Raw vs Jpeg

Perkins1985

Perkins1985

Suspended / Banned
Messages
110
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
This might sound like a question that has been asked many times before,What the difference between Raw and Jpeg could someone help me clear up what the difference is and the benefits between the shooting types.
Thanks in advance
 
A Raw file is exqactly as taken by the camera and can be regarded as a 'negative' which you can process using a s/w programme to become whatever you want as all of the taken data remains within the file. A Jpeg has been processed either by s/w or 'in camera', depending on camera make and s/w you may be able to post process e.g. Canon Jpeg and DPP (their own s/w) will still allow some processing, more so than if use 3rd party s/w on a Canon Jpeg.

Matt
 
As MatBin says, a RAW file is effectively the data as it came off the sensor. A JPEG is the result of the RAW data being processed through the on-board camera processor.

The advantage of a RAW file is that it is 16 bit, which gives greater latitude for processing by yourself in post processing. A JPEG is only 8 bit. Processing the RAW file yourself means it comes out the way you want it, rather than relying on the camera to get it right.

The disadvantage of RAW is that they are bigger files, which means you won't get so many on your memory card, and they will need some form of processing once loaded on to your computer.
 
Thanks for that guys i think im going to continue snapping in Jpeg for the time being, im going to learn my kit a little better before. Plus i have got to get some processing s/w
 
If you're going to take a really important shot that means a great deal then shoot RAW and in the future you can play around with it more. Other stuff JPEGs are fine especially if you want to do quick uploading to image hosting sites etc..
 
I was told recently that a raw file is the ingredients of a cake (metaphorically speaking) in a mixing bowl ready to be baked ... A jpeg is the cake baked.

Now the clever bit, you can change the outcome of the flavour of the cake, obviously easier with the raw ingredients than it is to change the baked cake.

I think :-)
 
Simonhi said:
I was told recently that a raw file is the ingredients of a cake (metaphorically speaking) in a mixing bowl ready to be baked ... A jpeg is the cake baked.

Now the clever bit, you can change the outcome of the flavour of the cake, obviously easier with the raw ingredients than it is to change the baked cake.

I think :-)
Click to expand...

Thats great way to describe the difference thanks for that
 
The main difference between Raw and JPEG is that with Raw you can decide what you want to do with the file after you have taken it; with JPEG you have to decide most things before hand, by adjusting the pre-set picture styles and other camera controls.

You have to process the Raw dada to JPEG at some stage - you can't actually see a Raw file. If you know what you want, and have set the camera up accordingly, shooting to JPEG saves a heck of a lot of time - you get the final image straight out of the box.

The ideal compromise solution is to shoot both Raw and JPEG at the same time. Even a high-quality JPEG takes up very little extra room on the card. Then if you like the out-of-camera image you can run with it, and if it needs a bit of surgery you can go back to the Raw and re-process it.

There is more exposure headroom on the Raw file, particularly useful for recovering slightly over-exposed highlights. And you can adjust the colour a lot if you've made a boob on white balance, but Raw is not completely forgiving either. If you mess up the exposure completely, you're still stuffed.
 
Perkins1985 said:
Thanks for that guys i think im going to continue snapping in Jpeg for the time being, im going to learn my kit a little better before. Plus i have got to get some processing s/w
Click to expand...

I recommend Lightroom 3 beta, free to use until April I believe and great software for the job.

You can also get a community edition of Noiseware which is a noise reduction program and a great tool. Unsure if Noise Ninja do the same
 
This might sound a little daft but is lightroom from adobe. Thanks for the replies guys it has really cleared it up for me
 
Perkins1985 said:
This might sound a little daft but is lightroom from adobe. Thanks for the replies guys it has really cleared it up for me
Click to expand...

Yes it is from Adobe, and it's fantastic IMO, but it is a little pricey!!

It's not quite the full on editing tool that Photoshop is but it does have some very good quality editing options. Try the latest version for free!! :thumbs:

Oh, and my advice would be that you tackle raw files now! Might seem more complicated to start with but it will make a noticable difference to your shots. I made the mistake of putting it off but I really wish I'd shot raw right from the start! :)
 
Also to note as your using Nikon if you have any in camera settings applied for tonality and sharpening and saturation etc these will be instantly applied on the jpg in camera. If you use RAW then it depends on which RAW editor you use as to whether these in camera settings will be considered. Only if you use Capture NX/NX2 will the in camera settings be available and be applied to the RAW image. If you use Lightroom or any other tool then it will disregard any of these settings and you will have to manually reapply them again in your editor of choice.
 
JustinParker said:
Also to note as your using Nikon if you have any in camera settings applied for tonality and sharpening and saturation etc these will be instantly applied on the jpg in camera. If you use RAW then it depends on which RAW editor you use as to whether these in camera settings will be considered. Only if you use Capture NX/NX2 will the in camera settings be available and be applied to the RAW image. If you use Lightroom or any other tool then it will disregard any of these settings and you will have to manually reapply them again in your editor of choice.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be picky Justin, just to be clear.

When you shoot Raw, there is always a JPEG tagged to the file. It is used to generate the LCD image and histogram, if nothing else. When you import the file for post processing, some software packages pick up on the tagged data and apply it to the image as a starting point, just to get you going with settings that are presumably there or thereabouts.

However, they are not embedded in the file at all, and you can change them, overwrite them, delete them or do whatever you like to them. The Raw file is still there underneath in virgin form.
 
Am i correct in thinking every time you edit a jpeg image and save it again, the image quality decreases as it's recompressed? I was always told to keep photos in raw and save as a jpeg as a final image.
 
hsp70 said:
Am i correct in thinking every time you edit a jpeg image and save it again, the image quality decreases as it's recompressed? I was always told to keep photos in raw and save as a jpeg as a final image.
Click to expand...

I believe this is the case, yes. Each time you edit a jpeg and save it you lose data due to the compression. You can adjust the quality sliders to try and lower the amount that is lost but you cannot make a jpeg lossless. Also, compression in one program will vary from another even if you use the same quality number.
 
Just started using RAW myself due to the compression issues of JPEG. I'm using the Canon Digital Professional software that came with the camera and so far i'm impressed.

Remember that RAW files are bigger, so you will need to make sure you got plenty of hard disk space.
 
Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that it gives a 16 bit image to work with => the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.
 
I'm a jpg person myself purely because of time. The jpgs off of my D90 and D3 are so good I just submit those with no editing other than the dust, I fin't it hard to get a picture looking as good as an off camera jpg even with loads of time spent on the conversion. The only time I do use raw is if I'm submitting just one or two shots for a photo feature type thing and can spare the time getting it to look how I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top