Wanted JPG and RAW comparison photograph.

Howi said:
It's quite simple really, If you don't understand the difference between RAW and JPEG's then continue shooting JPEG's as it won't matter to you.
For Pro shooters who have to get stuff back to the office quickly (these guys and gals have good operating technique) JPEG's are way to go - It's not quality that matters here but getting the RIGHT shot.
As has been said, If you only view on a PC screen JPEG's are fine - don't fret over it, those who DO understand the difference, will continue to shoot RAW.
Click to expand...

puzzled by this.

essentially you are saying that anything you dont know or understand at this time is irrelevant to you. how are you supposed to know if you want to do something or not until you understand what it is?
 
Undercrank said:
This is absolutely untrue and misleading -- in fact, as a typical enthusiast I've been editing JPEGs in layers for almost 10 years. They are most often saved in my software's native format (or TIFFs) to protect the JPEG's compression properties before printing....
(snip)
....Shooting my JPEGs isn’t much different to shooting slide film although the principles of exposure aren’t quite the same thanks to editing techniques. The same goes for RAW.

Sam
Click to expand...

Utter *******s - sorry mate but you're just plain wrong.

Every time you edit a JPEG and save it, more information is lost.
By saving as a TIFF, you're just using the computer software to interpolate up - it makes a 'best guess' as to what colours are needed and acts accordingly.
It's far better to start with the right information as recorded by the camera to begin with.

Look it up - don't just take my word for it - this is common knowledge and has been known about for years.
 
Rob, are you sure about that?

When I open an image into photoshop once the image is loaded the file format becomes irrelevent until I hit the save button. The image is open and available for editing.

If that file is then saves as a tiff the data that was present in the original joeg remains - and since tiff doesn't do any compression there is no further loss of quality which is associated with jpeg compression. You can edit as often as you like - and resave (as tiff or other lossless format) as often as you like without further quality loss caused by saving.

You only start loosing data again if you resave that tiff file as a jpeg.

Of course I agree, it is far better t start with the best data in the first place.
 
joescrivens said:
puzzled by this.

essentially you are saying that anything you dont know or understand at this time is irrelevant to you. how are you supposed to know if you want to do something or not until you understand what it is?
Click to expand...

Basically Yes! If YOU think JPEG's are fine, that's not a problem (with most point and shoots, that's all you get anyway.)

If you get a camera that will do both RAW and JPEG, the first thing most peolpe will do is, ask themselves what is the difference?
These formats have been out for years, a search on the internet will reveal all you want to know, or talk to someone in your local camera club or shop.

Once you have the relevant information YOU then decide what is best for you.

Don't forget! they say ignorance is bliss!
If you are going to use RAW, you WILL have to put some effort into PP your images, if you can't be a***d then JPEG's are all you need.

There is no right or wrong here, most cameras (DSLR) will give very good OOC JPEG's.
A simplified comparison between RAW and JPEG would be a negative and a polaroid...
 
Arkady2 said:
Utter *******s - sorry mate but you're just plain wrong.

Every time you edit a JPEG and save it, more information is lost.
By saving as a TIFF, you're just using the computer software to interpolate up - it makes a 'best guess' as to what colours are needed and acts accordingly.
It's far better to start with the right information as recorded by the camera to begin with.

Look it up - don't just take my word for it - this is common knowledge and has been known about for years.
Click to expand...

eloquently put,
the best sequence would be RAW-TIFF(16 bit)-JPEG
 
why bother with the TIFF - just edit the RAW and output to suit.
 
Now I know that each time you open/edit/close a jpeg, you lose information.

Don't suppose anyone has got an example of a shot they took, and how that same shot looks after it's 'lost' detail over the years, as it's been edited/opened etc.

Is it one of those situations where, technically, yes the jpeg has indeed lost information each and every time...but you'd never ever actually notice it as it is so minimal? You'd have to do it 4 million times before you see any discernible difference?

How did we ever cope before RAW? Oh yeah, that's right, we set up properly! :D
 
Wobbler said:
Now I know that each time you open/edit/close a jpeg, you lose information.

Don't suppose anyone has got an example of a shot they took, and how that same shot looks after it's 'lost' detail over the years, as it's been edited/opened etc.

Is it one of those situations where, technically, yes the jpeg has indeed lost information each and every time...but you'd never ever actually notice it as it is so minimal? You'd have to do it 4 million times before you see any discernible difference?

How did we ever cope before RAW? Oh yeah, that's right, we set up properly! :D
Click to expand...

JPEG is a 'LOSSY' compression format, therein lies the problem, ANY changes to the image and you lose more of the original when it recompresses to a new Jpeg.
That's not to say a Jpeg can't be edited, it can and it may still be more than acceptable to you. Jpegs weren't intended to be edited as such, there is nothing wrong with Jpegs, provided you understand the limitations.

While you are right when you say we should set up properly, I would still say RAW gives one much more scope to pull something stunning from what otherwise would be just dumped in the recycle bin.(the RAW still need to be set up right as you put it.)
Post processing is an art in itself, but does involve some user effort, the results can be well worth the effort.
 
Howi said:
JPEG is a 'LOSSY' compression format, therein lies the problem, ANY changes to the image and you lose more of the original when it recompresses to a new Jpeg.

That's not to say a Jpeg can't be edited, it can and it may still be more than acceptable to you. Jpegs weren't intended to be edited as such, there is nothing wrong with Jpegs, provided you understand the limitations.

While you are right when you say we should set up properly, I would still say RAW gives one much more scope to pull something stunning from what otherwise would be just dumped in the recycle bin.(the RAW still need to be set up right as you put it.)
Post processing is an art in itself, but does involve some user effort, the results can be well worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I guess what and where you shoot will determine how useful RAW is to you.

I know a jpg is lossy format (:D) but IMO the 'loss' you experience from continual editing/compressing of a jpg is negligable. I reckon you'd have to do it literally millions of times before you could actually see any difference, on screen or print - which does make the 'lossy' part of debate somewhat irrelevant.

I've always shot high quality jpg, have blown images up to 60 inches wide with no problem, and as I am studio based, I know what my light sources are likely to do temp wise, and how to expose accurately. I see no need for me to use RAW - it would slow down my workflow considerably, with little/no difference in the image quality. Each to their own though...
 
Undercrank said:
This is absolutely untrue and misleading -- in fact, as a typical enthusiast I've been editing JPEGs in layers for almost 10 years. They are most often saved in my software's native format (or TIFFs) to protect the JPEG's compression properties before printing.

When shooting it helps if we properly optimise JPEG exposure and keep the sharpening setting quite low. Too much saturation can mask finer detail. My raw (!) JPEGs (as I’ve called all unedited files since the early 90s), are the basis for my editing techniques.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not alone, I'm normally a black sheep because I find RAW a complete waste of time, so much extra work for so little benefit. Perhaps If I had a Canaon 1D and needed to make murals then I would reconsider, but as I don't need anything overly large at present and don't go to extremes in PP I'll be sticking with JPEG. I would use TIFF but my camera doesn't support it.
 
I want full control of my images, that means shooting raw. Let the camera capture the image and then process using dedicated software. Why would anyone want to let the camera decide what detail is not important in an image?
 
Sectionate said:
Especially if you churn it through lightroom

p.s. If you get the majority right in camera, do you really need to shoot in RAW?
Click to expand...

Do you really need 12 or 20 mp? why not shoot on a cheap compact?, if you want the best quality why buy a good quality camera and then throw away half the information it's capturing, you might as well have saved your money in the first place.
We buy the best cameras and lens we can afford (for the most part) we strive to "get it right in camera", then some are happy with second best file format? why?.
A raw file is 12 or 14 bit, jpeg only 8 bit, and no you can't change that by saving it as a 16 bit tiff in photoshop, it'll say 16 bit but it's just an 8 bit image in a 16 (15 really) bit wrapper, .
 
An additional advantage of raw I have not seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) is the option to return to it at a later date with better software available. An example being the recent improvement in noise reduction in LR3. Jpgs created either from earlier raw processors or older model cameras with their older jpg engines can be processed again and improved on.
 
Howi said:
Basically Yes! If YOU think JPEG's are fine, that's not a problem (with most point and shoots, that's all you get anyway.)

If you get a camera that will do both RAW and JPEG, the first thing most peolpe will do is, ask themselves what is the difference?
These formats have been out for years, a search on the internet will reveal all you want to know, or talk to someone in your local camera club or shop.

Once you have the relevant information YOU then decide what is best for you.
Click to expand...

this makes more sense, and isn't what you said in your original post.

Originally you claimed that if you don't know the difference then it will be irrelevant to you and you should stick with what you have - which makes no sense since you won't know whats better for you until you learn
 
one in RAW, one in JPEG, but which is which?

test11.jpg


test22.jpg
 
hollis_f said:
More to the point, who cares? All this shows is that it's possible to process a raw file so that it looks just as bad as the jpeg.
Click to expand...

Neither are "processed" (apart from the obvious conversion to jpeg), they're both right out of the camera. I could work both of them to make a more balanced image.

However, if you can't tell the difference I guess my point is made without having to resort to pointless remarks :)
 
dod said:
Neither are "processed" (apart from the obvious conversion to jpeg), they're both right out of the camera.
Click to expand...

But what is your point? That both formats 'straight out of the camera' look similar? The whole idea of raw images is that they can be processed to look better than the jpeg (unless all of the camera settings were 100% correct for the jpeg).

It's like getting Jamie Oliver to take a whole load of raw ingredients and try to emulate the taste and texture of a Pot Noodle. Yes, Jamie could probably do it. But he could take those same ingredients and make something much better.
 
Don't get me wrong, there is a time and place for RAW, but as soon as someone says you should ONLY shoot RAW, my hackles go up. I shoot both depending on the situation I'm in.

No, the point is that 99.9% (or whatever suitable percentage you care to choose) of the time a JPEG is adequate. Both the images above show plenty of shadow detail, neither has blown out anywhere. You're not going to get much, if any, better a result if you take your time in the first place and resort to good basic photographic technique. That's even more true when you consider that the vast majority of us will only be showing images as an 800X533 on some random forum or in a photoframe as an 8bit image.

I'm not referring to anyone here but the snobbery involved in photography now is worse than ever. It used to just be slide v negative. Now it's canon v nikon, slide v negative,digi v film, RAW v JPEG, manual v auto, etc etc. Why can't we just take pictures? :(
 
Dave In Wales........not read the whole of this thread, but if you read the Digaial part of the link below, it helps to explain the 'hidden dynamic range' that Raws have.

Like Dod above, I shoot in either Jpeg or Raw, depending on what I'm shooting, and want to achieve.
http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
 
joescrivens said:
this makes more sense, and isn't what you said in your original post.

Originally you claimed that if you don't know the difference then it will be irrelevant to you and you should stick with what you have - which makes no sense since you won't know whats better for you until you learn
Click to expand...

if you can't be bothered to find out the difference, then, it is irrelevant.
If people think that an 8 bit image is equal to or better than a 12 or 14 bit image (RAW) then thats fine too.

Flogging a dead horse springs to mind....
The RAW v JPEG debate always seems to bring out raging arguments ho hum...

It's rather like buying a Blue Ray player but only buying standard DVD's because Blue Ray discs are too expensive and then claiming there isn't any noticeable difference anyway...:cuckoo:
 
awp said:
true - but some of us want/need our images to be more than adequate!
Click to expand...

prepared to tell me which of the above was jpeg and which was raw? To be honest they were taken from a similar discussion 2 years ago, I can't remember which was which now :shrug:

edit: original thread I didn't get an answer then either :p

edit 2.thinking about it, I've had enough of this stupid debate, shoot, and believe, what you want.
 
dod said:
prepared to tell me which of the above was jpeg and which was raw? To be honest they were taken from a similar discussion 2 years ago, I can't remember which was which now :shrug:

edit: original thread I didn't get an answer then either :p

edit 2.thinking about it, I've had enough of this stupid debate, shoot, and believe, what you want.
Click to expand...

The sample pics you posted dod are not a great example IMHO, because your camera has picked up the dynamic range quite well as a jpeg. If you were in a more difficult lighting situation where the camera couldn't resolve the dynamic range quite so well, then at least with a Raw, a lot od info can be recovered.
I agree that one should shoot and believe what they want, but dis agree it's a stupid debate. For me, I prefer to shoot Jpeg for many reasons............
1) Most pics I do atm are for fun
2) My computer behaves better when dealing with 21mp jpeg files than 21mp Raws
3) I only have CS3, and changing my Raws to a DNG format wastes my time.

If shots are for a pro shoot, I will use Raw.
 
Of course it's hard to tell the difference at 5x7 100 dpi on a web page, try blowing them both up to 2x3 foot and printing them. Then see how much more you can recover the highlights and shadows, and using the same image might make more sense for a comparrsion..
 
Last edited:
Jeez, listen to you lot - you'd think that you're all printing to the size of a barn door for entry into the Tate Modern!!!

Firstly, you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. A crap shot is a crap shot. Period.

Secondly, if you have the processing skill/eye of a blind monkey then shooting raw 'to get more' from the shot is as pointless as having a chocolate fireguard.

There are plenty of experienced photographers on here who shoot raw and feel they get a lot more from it than they would from JPEG. Like someone's said, in years to come, that raw file could become invaluable for reasons relating to print quality when you write your life story. That's great and more power to you.

However, there's a massive amount of 'advice' on here that puts across a greater need to use raw than is actually neccessary, especially to those who are new to photography. Get the basics of photography right in the first place before you try to archive what you've shot for future use. There's no point keeping a million and one raw files when they're all out of focus shots of this, that and the other!!!

JPEG is not a dirty word (although you'd think it was going by some of you lot). It is a file format, that is all. If it's a great shot then it could be taken on a Tesco displosable process-paid and it'll still remain a great shot.
 
JPEG is not a dirty word (although you'd think it was going by some of you lot). It is a file format, that is all. If it's a great shot then it could be taken on a Tesco displosable process-paid and it'll still remain a great shot
Click to expand...

Hope you don't include me in that "some of you lot" bit! ;)

I think if you are a pro though, getting the best image possible is a must, and Raw can help more than Jpeg. I do think that it's a good idea to get as much right in camera wheather pro or am and jpegs can helps with this assessment.

After saying that, Raws do have an embedded jpeg within based on your camera menu settings I believe.

As dod said, shoot what you are happy with.
 
I don't normally do this but seeing as this was taken at my very first wedding, I thought I'd show it. First is the RAW straight out the camera (zero'd in ACR). THere's no point showing a well exposed image as the whole point of RAW is that you can correct it to make it good.

This is one of my favourite wedding images before......
edit-3.jpg


After
edit-4.jpg


And in B&W
edit-5.jpg


If I'd shot in jpg doubt I could have recovered it to the same degree?
 
Last edited:
Who said you can't polish a turd? :lol: Well done EOS JD, a lovely picture IMHO from a very under exposed original. I suppose this will open more debate on how big/how noisy etc etc the picture can be produced?
Aswell as: is it possible to transform a pig's ear to a silk purse? Not saying the original is a turd or a pig';s ear, but the exposure was wrong and you've made a decent image from it.
 
Thanks NP
I have printed it big and it's a cover image on a 16x12 Graphi Studio album and everyone comments on it. This was a wedding that turned out great and I have other similar images that were o but I liked this when I opened it and played around in ACR at the time. A little diffuse glow was added also.

Amazingly little noise. I mistakenly shot it at ISO100 but increasing the exposure I expected more noise but turned out ok ;)

Taken on a 20D with the 24-105f4L IS lens
 
EOS_JD said:
Thanks NP
I have printed it big and it's a cover image on a 16x12 Graphi Studio album and everyone comments on it. This was a wedding that turned out great and I have other similar images that were o but I liked this when I opened it and played around in ACR at the time. A little diffuse glow was added also.

Amazingly little noise. I mistakenly shot it at ISO100 but increasing the exposure I expected more noise but turned out ok ;)

Taken on a 20D with the 24-105f4L IS lens
Click to expand...

Made these mistakes myself in the past (wrong ISO for the shot) and successively recovered in ACR! Probably happens to the best of us.

I am trying to shoot jpegs now and getting it right in camera, based on the reasons given in a post above.
 
I still prefer raw even if I get it right. I find it just as quick to produce my finished images in Lr.
 
EOS_JD said:
I still prefer raw even if I get it right. I find it just as quick to produce my finished images in Lr.
Click to expand...

So do I. But I don't have LR, and my PC isn't as great as it once was:shrug:
I will shoot Raw for anything I consider important though. ;):thumbs:
 
Howi said:
if you can't be bothered to find out the difference, then, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? The op posted this question exactly to find out so he could be bothered. But you told him that if he didn't already know the answer then he doesn't need to know and he should just carry on as he was
 
EOS_JD said:
I still prefer raw even if I get it right. I find it just as quick to produce my finished images in Lr.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Even jpegs require some processing, especially if they're going to be printed. If you're going to be doing PP anyhow then there's really no extra work involved in processing a raw file.
 
And just so you all don't think I'm too much of a RAW-zealot - I shoot all my Mess functions (think 'event' photography) at JPEG-high as there's no need to go bigger or better - sometimes we print on-site, but usually send the images to the Mess between 5-7 days afterwards and Bill the Mess directly rather than try and take money on the night. Customers sign for their photos on the night and see the invoice on their mess bills the following month.
Printed Images are usually either 10x8 or 7x5.
Speed is of the essence here and with a function almost every other night this month, there's no way I'd have time to edit all the images if I shot RAW.
The images are still good enough that if a customer comes back later wanting a larger print, we can still accommodate them.
The 'future-proofing' that RAW confers isn't really applicable for these images...

I just did my first-ever edit of a function image as the wife of the Mess member had been very concerned about a nasty cold-sore. I assured her it would be gone by the time the images were ready and on that understanding she bought £160-worth of images.

Other than something like that I don't do any editing and set the cameras up accordingly.
But I do control everything else: all the lighting, backgrounds etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top