in exactly the same way as RAW files in exactly the same way as I did by simply darkening the JPEG file of the petrol station to reveal the clouds.

.

 

[BandyQuill]

But I don't take pics like that - that is why I use histograms and "blinkies".

everyone takes some photos like that at some point XD

 

[stumac]

is this thread about you making a point?its just you started it with a question?but every answer you dont seem to agree with.it looks like you have answered your own question from the begining.jpegs are better for you it seems,but i think your on your own.

 

[petersmart]

is this thread about you making a point?its just you started it with a question?but every answer you dont seem to agree with.it looks like you have answered your own question from the begining.jpegs are better for you it seems,but i think your on your own.

A great many people ask about JPEGs from their camera but usually get told that RAW is better etc.

I'm just trying to show those people that, properly used, JPEGs have a number of advantages over RAW.

I used to use RAW myself until I did a proper test and discovered that JPEGs are virtually as good as RAW.

.

 

[redhed17]

And once converted to TIFFs (to preserve the original JPEG) you CAN process them exactly as you would a RAW file converted in the same way.

Are you talking about converting a Jpeg to a Tiff and processing a RAW file to a Tiff and editing?, Or are comparing the editing Tiff (from a Jpeg) and a RAW file?

Once you start editing the Jpeg, whether converted to TIFF or not, you are risking degrading the image if the changes are too great. Correcting a WB problem for example, with a Jpeg or Tiff you are changing the actual pixels, if you do it to a RAW file you are just saying what colours the pixels should be.

In other words JPEGs can be edited, sharpened, "De-noised" and altered in virtually any way you want..

Nobody is saying they can't be edited, just that they can't be edited to the same degree. With a Jpeg out of the camera for example, it has already been sharpened, sharpening again may cause unwanted artefacts like haloing. The WB is set. (see above)

And a great deal of data can be recovered in exactly the same way as RAW files in exactly the same way as I did by simply darkening the JPEG file of the petrol station to reveal the clouds.

A lot of data can be recovered from a Jpeg which may not be quite perfect out of the camera (not that you have any by the sounds of it) but not as much information is there as in a RAW file to edit (the Jpeg is a compressed image from a RAW file remember ). I think the difference is between hundreds and thousands of degrees of tone and colour.

I know I should walk away from this thread but I'm bored and can't let things pass.

 

[ShakyUK]

I'm just trying to show those people that, properly used, JPEGs have a number of advantages over RAW.

I don't think you've shown Jpeg's are better than RAW, I think you've just shown that you love Jpegs and that you think Raw has no use. You also said:

In other words JPEGs can be edited, sharpened, "De-noised" and altered in virtually any way you want.

And a great deal of data can be recovered in exactly the same way as RAW files in exactly the same way as I did by simply darkening the JPEG file of the petrol station to reveal the clouds.

Which I don't think is technically true, I believe the camera throws away data when processing the RAW file, the data left made the jpeg which is a form of data compression. Thus the files are smaller.

I don't see how you can get this data back and thus have the same ability to edit photos? My post will probably be ignored and you'll say again how jpegs can do everything and have lots of advantages but I'll be stupid and waste my time posting anyway.

 

[hollis_f]

And once converted to TIFFs (to preserve the original JPEG) you CAN process them exactly as you would a RAW file converted in the same way.

No! You cannot process them the same way. If you want to prove me wrong then take the jpeg image of my sundial and process it to look like the image from the raw data. You can't.

 

[hollis_f]

If you want to be heavy on processing, don't mind reduced fps

For Canon cameras, at least, the fps is exactly the same regardless of raw or jpeg.

 

[ShakyUK]

I know I should walk away from this thread but I'm bored and can't let things pass.

Ha. Welcome to the club!

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

This thread needs a BullS*** warning............

 

[ShakyUK]

For Canon cameras, at least, the fps is exactly the same regardless of raw or jpeg.

Apologies, I meant the number of images you could take before the buffer is full.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Well done Petersmart, Raw is too much of the "I-know-better-than-you-camp" on here!

 

[petersmart]

Are you talking about converting a Jpeg to a Tiff and processing a RAW file to a Tiff and editing?, Or are comparing the editing Tiff (from a Jpeg) and a RAW file?

Once you start editing the Jpeg, whether converted to TIFF or not, you are risking degrading the image if the changes are too great. Correcting a WB problem for example, with a Jpeg or Tiff you are changing the actual pixels, if you do it to a RAW file you are just saying what colours the pixels should be.

But you can't edit a RAW file - they also have to be converted to another filetype (TIFF or JPEG) before editing.

So the same restrictions apply.

.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

But you can't edit a RAW file - they also have to be converted to another filetype (TIFF or JPEG) before editing.

So the same restrictions apply.

.

You really dont have a clue do you...............

 

[petersmart]

Well done Petersmart, Raw is too much of the "I-know-better-than-you-camp" on here!

Well thank you -

.

 

[Marc]

Let's keep it civil shall we folks.

 

[BandyQuill]

can we have this thread closed before it gets there?

 

[petersmart]

You really dont have a clue do you...............

Are you trying to say that a RAW file CAN be edited AS A RAW file?

.

 

[Marc]

Are you trying to say that a RAW file CAN be edited AS A RAW file?

.

Actually Peter, it can. You don't need to convert it to anything else first.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Let's keep it civil shall we folks.

Sorry, but one thought one has!

 

[me15]

This is quite possibly the funniest thread I have ever seen. It's a bit like saying why bother having an oven and cook when you can live on Tesco ready meals.

:bonk:

 

[petersmart]

Actually Peter, it can. You don't need to convert it to anything else first.

As far as I'm aware all the programs which edit RAW use an intermediate file.

If that IS so can you save the edited RAW as a RAW file ?

.