.RAW vs .JPG


Status
Not open for further replies.

johnmaeda

New Member
Dec 16, 2007
258
0
0
www.flickr.com
#1
I have been wondering what is the differences bwt .RAW and .JPG in terms of the quality, colour output and detail.

Can someone pls enlighten me on that?
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#3
I have been wondering what is the differences bwt .RAW and .JPG in terms of the quality, colour output and detail.

Can someone pls enlighten me on that?
If you bothered to do a search, then you'd have found out that RAW holds all the data which was taken at the time of the picture and you can actually have more leeway to manipulate those data to adjust exposure, saturation and other details.

Jpeg is a highly compressed version of that same picture which losses a whole lot of detail and does not allow much manipulation of the exposure or other details.
 

Reyon

New Member
Jul 9, 2004
375
0
0
#4
Raw is a file format
It is Lossless.

It cannot be changed or altered (till today only :p)
Has better dynamic color range (like 12 bit - 14bit per channel)
Better color interpolation in some s/w
It is an electronic negative
Can fully control of all settings
No compression artifact
Can easily correct exposure mistakes (+-3 stops)

JPEG is a Image format
It is a higly lossy.

Every time u save it, it compress further
Even thought the pixel no remains the same, but your color depth keep losing info


In the end of the day, if u are printing 4X6 photo, dun bother about RAW :)

There are always diff workflows to follow
That's depend on what u wan to achieve
 

Apr 24, 2007
273
0
0
photoblog.com
#5
As an analogy, try thinking of the RAW image as the digital negative while jpeg as the printed image.

The raw image is the raw information pulled from the camera's sensor right off the bat without any processing (at least very minimal). A jpeg on the other hand, is the image pulled from the sensor AND processed by the camera's internal algorithm. Because of this,if you just shoot jpeg, you loose the original information as the camera would have dropped those information that it thinks is not necessary when it creates the jpeg image. In other words, you simply have to accept what the camera thinks is "right" i.e camera is doing the thinking for you.

In certain cases, this is fine if you are not too particular about your image. However, there are many times when you want full control of your creation from end-to-end ie from the time you press the shutter to the time when the last picolitre of ink is sprayed on your final print. Then you need the raw image where you have full control and mastery of your art :eek:
 

Trashian

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
128
0
0
#6
I presume in .RAW, white balance corrections/adjustments can be made?
 

Viewpoint

New Member
Jan 5, 2007
348
0
0
#9
ALWAYS shoot RAW unless:

(a) you have no more CF card space
(b) you have no time to post process your pix
(c) you are a real pro who can get the exposure spot on each time.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#10
may i ask what the dif form D80 raw+jpg?? compare to other raw from 400d,d3,d300,e-510,e410,e3.....and so on ???

Diff camera models have diff raw file systems
E.g Nikon with the NEF, and Canon with their CR2 files.
Within Nikon the NEF can have slight differences as versions cary e.g compressed NEF of the D80

Peace
Ryan
 

Nov 27, 2007
57
0
0
#12
Can I safely say that at least 99% of us in HERE do not go into RAW simply because there's no need to do so and all we want are the digitial images taken ?
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#13
I would say that at least ~25% of all forum members shoot extensively in RAW... of course I'm just guessing... could be more...
 

varf

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,092
4
0
Visit site
#15
+1 for RAW. for two main reasons: lossless white balance correction, highlight/shadow exposure recovery.
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#16
if the photo is very important for you, shoot raw.
when overseas and taking pics, shoot raw, unlesss you are going back to the same place every year...
you dun want to mess up your pics, especially if it is a very beautiful moment...
i once rejected raw, felt it was too bothersome to edit and ps ...etc
but after messing up some important shots, i regretted not shooting raw :(
so, now i shoot raw if i can :)

if it is just a casual pic, then shoot jpeg....
 

zaxh81

Senior Member
Jan 29, 2003
4,339
0
36
Earth
louisleow.blogspot.com
#17
what is the diff between processing Raw and jpeg in lightroom.
i noticed that when importing jpeg or raw,both are able to adjust the WB,Exp etc...:)
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#18
what is the diff between processing Raw and jpeg in lightroom.
i noticed that when importing jpeg or raw,both are able to adjust the WB,Exp etc...:)
More leeway for adjustment... try it out.

Shoot 2 pics of a certain scene (let's say in poor light), 1 in RAW and 1 in JPG. See which you can bring up to the correct level. ;)
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,495
0
36
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#19
what is the diff between processing Raw and jpeg in lightroom.
i noticed that when importing jpeg or raw,both are able to adjust the WB,Exp etc...:)
lightroom has alot of convenient functions for RAW~~ =) RAW colors are more vibrant and richer than JPG. Care need to be taken for converting photos to jpg.
 

varf

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,092
4
0
Visit site
#20
what is the diff between processing Raw and jpeg in lightroom.
i noticed that when importing jpeg or raw,both are able to adjust the WB,Exp etc...:)
an image recorded in JPEG is fixed in 24-bit color (8 bits per channel - R+G+B). areas which have hit the max value (ie. clipped) are referred to as "blown highlights" and details in those areas cannot be recovered by adjusting exposure. same goes for shadow areas.

an image recorded in RAW typically has more exposure latitude than can be recorded in JPEG (ie. more data is stored than just 8 bits per channel) - typically a stop or two above for highlights, and maybe a stop below for shadows. you can recover details from "blown" highlights, to a certain extent, using exposure correction tools.

additionally, WB adjustment from a RAW source is a "freebie" adjustment - you're not forced to re-interpret from the limited data range of a JPEG. most noticeable when doing dramatic WB changes.


there are a number of advantages to shooting RAW over JPEG, and make no mistake, it is a BIG jump to take. personally, i resisted for the longest time.

the advent of tools such as Lightroom and Aperture have simplified RAW workflow management dramatically. i bit the bullet and purchased Aperture, and have not had to open up any other image-editing software for a good long while. YMMV.

i'm not going back to JPEG shooting any time soon.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom