# Raw file, whats the point?



## Neocane (Mar 30, 2010)

I've already googled it and come up with nothing more than a myriad of opinions. I would like to hear it from you guys who actually have real world experience and not merely an opinion. What, if any, is the real and tangible advantage of shooting in "raw" format vs jpeg. I seem to get fairly decent results with jpeg files when processed in CS4 and LR2. 

I apologize if this topic has been covered already, and probably has, but I'm a complete noob regarding digital photography and have found so far that TPF is a wealth of experienced information. I really appreciate any helpfull answers you guys can spare the time to give.

Furthermore, if RAW truly is the more exacting way to go, could you point me in the direction of a good tutorial regarding the "correct" way to process a RAW file, or is the software that came with my camera (Canon T1i) more than sufficient for the task?

Thanks again folks! :mrgreen:


----------



## williambarry (Mar 30, 2010)

JPEG loses quality over time. You start seeing artifacts appearing in images. RAW files are a loss less file format, so they stay pristine over time.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 30, 2010)

Why Raw -- Part I

Understanding RAW Files Explained


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 30, 2010)

williambarry said:


> JPEG loses quality over time. You start seeing artifacts appearing in images. RAW files are a loss less file format, so they stay pristine over time.



JPEGs don't necessarily loose quality over time.  But JPEG is a compression format, and each time you save a a JPEG file, it is compressed to save file size and thus can loose quality at each saving.


----------



## mdtusz (Mar 30, 2010)

WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Clearly you have some reading to do. In a short answer, RAW is a record of what every pixel saw when you took the shot. JPEG's are the image created by those pixels. By shooting RAW, you have the ability to adjust the image without losing any of the ratios between colours (ie. whitebalance, exposure, saturation etc) and can adjust sharpness etc. much more effectively.

It's like wet vs dry concrete. It's a lot easier to form the wet stuff, then let it dry when you need to print put it on the web, or "sculpt" it (photoshop).


----------



## ajkramer87 (Mar 30, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> williambarry said:
> 
> 
> > JPEG loses quality over time. You start seeing artifacts appearing in images. RAW files are a loss less file format, so they stay pristine over time.
> ...


 
Which is why when I edit a jpeg I make a copy of the original and edit that one. This way I don't lose quality in the original.


----------



## ann (Mar 30, 2010)

the amount of tweaking is unlimited with RAW as you have control over the whole process. Control being the important word here. With jpeg, the camera maker has desided what they feel you want and apply the information to the file. Yes you can go into the parameters and make some changes but they are gobal in nature.

As and example just in the area of white balance, very little can be done to correct, in RAW an easy fix.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 30, 2010)

For me it's a safety net, plain and simple.


----------



## Big McLargeHuge (Mar 30, 2010)

ajkramer87 said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > williambarry said:
> ...


 
That wasn't really the point Mike was trying to make. Each time you click 'Save' after editing a jpg, the file loses information/quality. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a backup copy. Assuming the edited jpg is the one you want to use (post online, print, etc), you want to minimize lost information. With RAW you can make as many edits as you want, then export to jpg for whatever purpose you wish, and the file has only been compressed once.


----------



## Neocane (Mar 30, 2010)

mdtusz said:


> WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> Clearly you have some reading to do.


 
One word bro, decaf! lol! :lmao:

Seriously though, thanks for the reply's guys. Apparently I need to rethink using RAW as a medium for my more serious endevours. But first I need to learn to process them correctly. Thanks for the link Big Mike. :thumbup:


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 30, 2010)

All digital cameras shoot raw all the time.  

If you have your camera set to jpeg, or it doesn't offer access to the raw file at all, you are processing the raw file with in-camera software.  

If you set the camera to raw it saves the raw file so you can process it with out-of-camera software.  There are many out-of-camera processing software choices that make the manufacturer provided software look pretty lame.  They almost always offer more precision and options.  

Your camera is a dumb computer.  Properly trained your brain can run circles around it when it comes to assessing what human beings find aesthetically pleasing.  Heck, your camera is so stupid it can't even tell you what the subject of the photo is.  Different subject matter often has different processing requirements (for instance lots of sharp detail in a landscape is often appealing, while folks may not want that look with their portraits).  

Raw vs jpeg is processing software choice.  That's it.  You either let the camera do it, or you do it yourself.  It's like 1 hour development and prints vs working in the darkroom.  One hour works fine a lot of the time, and the service is fast and cheap, but with training most folks could probably do better in the darkroom.  On the other hand that takes a lot more time.  Some people think it's worth it, others don't.

EDIT:  Another way of thinking about it.  

Raw is like exposed but undeveloped print film.  For the experienced darkroom geek there are a lot of control options in the development and printing stages.

Jpeg is more like developed slides.  What comes out of the camera is pretty much what you are stuck with.  Sure things can be tweaked, but it's like going back and redoing stuff.  And some of the original exposure data is gone forever.  Is that data important?  Maybe, maybe not.  If it turns out to be important, well, too bad, your camera tossed it.

Back in the film days some folks liked working in the darkroom with print film.  Others liked slides.  If raw were actually better in every situation for every photographer pro cameras wouldn't even have a jpeg option.

I shoot raw all the time.  Why?  Because Canon's in-camera processing software sucks (particularly sharpening and noise reduction) compared to my brain + Adobe.     Also before digital I was a darkroom geek.  I like fooling with it.  I think that in the future we will be able to upload our choice of processing software into our DSLRs.  When I can install my favorite Adobe Camera Raw presets in my DSLR I might start shooting jpegs some of the time.


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 30, 2010)

Neocane said:


> ...could you point me in the direction of a good tutorial regarding the "correct" way to process a RAW file, or is the software that came with my camera (Canon T1i) more than sufficient for the task?



I like Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom better than Canon DPP, but DPP is an okay place to start learning.

Canon Digital Learning Center - Digital Photo Professional v 3.2

Always look to the manufacturer.  They want you to succeed so you'll get hooked and buy a lot of stuff.


----------



## Dwig (Mar 30, 2010)

Hamtastic said:


> All digital cameras shoot raw all the time. ... On the other hand that takes a lot more time.  Some people think it's worth it, others don't....



A good job of copying the text from one of my earlier posts. You should have credited the source. At least you added some additional text after the "EDIT".


----------



## ghpham (Mar 31, 2010)

If you are not a "lab" type of person, shoot with JPEGs.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 31, 2010)

erose86 said:


> From what I understand of RAW and JPEG... this is like the argument between CD format or .wav files VS. mp3s in the music world...
> 
> One is a compressed format resulting in a lesser quality and the ability to *lose* quality every time you mess with it... and the other... should have never been forsaken by the consumers of the music industry.



Close, but the slightly better comparison would be one level higher up. Yes JPEG is like a MP3. However RAW is like the high quality bitstreams in the recording studio. 

The only reason I make this distinction is that there's no bit depth difference between CDs and MP3s. Both are 16bit and provide the same dynamic range. However RAW vs JPEG not only applies lossy compression, but also forgoes the extra dynamic range in the recorded data. 

This extra recorded data makes no visible different to the end user and is only relevant to the people working in Photoshop, or tweaking levels in the recording studio.


----------



## templatephotoshop (Mar 31, 2010)

If you want acceptable images shoot JPEG, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW.


----------



## Neocane (Mar 31, 2010)

This is why I posted my question here in the TPF, you guys are a great resource of "real-world" advice and suggestions, thanks! After having read your suggestions and checked out links supplied in this thread, I now know quite a bit more regarding the RAW format. I believe the end answer to my question "what's the point?" was best summized by *templatephotoshop* when he (?) said 





> If you want acceptable images shoot JPEG, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW.


 That pretty much says it all. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions...............RAW it is!


----------



## sojourn (Mar 31, 2010)

Neocane said:


> <snip>, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW. That pretty much says it all. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions...............RAW it is!


 
I recently switched over to RAW and I am very pleased with the format. It really isn't that difficult to work with, although I have many years of experience with photo-touchup so I know my way around, if you use a good program _(I use the Canon program 'Digital Photo Professional' right now for RAW an PhotoPaint for JPEG)_ it will become second nature in no time to modify the image to your tastes.

My only concern with RAW is how fast my memory cards fill up! I can live with that, because the quality of the image is so much better than JPEG.

Go RAW!


----------



## Hamtastic (Apr 1, 2010)

Dwig said:


> Hamtastic said:
> 
> 
> > All digital cameras shoot raw all the time. ... On the other hand that takes a lot more time.  Some people think it's worth it, others don't....
> ...



Ummm, this is common knowledge, and I've been posting it at this forum (under ksmattfish) and others for over 6 years.

EDIT:  You know what?  I hate photo forums.  Why do I keep coming back?


----------



## Flash Harry (Apr 1, 2010)

Unless you can nail exposure perfectly every time I suggest you shoot raw, in a fast paced environment, (wedding) raw is always going to be best, you shoot one shot, see something happening and grab a quickie with the same settings and it may be slightly over or under exposed or WB is off, in raw corrections are possible and optimum quality available, jpeg just doesn't cut it and I only use the format for my own snapshots when I can't be bothered to think about what I'm doing. H


----------



## iskoos (Apr 1, 2010)

Absolutely raw would give better results and shooting raw all the could be suggested but it is not that easy. One can shoot raw all the time if he/she knows how to properly process them. Otherwise he/she will come here in panic and ask others to get help he/she will have bunch of pictures that needed to be delivered

So the path to follow should be: _"One needs to grow out of what he/she has first, then step up..."_

I shoot JPEG all the time because it suits me for now. I have many other things I need to improve before shooting raw.

With all the above said, I have one question: Say for example I took an indoor picture w/o flash and when I came home, I realized that it would have been much better to take the shot at increased exposure (1 stop up for example). Since it was JPEG I am limited to edit it. So if I had taken that shot in raw, then would I be able to convert it as if it was already taken at 1 stop up exposure?


----------



## iskoos (Apr 6, 2010)

I'd love for somebody to answer the above question for me if possible. I though about it the past few days and I think the answer would most likely be "No" but I still want confirmation.

Thanks


----------



## Mr. Remote (Apr 6, 2010)

IN addition to the above question. I've been shooting JPEG most of my time doing photography, but once or twice I experimented with RAW, because my Photo teacher said it held more color, and I was shooting inside a darkroom, under the safety lights. so when I went to edit them, I edited them in Bridge Camera RAW. but I also have Lightroom on my PC and have never used it.

Is Lightroom good for editing RAW files? is that whats it's mainly meant to do, because I have yet to figure this program out.

FYI, this thread has throughly convinced me to switch to shooting RAW all the time.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 7, 2010)

iskoos said:


> So if I had taken that shot in raw, then would I be able to convert it as if it was already taken at 1 stop up exposure?



Short answer, no.

With any technology that records stuff and stores it in a limited format, to gain the best quality it is necessary to span the range you want (exposure) to fit neatly within the dataspace you have. 

With both JPEG and RAW you can increase the exposure 1 stop. This comes as a cost as suddenly data must be created which was not originally there. Also noise will be increased by one stop along with the signal data. 

The major problem is the darker areas of an image hold less data. Say you record something and the RGB values turn out to be RGB(1,1,1) and you double the exposure and get RGB(2,2,2), sounds sensible right? But what you have lost is similar to maths rounding errors. The actual item in the room that has shown up very dark grey may infact be slightly more red with values around RGB(0.9,0.5,0.5) If this were actually recorded at the original exposure you would get RGB(2,1,1).

This is a very basic example and in reality values that low get eaten by noise anyway. However whenever you boost something that is dark (little information), to something that is brighter (lots more information) then you invariably always end up with a worse image than if you recorded it correctly to being with.


But that's not the end of the story. The benefit of RAW is that data is firstly got a higher bitdepth. Usually 10 to 14bits per pixel rather than 8bpp of a JPEG image. This reduces the rounding error type problems I mentioned above, and improving quality if you increase the exposure of a RAW file compared to a JPEG.
The other benefit is that RAW data is linear, JPEG data is logarithmic. Linear would look like an image with no contrast that comes up very bright and grey. This gives a bit of a boost to the amount of information about shadows, and is also why boosting the shadows from a RAW file gives better results.

So no, it's not the same, but yes it is better.


----------

