raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2008 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Chad Bassman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

I know the debate has been argued from here to eternity but what I am asking is can someone show me before and afters of a picture using a Raw file and Photoshop changes that are only able to be used due to its Raw format and then make changes as close as possible using a jpeg file?

I see many people say that Raw offers more versatility but I've yet to see changes that could only be made b/c the file format was raw. Fwiw I have PS2 and a MarkII but shoot in jpeg b/c I don't know how to use Photoshop yet but plan on learning

Thanks,
Chad

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Linky's

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/jpg-follies.shtml

Those should help and have some real world examples like you're looking for. The JPG Follies article on WB is very interesting.

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:21 AM

stanj
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

If the jpg has too much contrast, you can't reduce it (you can't get more detail into the shadows or highlights). Even if the image is properly exposed, the jpg may (and often will) clip and that's the end of the story.

One can also mathematically (for those who can't see it) prove that adjusting WB on a jpg can't be as accurate (not to mention easy) as with raw.

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

There is a HUGE difference when it comes to tweaking the tones. A RAW file holds SO much more detail in the shadows and especially the highlights. I feel very awkward shooting jpeg, and avoid it as much as possible.

Here's a shot of a scene straight from the camera as a jpeg

http://www.benhorne.com/photos/sky.jpg

Here is a raw version of the shot with the exposure tweaked to pull out all the sky detail. With the jpeg shot, you are out of luck --- you have a sky that is way overexposed and you cannot get that detail back.

http://www.benhorne.com/photos/sky2.jpg

I also converted a shot with proper foreground detail, and combined with with the raw conversion for the sky...

http://www.benhorne.com/photos/sky3.jpg

So for a jpeg vs. raw comparision, compare shot #1 to #3.

If you are not shooting RAW, you are not using your camera to its full potential. IMO, you might as well be using a P&S if you want to shoot jpeg.

Edited by Ben Horne on Apr 28, 2008 at 04:25 PM GMT

Edited on Apr 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Rebel Guy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

This is good info and will help me too.
thanks.

-Frank

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24 AM

ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Chad, there are 2 valid uses for the RAW file format. Most photographers use it because it allows you much, much more latitude with color correction and a stop or two more latitude of exposure correction over the JPG format. This is a non-issue if you always get color and exposure pretty close with JPG, but RAW can rescue an otherwise unrecoverable poorly captured image. This is why most wedding photographers shoot RAW, because it provides a safety/recovery feature to those "once in a lifetime" shots.

The other main use for RAW file format is that it provides greater absolute resolution in most cases and greater file depth. This is why landscape photographers and those that print large shoot RAW.

Here's a recent article with many good photo examples, although the print version of the article was much more convincing because the example photos were of course much larger than these tine web images:

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4681/digital-toolbox-why-raw-works.html

Hope this helps!

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Not to be flip, but in general such excercises are fairly useless. You need to try it yourself to convince yourself one way or another. Things posted by others tend to not be convincing and there are numerous online resources that already talk about RAW advantages and give examples as good or better than someone here will give you.

In general for a properly exposed (including the correct tone/contrast curve) and white-balanced image that hasn't been oversharpened there won't theoretically be much RAW can do that you can't do in Photoshop on a JPEG although there are some things that can be done much, much easier with RAW (nonlinear color changes such as PictureStyle type stuff being a good example). Some specialized RAW functions specific to the camera manufacturer are also easier (for instance lens corrections using DPP). Finally, at extreme magnification the RAW converter will recover more detail than the in camera processing did but this is usually a moot issue unless blowing up to wall size and then standing 6 inches from the photo (or you are a pixel peeper who likes to look at things at 200% on your monitor).

For an image that is not properly exposed (either over or under or too high a contrast setting) or badly mis-whitebalanced then there is in fact a whole lot of information lost in the JPG that RAW could recover. In some cases the information is gone entirely (highlight clipping) or doing a curves adjustment on the JPEG may result in very noisely or posterized portions of the image.

Anyway, that's a very rough guide and perhaps stuff you've already heard from others. And I'm sure some would agree or disagree with the finer points.

My main point is, go try it yourself. If you find RAW useful great, if not that's great too. I personally use both, but more frequently RAW.

Sorry if this post was useless to you

.

Ken

EDIT: While I was writting this some folks gave you some very good links and even a decent sample - probably more useful than my response!

Edited by kwalsh on Apr 28, 2008 at 09:31 AM GMT

Edited on Apr 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Chad Bassman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Thanks Jammy, that's exactly what I was looking for... interesting, not sure I'm sold on Raw yet especially since I don't know how to use PS and my computer is slow enough already

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Jordan Roberts
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

shooting in jpeg is akin to taking a picture on film, making a print in the darkroom with a predetermined colour balance, and then burning your negatives.

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:34 AM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

jpeg is like taking your film to Walgreens. BTW, as far as the contrast issue goes, you an dial down the contrast in camera in some Canon SLR's, if not all off them. I know my 20D can.

Edited on Apr 28, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46 AM

stanj
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

ShaneEngelking wrote:
jpeg is like taking your film to Walgreens. BTW, as far as the contrast issue goes, you an dial down the contrast in camera in some Canon SLR's, if not all off them. I know my 20D can.

I know that, but most people don't. Also, then the histogram will need somewhat different interpretation for the raw case (because it's based on the embedded jpg) - people are relying on being able to "pull back" and recover highlights - well, when the contrast is set to all flat, that won't be possible quite as much anymore.

It doesn't make it better or worse, just different, and people have to be very aware of that, or else surprises will ensue.

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Over and above what others have mentioned, one of the best things about RAW is that I don't have any need for Photoshop. So, thinking that you need to know Photoshop to make the best of RAW is a misconception. In fact, I would have much more need for Photoshop if I shot JPEG!

Edited on Apr 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Chris Tylko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Chad! The beauty of it is that you don't really need PS!

If you're using Canon equipment it should have come with Canon's raw converter DPP. If you haven't used it, upgrade to the latest version on the Canon site, and you'll discover that its really quite simple to manage, adjust and convert RAW files. I almost always use DPP because I simply get more satisfying results than with PS's raw converter.

Give it a try! I'd even recommend you learn to use DPP first before you start messing with PS.

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Chad Bassman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Well Chris and cogitech, I'll try just that... shoot raw and use DPP... thanks again!

FM is amazing and allowed me to use and enjoy my photo equipment so much.

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

The main reason I shoot RAW is WB. I shoot mostly landscapes, flowers, nature. Its all about the color; if I can't get the color right then nothing else really matters.

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

cogitech wrote:
Over and above what others have mentioned, one of the best things about RAW is that I don't have any need for Photoshop. So, thinking that you need to know Photoshop to make the best of RAW is a misconception. In fact, I would have much more need for Photoshop if I shot JPEG!

Curves in CS3 is fantastic, and goes far beyond anything in raw, and sharpening is better, and the list goes on . Try doing curves in CS3/2 in just the luminosity channel, and then just the color channel. But if you want to process a lot of shots quickly, RAW is great for this. But for the best ones, Photoshop is WAY better.

Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

Chad Bassman wrote:
Thanks Jammy, that's exactly what I was looking for... interesting, not sure I'm sold on Raw yet especially since I don't know how to use PS and my computer is slow enough already

No problem. I learned long ago all it takes is someone with a hair of insight and a bit of copy and pasting to be immensely helpful.

DPP should run well enough on an older PC, Adobe Lightroom is very useable on older Macs all the way down to 867mhz with 8mp cameras. I personally don't think Photoshop proper is a good choice for most image editing these days, it has its uses but it's not beginner friendly (it's not even really photographer friendly IMHO, it's more of a design tool). Things like Lightzone, Lightroom, and Aperture are much more intuitive.

If your shooting more than snapshots than there's no question in my mind RAW is the way to go, for most cameras you get slightly higher resolution and much greater latitude for adjustments.

Cheers!

Apr 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

ShaneEngelking wrote:
Curves in CS3 is fantastic, and goes far beyond anything in raw, and sharpening is better, and the list goes on . Try doing curves in CS3/2 in just the luminosity channel, and then just the color channel. But if you want to process a lot of shots quickly, RAW is great for this. But for the best ones, Photoshop is WAY better.

The Bibble curves tool is plenty powerful enough for me. I can apply a custom curve to thousands of photos in seconds. I have a perl script that converts any PS curve to a Bibble curve. Not sure why I need more than that.

Bibble's sharpening alone is not the best, but coupled with Sean Puckett's "Sharpie" plugin for Bibble, I would say it is at least as good (better actually) than PS.

Edited on Apr 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Apr 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM

teh_rebel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

i always shoot raw+jpeg .. there are times though where i like how the jpeg looks already so ill just do minor PP on it in lightroom.

ill be on a trip for 3 weeks in vietnam though and i have a 8gb, 4gb, 2gb, and 1gb CF cards. i know im gonna take lots and lots of pictures so im thinking of just shooting jpeg only. what do you guys think?

i do have a portable storage device (160gb) that I can insert CF cards into to transfer. how reliable it is, i dont know since i havent really used it extensively yet. havent been on a trip this long that i needed the space for. if i was shooting raw+jpeg, i can always dump the pictures onto it each night. im leaving next monday .. havent exactly made up my mind yet on what im gonna do.

Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · raw vs. jpeg... show me the difference...

teh_rebel wrote:
i always shoot raw+jpeg .. there are times though where i like how the jpeg looks already so ill just do minor PP on it in lightroom.

ill be on a trip for 3 weeks in vietnam though and i have a 8gb, 4gb, 2gb, and 1gb CF cards. i know im gonna take lots and lots of pictures so im thinking of just shooting jpeg only. what do you guys think?

i do have a portable storage device (160gb) that I can insert CF cards into to transfer. how reliable it is, i dont know since i havent really used it...Show more →

I've never understood this argument. If you are going to a remote destination for photography, why would it make sense to shoot jpegs? Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot RAW if you don't see yourself going back there anytime soon? Memory cards are CHEAP these days. Just buy a couple extra cards, and shoot RAW.

Apr 28, 2008 at 01:32 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end