Raw versus .JPG, why even ask that question since we all know raw is superior…or is it really?   I have a friend who has asked me about using Raw.  His camera came with Photoshop Elements 3 with the basic Adobe raw converter.   He now asks, “I am still a bit fuzzy on why raw is better but am willing to be convinced.”

 

Can you give me ways to convince?  The links here are to articles concerning  Raw versus JPG.  This first link is to an article essentially saying jpg is just as good as raw. The second link gives a few reasons demonstrated by photo of why Raw is better in some circumstances.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

 

 

I shoot both Raw and JPG, depending on the situation. Most of the time I shoot Raw, convinced I do get a better final render, especially for print.  I believe Raw provides me with better color depth, better detail in highlights, less color wash in some images and for the fine image is the way to go.   Still, some argue Raw is only for the best shots and is a waste of time otherwise.  Who is correct, anyone?

 

Subjectivity has something to do with it, perhaps.  Perhaps the belief that the image is better in Raw conversion has something to do with believing Raw is better.  Honestly, for some images, I see little difference but for others the differences are apparent and the gold star goes to Raw.

 

Raw conversion software is possibly part of the confusion, assuming Raw is better overall or not so great.   Having used RawShooter, then the initial Adobe converter in CS2, Lightroom and PhaseOne Capture One 4  there are differences in quality from different software.  Capture One appears to me to render better detail and color depth than any of the others.  The converter in CS2 is one I have not found versatile enough after using Lightroom.  RawShooter is gone unless you have the older software before the Adobe buyout.

 

What can you say from personal observation and/or from technical detail to convince that Raw is superior to JPG?   I will appreciate any responses.

 

Thanks,      Tom.

 

 

Tom,

Here are my initial comments ...

1. We need to know a little more of the details about what is under discussion. 

In the KenRockwell site, he talks about 12 bit information, 10 bit information,
and also says, "coding to pack 14 bit linear raw data into 8 bit JPGs". 

Unless we examine the actual file formats, we can't be sure if he is talking
about facts or just spouting blls*t. 

This much is certain ... smaller bit depth results in poor color range.  The
first scanner I owned touted 24 bit color.  Ii thought that meant 24 bits
per color ... Wrong! ... it meant 8 bits per color ... and that meant that
a scan of a photo did not have the same smooth gradation of color as
the original ... no getting around it. 

If you want to test that out, change the settings on your color monitor
from true color (32 bit) to high color (16 bit) to 256 colors to 16 colors
... see if you can convince yourself that the images look just as good
with fewer bits per color. 

1. Compression ... the KenRockwell site claims that even though a JPG
   uses a lossy cojmpression, no information is lost. 

That is plain and simple NOT true.  ... And with a lossy compression,
you can't get back all of the original information ... no way ... no how ...
not at all. 

1. The KenRockwell site makes the unsupported claim that 20 years from
   now we won't be able to read a RAW format image made today. 

That won't become a reality if we keep our software up to date. 

--
Martin

Martin, I agree.  I found more useful info in the second link. The man seemed intent on approaching the question in an organized and repeatable manner.   The Ken Rockwell one..yes, some defects in the argument.

Yikes, we loose info in jpg from using straight "contrast" controls. I am not certain how raw converters handle changes in lights and darks, with or without loss.     I appreciate your thinking and response.   We will see what more is said.        Tom.

Havent read this as i am convinced anyway  - and recognise that whatever you guys put down is always very good advice (and am just heading to bed so am limited for time). But what it boils down to is this if we are talking about picture quality:

On my camera:

RAW = 6.5-8.5MB
Jpeg = 2-3MB

Which do you think will yield a better picture quality if the resolution of both are the same pixel count?

The reverse is true for speed and ease of getting a "viewable" image at the end of your workflow...

There you have it - the lowest common denominator argument for RAW vs Jpeg

Attached Link: Stephen Johnson Photography

I started shooting in RAW last August. I love it. I use Nikon's CaptureNX to do my adjustments. It allows adjustments of exposure, sharpness, contrast, saturation and white balance just as if you did the adjustments before you made the shot. Also it allows pin point adjustments on just a small area of a photo. If I save for the internet, I save in .jpg. If I save for print, I save in .tif.

The one big difference I notice is I never get .jpg artifacts on a RAW format photo. When I shot in .jpg and converted to .tif for print, I also had to contend with .jpg artifacts. They are very visible around hard lines in a photo. 

I won't go back to shooting .jpg for shots I truly want to edit and print. Simple snap shots or photos only intended for the internet are fine shot in .jpg.

The photo included was shot and edited in RAW before conversion to .tif

Ultimately it depends upon your final image destination and your needs WRT to image quality.

If you're just looking for a web upload.....JPG is fine and probably not worth your time to post process.
If you're intending to shoot stock, print and/or subject your image to further processing....RAW is the best route to follow if you wish to maintain the best final image quality and allow you the ultimate in flexibility.

If you are happy with the JPG output out of your camera.....why bother with RAW?....keep JPG'ing!!!

Folks need to understand that certain algorithms are applied in cam to produce it's JPG output.  Similar and more sophisticated,  mostly better ( but not always) alogorithm's can be applied with post processing software.  If you are going to take your JPG image and subject it to further processing....you are processing an already processed image....why not start with an unadulterated as possible version of that image?

Also, you can often salvage a "ruined" RAW shot ( I seem to do a lot of that...LOL).....it is much more difficult to do that with a JPG.

@MGD....your comments are correct....and I also don't hold much value in Rockwell's words....

@Stevej46....I follow almost the same workflow....but, my adjustments in Capture are generally limited to WB and exp....I then transfer over to other software that does a much better job of noise, curves, sharpness, etc.  I would also recommend that when you save to JPG to do it outside of Capture....using PS or similar progs.
Basically, I use Capture as a first step in the work flow process...then transfer to other  more capable programs for specific "tuning".

If you're picky about Image quality....you'll shoot RAW.
Personally, I would never go back to shooting straight JPG's.....

I know that some professional photographers shoot in jpg most of the time. Why they do that? Because their cameras and lenses are so good and professional that there are no highlight clippings, no lost details in the shadows, and good color and tonal quality overall. And shooting in jpg saves them time (and storage space) that they would otherwise have to spend on the raw conversion. And they are good and experienced enough themselves to know exactly what they're gonna get in an image. In other words, their images are so good straight out of the camera that they don't need the benefits of the raw format.
For most of us, non-professionals and/or plain amateurs, the raw format can make a difference between a lost-for-ever and a salvageable photo, because of the intact color depth and tone depth information stored in that format. So, yes, I prefer shooting in raw as long as my photos are not perfect straight out of the camera... ;o))

As it has been stated, it depends on your workflow and how much time you want to put into postprocessing. I don't think that any reasonable person will argue that JPEG images can be of the same quality as one captured in the RAW format. If you have the time and reason and camera/computer memory to shoot RAW, then that is the way to go. That said, if you didn't know an image was orignally a JPEG, you would be hard pressed to tell without a side by side comparison. Not in all cases, but many. As was mentioned above, if you know you won't be making large prints and mainly using your images for the web, a high quality JPEG is not a bad way to go, especially if time is a factor. Though I agree that you have more control over an image and the quality is better with RAW, I rarely shoot in it. I just had a person in Chicago buy a print of a photo of mine they saw online. The original was a JPEG, but I was able to blow it up to about 4'x5' and the image quality held up. They were very happy with it as well. Maybe I just got lucky, but there you go. BTW, I only capture in JPEG. After importing my images, any photo that I've worked on is saved as a TIF or PS file.

Girsempa said: I know that some professional photographers shoot in jpg most of the time. Why they do that?

Depands on what their shooting...most if not all paps shoot jpg purely so they then wi-fi  them straight to the desk quicker, remember, time is a premium to them.

Ok, Raw files take up more mb's than  jpgs do.  I for one cannot sacrifice space over 16 bit quality!
Raw v JPG: I shoot/shot  Raw for many yrs. Raw can convert to 16bit TIFFs whereas JPG are only 8 bit regarless on what format one saves them too.
Can pull back the highlights, the exposure, white balance...kinda stuck in jpg (unless one knows how to work the cam:-)

If I know the end use is going to be very big I shoot raw. If I remember to alter the settings and its for stock I use large jpeg plus raw. Just for fun shots are taken on jpeg.

I do need to buy more 2mb memory cards for  some longer flights this year because if I shoot raw/jpeg I can only fit about 100 images on a card.

Stock pics could be for a variety of end use and if its for a poster or even as happened last year a four by five foot display I know it needs the Raw file to start with.

Although I agree for the most part with Nameless's comments...we should be careful with respect to what we "think" we are getting regarding image quality.

To my knowledge there are NO consumer DSLR's that have a 16 bit D/A converter....the best currently available are the 14 bit files produced from the newest Canon's (40D and 1Ds Mark III ) and Nikon's ( D300 and D3).

So, converting your 12 or 14 bit image data into a 16 bit TIFF file will not in reality give you 16 bit information.

Here's an interesting no-nonsense article from Shutterfreaks.com.
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/FileFormats.html

Personally, I think raw gives me more flexibility, and it's worth the extra time it takes to upload and process. YMMV

Dennis

Attached Link: RAW -vs- JPEG

Thanks for that link Dennis. I think a lot of good information and opinions have been presented here, and ad nauseum on the web. Look at what and how you shoot and what you will be using it for and decide what works best for you.

I see that TwoPynts gave us an additional way to look at,

RAW -vs- JPEG

I looked at that page and have some questions (observations) ...

1. they say ...

at least 8 bits per color - red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location),
though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).

This must be an example of 'new math'.  I thought that 8 bits per color
... and 3 colors (RGB) would be 24 bits ... 3 X 8 = 24 ... right? 

1. they say ...

In comparison a JPEG is…

exactly 8-bits per color (12-bits per location).

Once again, I'm having a little trouble with the new math. 

1. They say ...

The major actor in this case is the Discrete Cosine Transforamtion
(or DCT) which divides the image into blocks (usually 8×8 pixels) and
determines what can be “safely” thrown away because it is less
perceivable (the higher the compression ration/lower quality JPEG,
the more is thrown away during this step).

This statement is partially correct ...

Actually, the image is divided into a serries of 8X8 blocks and the DCT
is applied to each block.  IOW, the authors have confused effect and
cause ... errrrrrrr ... Oh, I meant cause and effect ... well, you get the
idea -- even if they didn't get it exactly right. 

The Wikipedia JPEG article is much more authorative ... and is what we
should use as a baseline for discussions about JPEGs or JPEG v. Raw. 

BTW, if you don't like the complexity of the Wikopedia JPEG article,
I suggest that you consider this John von Neumann quote ...

**If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is
only because they do not realize how complicated life is.
--John von Neumann
**
Quotation source ...
"John von Neumann and von Neumann Architecture for Computers (1945)"

--
Martin

BTW, John von Neumann also said ...

It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to
achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with
such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.
--John von Neumann (Said in 1949)

... from "Quotations by John von Neumann"

and also "John von Neumann [1903 - 1957]"

--
Martin

I see that TwoPynts gave us an additional way to look at,

RAW -vs- JPEG

I looked at that page and have some questions (observations) ... 

[just one more thought ... please ... OK?]

1. They say ...

A Raw file is… not an image file per se (it will require special software
to view, though this software is easy to get).

In comparison a JPEG is… a standard format readable by any image
program on the market or available open source.

Sorry, i don't get their point ...

Can I look at a RAW file without using a computer? ... No. 

Can I look at a JPEG file without using a computer? ... No. 

As a matter of actual fact, both RAW files and JPEG files are image files. 

It simply isn't true (and is very misleading) to say that one is
and the other isn't an image file. 

--
Martin

Misleading perhaps, but I get their point. JPEG is just a much more standardized image file format. I can open a JPEG file with a web browser. RAW? Nope.

I see that TwoPynts asserted and wondered,

I can open a JPEG file with a web browser.

RAW? Nope.

Maybe the plug-in is about to be released to the wild. 

--
Martin

"Maybe the plug-in is about to be released to the wild. " That can handle each manufacturer's RAW file format? I look forward to that! ;']

Yeah,  plugin that my firewall will likely reject! : )