Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: diff in RAW and JPG?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default diff in RAW and JPG?

    Hi all
    I went out to shot with RAW + JPG, it turns out that RAW is underexposed as compared to jpg.

    the only tweak diff i can see is the color temp and the camera profile i can adjust in RAW as compared to JPG.

    But for color temp, I can also use a grey card and later on adjust to the color temp.

    would like to know why do people like to shot in RAW as compared to JPG.

    the following are both pictures are before PP.

    RAW


    JPG
    Last edited by rvf79; 4th March 2012 at 01:48 PM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    here is another picture after PP

    RAW PP


    JPG PP

  3. #3

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    1) RAW seemed underexposed because it does not take into account the picture style which was set for JPG. RAW as it is spelled as, is raw and unprocessed. JPG is a form of file compression, details which are thought to be not important and not needed, are discarded, hence the smaller file size when compared to RAW files.

    2) colour balance is one of the many reasons for shooting RAW, sure you can use a grey card and try to get the accurate colour temperature for JPG. but if you go home and try tweak it further, you will notice that some part of the photo does not react correctly to your tweaking. why? as per 1), those thought-to-be-not-important details are lost which is why there is only so much you can adjust.

    3) RAW file captures the dynamic range of the scene to the best of the camera's ability. normally(not always), you can retrieve details 2 stops up and down the dynamic range. shoot a photo of an overexposed sky, throw it into photoshop, chances are you can still bring back details in the blown highlights. same applies for lifting details in the shadows. try doing so with JPG, all you will get is artifacts or nothing(whites and blacks).

    3) sharpness, period. RAW files bags everything in the photo, details are there for you to play with. they are not thrown away like JPG compression.

    here is something for you to try. using your RAW file, put in +1 or 2EV in photoshop and look at the details underneath the cars then do the same for the JPG file.

    compare the differences.

  4. #4
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,390

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    The difference is simply: do you want to leave it to the camera to throw away details (according some algorithms you don't know exactly) or do you wan to decide what is useful and what can be thrown? I prefer the later, but still I use grey cards and other tools to have exact reference points.
    EOS

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecnica View Post
    1) RAW seemed underexposed because it does not take into account the picture style which was set for JPG. RAW as it is spelled as, is raw and unprocessed. JPG is a form of file compression, details which are thought to be not important and not needed, are discarded, hence the smaller file size when compared to RAW files.

    2) colour balance is one of the many reasons for shooting RAW, sure you can use a grey card and try to get the accurate colour temperature for JPG. but if you go home and try tweak it further, you will notice that some part of the photo does not react correctly to your tweaking. why? as per 1), those thought-to-be-not-important details are lost which is why there is only so much you can adjust.

    3) RAW file captures the dynamic range of the scene to the best of the camera's ability. normally(not always), you can retrieve details 2 stops up and down the dynamic range. shoot a photo of an overexposed sky, throw it into photoshop, chances are you can still bring back details in the blown highlights. same applies for lifting details in the shadows. try doing so with JPG, all you will get is artifacts or nothing(whites and blacks).

    3) sharpness, period. RAW files bags everything in the photo, details are there for you to play with. they are not thrown away like JPG compression.

    here is something for you to try. using your RAW file, put in +1 or 2EV in photoshop and look at the details underneath the cars then do the same for the JPG file.

    compare the differences.
    thanks a lot bro for the explanation.
    but i kind of sian due to i would always need to PP after an event...
    PP till want to die... and I dont get paid for the event

  6. #6

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by rvf79 View Post
    thanks a lot bro for the explanation.
    but i kind of sian due to i would always need to PP after an event...
    PP till want to die... and I dont get paid for the event
    i always try to get the settings(exposure, composition mainly) correct, when i press the shutter button. compensate accordingly to the lighting conditions, don't always think you are shooting RAW, therefore you can adjust everything in PP. which is why you are facing such problem now, PP until die that is.

    RAW gives you leeway when you need it, it is not a reason for you to be lazy when creating photos.

    maybe you are new to RAW, which is why you are not used to it. from now on, pay attention to your settings, do what you can to enable a smooth PP workflow.

    that said, you also need to judge how much effort to put into these tasks, depending on the importance of the event, paid or not paid. then decide how to go about it.

    i am not an expert, just a hobbyist sharing with you. i feel that photography in the current era is not about capture the photos only. it encompasses the post processing too, to realise the full potential of your photos.

    for me, it is 70% taking the photos, 30% in PP.

    YMMV.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecnica View Post
    i always try to get the settings(exposure, composition mainly) correct, when i press the shutter button. compensate accordingly to the lighting conditions, don't always think you are shooting RAW, therefore you can adjust everything in PP. which is why you are facing such problem now, PP until die that is.

    RAW gives you leeway when you need it, it is not a reason for you to be lazy when creating photos.

    maybe you are new to RAW, which is why you are not used to it. from now on, pay attention to your settings, do what you can to enable a smooth PP workflow.

    that said, you also need to judge how much effort to put into these tasks, depending on the importance of the event, paid or not paid. then decide how to go about it.

    i am not an expert, just a hobbyist sharing with you. i feel that photography in the current era is not about capture the photos only. it encompasses the post processing too, to realise the full potential of your photos.

    for me, it is 70% taking the photos, 30% in PP.

    YMMV.
    no bro, almost of the exposure are correct, is when i hit the lightroom and view the RAW, all underexposed... the same picture that i had posted above... fainted... if i shot in jpg dat time, i don think i will pp too much too.

    RAW is like 1 stop underexposed as compared to jpg.

    normally i onli pp the tone curve and the sharpness for jpg, but when come to RAW...

    dat time i didn't really know how to play with PP, so i use the exposure and pump up to +1, is it the wrong way? for the car, i used brightness and contrast to brighten up, which looks better.
    next i go n try out some of the event pictures. it really makes a diff. nm, the event picture i had already passed to my company liao... :X newbie photographer cant ask for money... haha... but it's a good learning curve and will be able to do freelance next time.

  8. #8

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by rvf79 View Post
    no bro, almost of the exposure are correct, is when i hit the lightroom and view the RAW, all underexposed... the same picture that i had posted above... fainted... if i shot in jpg dat time, i don think i will pp too much too.

    RAW is like 1 stop underexposed as compared to jpg.

    normally i onli pp the tone curve and the sharpness for jpg, but when come to RAW...

    dat time i didn't really know how to play with PP, so i use the exposure and pump up to +1, is it the wrong way? for the car, i used brightness and contrast to brighten up, which looks better.
    next i go n try out some of the event pictures. it really makes a diff. nm, the event picture i had already passed to my company liao... :X newbie photographer cant ask for money... haha... but it's a good learning curve and will be able to do freelance next time.
    unprocessed RAW files are very linear, which means to say not contrasty, not saturated, not as sharp, when compared to JPG.

    one thing i always do, is to give my photos a bit more of the exposure but be careful not to clip the highlights. this technique is called 'exposure to the right(side of the histogram)'. look at the histogram and adjust accordingly.

    there are many ways to PP photos, if it works for you, i wouldn't say it's wrong. but for global brightness, i will usually increase the exposure first before i touch other settings.

    shoot, make mistakes and learn along the way. everybody goes through the same thing, nothing to fret about.

  9. #9

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Advantages in Raw:
    Able to pull back 2 extra stops in lost highlights and shadows.
    Able to reset color temperature and tint.

    If you don't need these 2 functions, you don't need raw, be it correctly exposed or underexposed. It does not matter.
    In this case, personally I think I would need raw. The red in the jpg looks flat and clipped (and unrecoverable). I face the same problem in my Canon body.
    The raw file looks like it has more potential to be PPed into a more vibrant and pleasing image.

    And like everyone else suggested: get it right in your camera, exposure, white balance, crop, using everything you know in photography. Then you won't need PP at all. The tough part is that every part of the room has a different exposure and white balance. Thus you need to be quick in adjusting your settings.

    For some reference:
    I use about 2hours tops to process ~1500 images from a 10-hour shoot.

  10. #10

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    TS, I think what you dont realise is that your JPG files have already been processed by your camera, whereas your RAW files are not.

    To save you lots of time, you should create a Lightroom preset and apply it to all ur RAW files first... before doing additional PP to your specific liking.

  11. #11

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    RAW gives you advantages in mainly dynamic range, white balance.

    Sometimes the scene requires a large dynamic range so RAW can help. In certain scenes I will choose to under-expose the RAW slightly and bring it back in post (similar to D-lighting or Highlight Tone Priority).

    No camera has perfect AWB and custom white balance or a grey card may not work very well in mixed lighting or a flexible AWB in RAW is a HUGE advantage.

    Finally, contrary to popular and everlasting urban myths and beliefs of hardcore JPEG shooters... assuming you process every image you take, RAW is usually faster for colour & contrast corrections due to the introduction of filmstrip/batch workflows such as lightroom or aperture.
    Last edited by surrephoto; 4th March 2012 at 03:59 PM.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    can guide me on what will be a good default pre-set to set?

  13. #13

    Default

    If you plan on using RAW from now on turn off your picture control and D lighting as it has no effect on raw files.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    842

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgdevilzz View Post
    If you plan on using RAW from now on turn off your picture control and D lighting as it has no effect on raw files.
    i dont use D lighting. I had stopped using picture control, as I starting learning how to PP.

  15. #15

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    the image you get on the camera LCD screen is actually a preview with the picture style applied onto it.

    switch to neutral in your picture style, it gives a closer rendition as what you will get from your RAW image.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rvf79
    Hi all
    I went out to shot with RAW + JPG, it turns out that RAW is underexposed as compared to jpg.

    the only tweak diff i can see is the color temp and the camera profile i can adjust in RAW as compared to JPG.

    But for color temp, I can also use a grey card and later on adjust to the color temp.

    would like to know why do people like to shot in RAW as compared to JPG.

    the following are both pictures are before PP.

    RAW

    JPG
    There are differences opening your RAW files in the manufacturer application and 3rd party applications such as Lightroom, aperture, dxo etc.

    Raw gives you not only the raw values of the sensor, which the raw decoder will need to interpret into RGB values, it also store the settings such as you have chosen black and white style in the camera, your white point, gamut, color adjustments etc. these information do not change the actual raw value. They are compose together by the raw decoder along with the application. It is also know Nikon NEF have certain values such as the white point value encrypted and hence only application that buy the license have the right to decode it. It means other applications will need to make their smart assessment themselves.

    Jpg on the other hand have all the values composed in the camera and deliver to the application as is. You will get what the camera is capable of. Due to battery consumption limitation, processor power limitation, camera mostly don't engage the best technique in jpeg encoding. But you get small file size which are easier to manage. For large number of photos, I personally go for jpeg and get your shots the right way from the start.

    Should quality is paramount, they normally don't come in large quantity. You can choose raw with greater flexibility and range in recovery. However, don't expect miracle. If your source sucks, it sucks, just not as bad as what Jpeg will get you. To be frank, it is better in my opinion to get your white balance right. Especially when you are using flash. Imbalance in white points can't be save by RAW files either.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  17. #17

    Default Re: diff in RAW and JPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    To be frank, it is better in my opinion to get your white balance right. Especially when you are using flash. Imbalance in white points can't be save by RAW files either.
    couldn't agree more. white balance accuracy in flash photography is so important because if you don't match your flash light's colour temperature with that of the ambient light, the output will ultimately be garbage(think overly warm ambient light with cool human faces).

    slight deviation may be recoverable but it will means more time spent in front of the computer. but if the white balance is totally skewed, i rather delete the RAW image and save some hard disk space.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •