Raw and jpeg

What a lot of people do not realise is that we always shoot in RAW.
When we say, should we shoot raw or Jpg? we are saying how we want that data from our sensors saved and processed.

Saving as a Jpeg involves the firmware applying all the settings from the camera to that data Processing it into a compressed form and discarding all the data that had been captured but not used.

Cameras that allow Raw capture and saving, Include all that captured data in the saved raw file. They also record all the camera settings that were used as additional data, and process a small sized Jpeg that is saved and attached to the data as a means of displaying the image when reviewing or as thumbnails.

There is a third alternative in some cameras ( including FUJI) That allow you to capture the Raw file, But allow you to process the file at a later time, in camera, make adjustment as to colour balance contrast, exposure, sharpness etc. and save the result as an additional Jpeg.
This is doing much the same processing as one might do later on a PC. But as always the raw file remains intact and unaltered.

Raw files can not be seen as images in their native form They always require processing into something else to be seen. This is their strength, as that Raw file is never altered. all the data that was captured by the camera is saved as taken. Raw processors use that data to create a new additional file when saving as a Tiff or Jpg.

Most cameras today Let you save both the RAW + JPG. it automatically processes the captured raw and saves two files. The first is the raw and the second is the processed Jpeg.
Unlike the Third alternative above, this processing is predetermined by the camera's firmware and can not be adjusted before saving. The Jpg that is saved, is identical to the First example.

When we say raw files are un-processed and contain all the data. This is not actually quite true as some necessary processing does go on. But it is determined by the manufacturer to create a usable data structure. but from the users point of view, it is the base data.
 
Here's my explanation of raw and jpeg that is in 'no way' sexist or patronising.

Emma, think of a JPEG as a cake and the RAW as the ingredients. You could buy a finished cake in Tesco. Or you could buy all the ingredients separately and make the cake yourself.

Hmm. A bit OTT there. But nobody on this thread are the type to misunderstand things. Surely.
 
Last edited:
So as not to confuse the Raw Jpg issue, I did not mention any thing about the camera specific Raw files
Each camera maker has their own Raw format that can not be read by any other. These include dng, raf, crw, and nef and many others.
Every time a new camera comes out it has its own flavour of raw file. and it is usually some time before all the available raw processors can read and understand it.

Of that list .dng is a proprietary raw format devised by Adobe. It is an open system available to any camera maker, but few take advantage of it.

However Adobe also provide a free .dng converter, That can encapsulate any raw file as a Digital negative.
these in turn can be opened, altered to taste and saved as a tiff or jpg in any editing software.
As the dng is a raw file, it remains unchanged itself but creates a side car file, that contains the instructions an how the new saved tiff file was produced) at any time the .dng file can be reopened and re-edited. At all times the original data is neither altered nor destroyed.

hopefully this is a method of ensuring that raw data can be saved indefinitely with out the ever present danger of camera specific raw files going obsolete.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:

TIF!

Maybe I should be shooting TIF then?
Click to expand...


Are you sure you really want to go there......Though some cameras can save directly to tiff.
I am not sure why you would want to use such a monster sized format in camera.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I know a few Pro Weddings togs who only use jpeg too, works for them :)

Dave
Click to expand...
See this I don't get.

One of the times you'd most definitely want to shoot raw!
 
I can understand sports and news togs shooting jpg, as they can send Jpegs direct to the clients and quickly select on their laptops. And use faster and longer bursts.
Where there is time to process and edit, it makes no sense professionally at all, as it will just trade off quality for time. Perhaps a quiet lazy life is what they want. It takes all sorts.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Get the WB right and the exposure too - what's not to like about shooting jpegs then ???

These are top Pros btw

But yes - I think its crazy too and I only shoot raw :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Because even the best get it wrong!

And it could be that golden shot that's unusable because they shot JPEG!
 
Do people use still cameras where you have to choose? Rather that save both?
 
I don't want mine to save both! Waste of space.
 
But pointless as I'd never use the jpegs!
 
If you require jpegs straight away then shoot jpeg. But if you want the best out of your shots the only way is to shoot RAW. You may get the WB right in camera but sometimes that creativity in PP makes a shot something really special.
 
ghoti said:
RAW files are not image files. They cannot be seen; they don't make sense in a "visual" format. They are the "raw" data captured by your sensor. In order to be viewable, they must be processed into an image file (like JPG).
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

RAW is as much an image format as a JPEG. If anything, they are closer to an image like BMP or TIFF than a JPEG is, as a RAW defines every pixel independently of one another (in much the same way as a monitor would, or the eye perceives it [not the brain]), rather than a JPEG where a pixel might be interpreted as a look-up table or adjustment to an adjacent pixel.
In fact, my windows 8 without drivers loaded will view RAW files, and recovery programs can extract the TIFF direct from the RAW.

In windows, the way in which the file is displayed on the screen is denoted by the extension of the file. Take a JPEG, rename it from a .jpg to .txt and it will display differently.
 
Last edited:
DBT85 said:
Getting a RAW to look as good as (and better) a jpg requires some software and a little knowledge of how to use that software. It's not overly complicated and there is lots of information available on YouTube for how to do it.
Click to expand...
Not strictly true.
Getting it to look better, might need tweaking in the editor if you are using RAW. But any RAW program worth its salt will take the settings set in camera which would have been used for creating the JPEG, and apply them as default to the image.

For example, if I take my image correctly in the camera, it would make no difference to me whether it was raw or jpeg, I could go to the RAW editor and click batch/convert and save, making my nice JPG file as if it had been straight from the camera.
If however, I had gotten the white balance wrong, I can change that with a drop-down menu in the RAW editor for RAWs, but not as easily for JPgs.
 
To Emma, if you bother to come back and read (and I don't blame you if you don't, not our best example of being friendly in this topic).

When starting out I think it depends a lot on what it is you want the images to be used for.
When I first got my DSLR, I spent the first few months shooting only in JPG. I was taking snaps and getting used to the camera.
I then went on holiday, and I shot in RAW and JPG. With hindsight, this was a waste. I filled up my cards much faster than I expected (luckily I was in America, where new cards were 'dirt cheap' in comparison to here).
However, I didn't do anything with the RAW files, they wasted space on the cards, slowed down writing (was a much slower camera then than the new ones around at the moment).
Now however, I shoot nothing but RAW, and this is not a waste. I usually edit most photographs in 16bit mode in PhotoShop, if nothing else, to add selective sharpening, which can recover more details from the RAW than I would from a JPEG (partially due to the lower BIT rate of the JPEGs and the compression, which reduces the sharpness in some cases). BUT, for most edits, I take 20 minutes at most (and I am not a quick editor). If the shot is good in the camera first, then you don't need to edit much.

I don't remember when exactly I made the change from JPEG to RAW, but it was as I was trying to recover details from birds that I did se an improvement in the ability to get more detail.

If you are NEVER going to do more than holiday snaps with your camera, then shoot JPG. Enjoy the snaps, taking the images, and recording for prosperity what you see.
If at some point you think you are going to want to take your pictures further, take a few in RAW+JPEG now, play a bit with the default program you got for viewing the RAWs, get a feel as to how much extra it can recover (try a dark suit, or a white dress, and pull down/push up the brightness, see the extra detail that wouldn't be seen otherwise).
But most of all, don't get hung up on NEEDING to shoot one or the other right now. Enjoy taking some photos first.
 
coldpenguin said:
For example, if I take my image correctly in the camera, it would make no difference to me whether it was raw or jpeg, I could go to the RAW editor and click batch/convert and save, making my nice JPG file as if it had been straight from the camera.
Click to expand...

I believe you can never get it 100% right in camera. The dynamic range of the camera doesnt allow it. if you need to open up shadows or lower highlights like 90% of landscapes required. A jpg just wont cut it.

This whole argument boils down to what is your specific need? Need fast shots to send somewhere. Shoot jpg. If you have time and want the best out of an image shoot raw.
 
coldpenguin said:
Not strictly true.
Getting it to look better, might need tweaking in the editor if you are using RAW. But any RAW program worth its salt will take the settings set in camera which would have been used for creating the JPEG, and apply them as default to the image.

For example, if I take my image correctly in the camera, it would make no difference to me whether it was raw or jpeg, I could go to the RAW editor and click batch/convert and save, making my nice JPG file as if it had been straight from the camera.
If however, I had gotten the white balance wrong, I can change that with a drop-down menu in the RAW editor for RAWs, but not as easily for JPgs.
Click to expand...
No in camera settings are applied to a raw file.
 
I think Emma is gone folks.
 
coldpenguin said:
Rubbish.

RAW is as much an image format as a JPEG. If anything, they are closer to an image like BMP or TIFF than a JPEG is, as a RAW defines every pixel independently of one another (in much the same way as a monitor would, or the eye perceives it [not the brain]), rather than a JPEG where a pixel might be interpreted as a look-up table or adjustment to an adjacent pixel.
In fact, my windows 8 without drivers loaded will view RAW files, and recovery programs can extract the TIFF direct from the RAW.

In windows, the way in which the file is displayed on the screen is denoted by the extension of the file. Take a JPEG, rename it from a .jpg to .txt and it will display differently.
Click to expand...




Of course Raw files contain raw image data, and in most cases they also contain a ready processed but reduced sized jpg to simplify viewing in camera or on a computer screen. (they do not contain a tiff) However if you have the correct Codex for your particular raw file on your computer, it can process the raw data into a viewable bit map form.

For this reason people often say I can not see my new camera's raw files on my computer. This is because they do not have the right codex for it. And will need to upload it.

There is a little program called "instant jpeg from raw" which lets you extract the encapsulated Jpeg from with in raw files, they are a reduced size but very useful. http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Most camera graphic files are in the form of Rasterized Bit map images in the form of Jpg Tiff Gif or many of the other industry standard formats. These can be viewed directly on computers, with out further processing.

Unfortunately raw files are not standardised and each camera produces its own flavour that requires its own codex to make sense of them. When new cameras come out it also takes time for Image processing programs like Photoshop to catch up and make updates to their software to cope with them. It has taken several iterations, for Adobe to make sense of the new pixel arrangements in Fuji cameras and their Raf files.

As raw files are not standardised they are not "History" proof and already some of the early versions are no longer readable by modern software. This is one reason why converting them to dng is probably a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Because cameras are so easy to use today some might think that it makes professional photography easy too.
Unfortunately a professional has a heck of a long learning curve.

As apart from the necessary technical skills, (the raw/jpeg question does not even register on the scale of things.)
You must add...
the specialist skills of your own area of work
People skills,
and all the necessary sales, financial and business skills that actually build a business.

How to use a camera is the very least of anyones worries.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised when I hear claims that noobs should stick to .jpeg, and RAWs are somehow for advanced photographers. I first used digital RAWs years ago on a Fujifilm bridge camera, opening them with open source UFRaw. I set my first DSLR, a Pentax K110D to shoot in RAW on Day 1. I didn't consider it difficult or advanced. I don't think that shooting in digital RAW is that much of a challenge, or any challenge at all really.
 
It's an extra thing to learn when you may be concentrating on other things. Like ISO or focussing. And not everyone wants to fiddle on their computer or invest in special software right off the bat untel they know the lie of the land a bit.
 
ianp5a said:
It's an extra thing to learn when you may be concentrating on other things. Like ISO or focussing. And not everyone wants to fiddle on their computer or invest in special software right off the bat untel they know the lie of the land a bit.
Click to expand...

That might be true of rank amateurs, but certainly not for budding professionals.
and certainly not for anyone selling their output to the public.
such basics should be long behind them.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I'm a bit surprised when I hear claims that noobs should stick to .jpeg, and RAWs are somehow for advanced photographers. I first used digital RAWs years ago on a Fujifilm bridge camera, opening them with open source UFRaw. I set my first DSLR, a Pentax K110D to shoot in RAW on Day 1. I didn't consider it difficult or advanced. I don't think that shooting in digital RAW is that much of a challenge, or any challenge at all really.
Click to expand...

That's great for you. But plenty of people that buy RAW capable cameras are very very basic computer users and might not even know about Lightroom or Photoshop or the other options. They might think that the camera should just make pictures to go right on Facebook from the camera, like their phones and compacts can.

Let's be honest, modern DSLRs make great captures right out of the camera in terms of colour, sharpness, noise reduction, WB, etc.

For me it's not about new folk sticking to jpg, it's about people who don't know the first thing about it using jpg to enjoy their early time and then exploring RAW when they know why they might want RAW.

Plenty of experienced photographers use JPG and get great pictures that I'd kill for, so it's clear that using RAW does not a good photographer make.


Regardless, we have managed to completely over answer a basic question for someone new to our hobby and passion and even add in typical forum squabbling into it.
 
Last edited:
As I suggested, a simple exercise. Not exactly elite. I think that the RAW file issue is often mysticised. It's very simple.

A RAW file gives you the chance to rather better optimise - or attempt to correct poor white balance, exposure, etc - before saving the data as a compressed image file such as .jpeg. Save as RAW files instead of .jpeg files, (or as well) you can use post process RAW software to cover errors in the photography - at least better, than if you were to let the camera instantly compress it into a .jpeg file, then attempt to remedy it in post process software. However, if you decide to save images only as RAW data files, be aware, that you need suitable software to open them, and to process them as .jpeg image files.

RAW files can slow a camera down on burst, even disable some exposure options, and requires much more space on the memory card. For that reason, even many enthusiasts prefer to allow their camera to simply save as .jpeg.

However, if you take images that will be valuable to you, are not absolutely confident that you have correctly set exposure and white balance, have a fat memory card AND software that can open, and edit your camera's RAW format (they vary according to brand), and save the edit as a .jpeg or similar - you might prefer RAW, or even JPEG + RAW, if your camera can.

I sometimes think that the capitalised RAW name causes problems in the photographic world - it sounds very important and macho. Maybe we should rename it something like "flower" mode, then it might seem less mighty and important.
 
Ok, simple.

  1. Set camera to save as JPEG + RAW, or even just RAW
  2. Take photos
  3. Plug camera or memory card into pooter
  4. Use RAW editing software to open RAW files. Optimise, then save as .jpeg at desired compression level.
 
It is fairly simple, but people new to the hobby are likely to feel they NEED to shoot flower to get better pictures, especially with many consumer magazines pushing it, and therefore buy some software and learn how to do it off the bat when they coukd be learning about the effects of shutter speed, aperture, composition etc.

That's all.
 
DBT85 said:
That's great for you. But plenty of people that buy RAW capable cameras are very very basic computer users and might not even know about Lightroom or Photoshop or the other options. They might think that the camera should just make pictures to go right on Facebook from the camera, like their phones and compacts can.

Let's be honest, modern DSLRs make great captures right out of the camera in terms of colour, sharpness, noise reduction, WB, etc.

For me it's not about new folk sticking to jpg, it's about people who don't know the first thing about it using jpg to enjoy their early time and then exploring RAW when they know why they might want RAW.

Plenty of experienced photographers use JPG and get great pictures that I'd kill for, so it's clear that using RAW does not a good photographer make.


Regardless, we have managed to completely over answer a basic question for someone new to our hobby and passion and even add in typical forum squabbling into it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've been photographing for three years now, and always used jpeg, as I wanted to get to grips with the camera, settings and basic editing. When I first started, if i'd used RAW, I would have over-complicated things for myself. I got plenty of really good shots, some bad, some okay, some great! (IMO). I've recently started using RAW and jpeg now, just to get used to using RAW. Yes, it uses a LOT of space up, but I've been saving the raw files externally, then deleting them off the card and my PC.
Is RAW better than jpeg? Well, I've not used it for long enough to make a informed opinion, but some of my best RAW photos so far, have had a extra something about them.
As Darren says, RAW does not a good photographer make! I've had s̶o̶m̶e̶ loads of terrible photos, and you can't polish a turd!

Just my opinion. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top