i did a couple of quick searches and turned out nothing in the forum. was wondering if people could tell me the main difference. i have been shooting raw since i got my camera. i like the fact that i can put in a lot of work into the image and come out with great results. however, i discovered that although JPEG does not offer such flexibility, the images are smoother and less grainy. why is this so?
If you are finding Jpegs smoother and less grainy, I suspect that you are talking about noise and much of that noise is likely in the shadows. In-camera Jpeg processing typically darkens the shadows a little extra to hide this noise. A raw convertor will allow you to look into those shadows, "warts and all". If you don't like to see that noise in your raw convertor, use the raw convertor controls to compress or even clip the shadows to your liking. If your raw convertor has noise reduction controls, that can help, too.
Post a sample Jpeg/Raw pair if you can so we can take a look. Mentioning your camera make and model and the software you use to do the raw conversion would also be helpful.
Back to the Jpeg/Raw comparison, here is one of many links you can find through Google:
In general, it is a speed (Jpeg) vs. quality (Raw) thing. Exactly how much of a difference/trade-off there is a personal decision and that is why you see the endless debates. Some people assume that the requirements/standards/work processes they use are the same for everybody else. They aren't.
Eyeball wrote:
I'm surprised you couldn't find anything on Raw vs. Jpeg since there is usually a weekly debate somewhere here on FM. Here is one of the recent ones:
erm - almost daily!
Some people assume that the requirements/standards/work processes they use are the same for everybody else. They aren't.
Of course they are - you must be STUPID everybody knows Raw/Jpeg (delete as required) is the best.
You could also try noise reduction plugs in like Noiseware, Noise Ninja or Neat Image
Edited by paulhodson on Dec 05, 2007 at 05:36 PM GMT
jpeg is processed by your camera and is saved as 8bit, RAW is saved as 12bit or 14bit, depending on your camera. This allows you much more to alter, not to mention being able to really change the WB.
You can fix white balance problems in RAW mode far easier than in JPG's. When you fail to get white balance precisely right when shooting, this capability is worth a great deal.
Moreover, JPG uses "lossy compression," so inevitably you lose some of the information in your original capture when you or your camera converts to JPG. This loss shows up as "JPG artifacts" -- little interlaced blocks of color at the "few-pixel" resolution. Even worse, when you edit and save a JPG file, you lose information *again* (i.e., get more artifacts).
If you're just sharing photos on the web it probably doesn't matter. If you're looking to do substantial post-processing and to make high quality prints, especially at larger sizes, it's important to preserve as much information as possible.
Just compare the amount of data that you have in each format's histogram. RAW has more data that lets you adjust the picture the way you want. There is always a way to make a RAW picture look better than a JPEG the only question is how much better and how long will it take?
SoundHound wrote:
There is always a way to make a RAW picture look better than a JPEG the only question is how much better and how long will it take?
The answer to both of those questions lies with the ability of the user. The more you learn about your software and the more you work with it, the better the results and the less time it takes.
As Jpegs are processed in the camera it often puts a heavy tone curve on the pictures which in many cases look great, but in difficult shooing conditions these curves and other in camera processes causes highlight, shadow clipping and over saturation which is unrecoverable loss of detail/data. Shooting raw allows for the most accurate capture and retention of all the details.
