# JPEG vs RAW (NEF)



## ericande (Nov 27, 2006)

I know that RAWs are higher quality then JPGs, but what exactly do you lose with a JPG?  I mean, at a glance they appear identical.  Are there certain types of details that JPGs are inferior at (skies, faces, gradients, etc)?  I've been shooting in NEF+basic JPEG mode on my D50 anytime I'm planing on editing the photos but not sure if I need to.

Also, is there a website that describes in plain english what algorithms JPEGs use?  I mean, how they actually compress the data?

Thanks...


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 27, 2006)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm


----------



## Digital Matt (Nov 27, 2006)

ericande said:
			
		

> what exactly do you lose with a JPG?



Most importantly, 4 bits of data, or 3840 levels of brightness.  What does that equate to?  Shadow and highlight detail that is otherwise lost in a compressed 8 bit jpg.  You also lose the ability to accurately control white balance in post process.

You can find info on raw vs jpg all over the net.  Here is a good reliable resource and a good technical explanation:

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Check out the entire website if you can.  It's full of great info.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 27, 2006)

RAW files allow for a greater level of post processing than JPEG's.  RAW files altered retain their original "base" information, so that you can go in and edit them as much as you want and they will still retain their information to allow for further processing.  The tradeoff is of course file size.  

I personally cant tell the difference between a RAW and a JPEG (Fine) quality picture; I would say if youre not doing "professional" work, shooting in JPEG at the highest resolution and setting (I actually shoot at JPEG large res, basic quality) should suffice.

As for algorithims, you might be able to find that information on DPREVIEW.com - through a review of the camera they have.  They sometimes have scientific info like that in the review.


----------



## ericande (Nov 27, 2006)

good info.

so for JPEGs, a lot of the space savings is from the reduction in possibile brightness levels, then I'm guessing that higher compression saves more space by identifying patterns and recording that?  Then you lose quality from the patterns that are "close enough" to be recorded as such?


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 27, 2006)

ANDS! said:
			
		

> I personally cant tell the difference between a RAW and a JPEG (Fine) quality picture; I would say if youre not doing "professional" work, shooting in JPEG at the highest resolution and setting (I actually shoot at JPEG large res, basic quality) should suffice.



in terms of resolution i agree that the jpeg compression does not really hurt. but in terms of everything colour and light related yo udo see a strong difference once you start postprocessing. Just try to brighten up the shadows of an image which were underexposed... in RAW you will still have smooth gradients, whereas in JPEG it easily gets mucked up with visible steps in brightness gradients. And this is not really for "professionals" only


----------



## itoncool (Nov 28, 2006)

Great info guys... thanks for asking ericande
I have learning so much new information about RAW from here, before I only know I could have more option while doing RAW in photoshop...

I'm still new in digital, for personal reason I'd rather picked my analog camera than bought a DSLR
but, I couldn't resist D200, just have it few months ago when the price is already stable... so much to learn


----------



## Garbz (Nov 29, 2006)

My little experience with my new camera and I already decided it's easier to just shoot jpeg providing the camera is setup properly. If I'm doing something important or I know I want to post process, or I can't get the exact exposure I need RAW provides you with some fantastic extra options to touch up a missexposed or otherwise camera miss-processed image.


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 29, 2006)

yes raw has tons of benifits, however . . . if you get to be really good is it worth the trouble?  xsight.com.au  he shoots .jpg.  also, i've done both and the workflow with rax is SUCH A PAIN, and takes so much more processing power.

but then again, every little bit that makes you better we should be working for.


----------



## Digital Matt (Nov 29, 2006)

> if you get to be really good is it worth the trouble?



RAW is not just to correct mistakes.  It gives you a higher dynamic range and lots more colors than jpg.


----------



## Don Simon (Nov 29, 2006)

Hmm... maybe the RAW/Jpeg thing should be a sticky, seems to get asked almost daily.

FWIW I do notice the difference in dynamic range in Jpeg vs Raw and the ability to fine-tune white balance later is something I wouldn't want to give up.


----------



## Groupcaptainbonzo (Nov 29, 2006)

With RAW you gain detail (see above) but you loose a lot of space in memory. So what do YOU want?... Memory is very cheap these days, and once detail has been lost in compression it is irretrievable.. For granny on the beach JPEG is fine. Ifyou want to sell images RAW is best..


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 29, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> RAW is not just to correct mistakes.  It gives you a higher dynamic range and lots more colors than jpg.



Right, but the dynamic range is exactly what you need when  correcting images 

for printing 8 bit is often enough, so sending a jpeg to the printer is fine most of the time.

(and I am not defending jpeg here, as I personally am shooting RAW only)


----------



## ericande (Nov 29, 2006)

Well, I haven't shot too much since my original post but I now shoot mostly in NEF+basic JPEG.  I don't sell photos, mostly just edit the ones out of a set I like to send to friends, post on the web or print.  So I haven't noticed a difference in workflow... If I'm going to open in photoshop it's only one quick extra step.


----------



## newrmdmike (Nov 29, 2006)

look, i understand that raw is technically better and gathers more information.

however, if your a one man show and its causing you extra time at the computer THEN is it worth it?

bambi cantrell shoots raw, jerry ghionis, jpg.  JERRYS LOOK SO MUCH BETTER. and he's shooting with a lower res camera.


its a ton of extra space with raw, and while space may be cheap its still money, and with jpgs you invest a fifth as much as with raw.

i shoot both, but still say its easier to shoot jpg.

is it worth the time, if so then raw kills jpg.  otherwise its just an extra step.


----------



## dewey (Nov 29, 2006)

It's easier to shoot JPG... I don't think anyone will argue that.

You get more control when shooting RAW...  I know someone will, but nobody should argue that.

I wouldn't have some of my very favorite shots if I was shooting in JPG because I couldn't have corrected them the way I wanted.

To each his/her own.  I think if you want to make money it's wise to shoot in RAW.


----------



## Digital Matt (Nov 29, 2006)

Shooting raw is not going to make you a better photographer, nor is it going to make your pictures better.  You have to enjoy spending time in the "darkroom", or else don't do it.  If you get 4x6s printed from your roll of 35 when you develop it, and that's the extent of it, then fine.  If you enjoy taking your negs into the darkroom and pulling a custom print, then do that.  It's all up to you.


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 30, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Shooting raw is not going to make you a better photographer, nor is it going to make your pictures better.  You have to enjoy spending time in the "darkroom", or else don't do it.  If you get 4x6s printed from your roll of 35 when you develop it, and that's the extent of it, then fine.  If you enjoy taking your negs into the darkroom and pulling a custom print, then do that.  It's all up to you.



well said .. probably all which needs to be said


----------



## newrmdmike (Dec 1, 2006)

except that its totally off topic.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 1, 2006)

I like working with RAW. I use it as a quasi error compensation insurance, though I'm pretty confident in my shooting. I usually get it right (or close enough) but I like being able to fine-tune it. When I shoot family fun times I shoot JPGs, if I remember to toggle it back and forth. I forget that often.

On a related note, I read in a magazine (in an article about fine-tuning some of the deeper custom settings, one of my fav. topics on this forum) that every shoot should be approached like a race mechanic deals with a new track. It requires fine-tuning and a custom set-up.


----------



## EBphotography (Dec 1, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> except that its totally off topic.



I think Matt is just explaining the RAW/JPEG comparison a little bit, certainly helps in my understanding, even if it may not directly relate to the question it helps with the topic.


----------



## GSDMan (Dec 1, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> except that its totally off topic.


 
Metaphor - the RAW of the english language


----------



## THORHAMMER (Dec 2, 2006)

i will admit jpeg+raw comes in handy for a wedding. youll find a lot of shots come out perfect with a 8mp or larger sensor camera type...those "perfect shots, will save you a lot of processing time, but the ones that are exceptional or you know need to be blown up really big youll have the raw handy for that.... helps you make proofs a lot faster, thats all... 

raw is all-powerful though...


----------



## fmw (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't understand why raw takes more time.  One should never edit the original image.  One should work on a copy and save that copy in some handy format like tiff or psd or jpeg.  In Photoshop the RAW comes up in the RAW screen.  One single click opens it in Photoshop.  Then you can save it out into whatever form you like so the original is untouched.  What's the big deal?  One click?

Perhaps the answer is to shoot fewer frames and work at making them better in the first place.  Then there are fewer images to edit and store.  One thing digital has done is caused photographers to become overly trigger happy.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 2, 2006)

RAW does take more time, at least on my computer. If I shoot at more than 10 MP, and squeeze 100 of such images through my poor little computer, then he starts to sweat and I can do nothing but write or read emails in parallel.
I usually set everything for say 100 images in the raw converter, when i am done with that, i let it convert. It is ok for me to go for a drink then or wdo whatever, but I guess if you have to process hundreds of images each night for business, then it can be a pain ...


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 2, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> except that its totally off topic.



well, topics evolve ... so what is discussed further down in a thread might not exactly what it started with.

I myself often post things which are far more off topic 

sorry if I annoy anyone with this habit!


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 2, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> except that its totally off topic.



It's not even remotely off topic.  The topic is raw vs jpg, and reasons for shooting raw, or not shooting raw are being discussed.  If someone is questioning whether or not to shoot raw, you have to look at more than just the algoryhthms behind it.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

bump


----------



## TheSon (Jan 19, 2009)

Why not just shoot Raw+Jpeg?  After you look at your pictures, you can erase all of the RAW images that you are not going to use.  Therefore saving space.

I only keep RAW images that I will want to PP.  If the Jpeg/RAW shot looks crappy, I'll just keep the Jpeg.

That way I at least have the RAW image if I need it.

And for Alex... if you're serious about photography, and have top photo equipment, then you should have top computer equipment as well (not a "poor little computer").  These days they go hand in hand with digital photography (and are cheap).


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

TheSon said:


> Why not just shoot Raw+Jpeg?  After you look at your pictures, you can erase all of the RAW images that you are not going to use.  Therefore saving space.
> 
> I only keep RAW images that I will want to PP.  If the Jpeg/RAW shot looks crappy, I'll just keep the Jpeg.
> 
> ...




Interesting point.


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

In simple terms JPG is a lossy compression algorythm. As such data get's lost ( even on fine ) when it's compressed. RAW is just that, RAW data hence the much bigger file size.

I believe png is lossless, as is TIFF.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

Katier said:


> In simple terms JPG is a lossy compression algorythm. As such data get's lost ( even on fine ) when it's compressed. RAW is just that, RAW data hence the much bigger file size.
> 
> I believe png is lossless, as is TIFF.




Good argument!

But... isn't the camera just throwing away the information that we can't see anyways?


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Good argument!
> 
> But... isn't the camera just throwing away the information that we can't see anyways?



Nope, to an extent yes but it's narrowing your capability to adjust the picture and JPG's tend to look a bit noisier.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

true...


they say you can't adjust white balance on a jpeg, but my picasa has a colour temperature slider? 

whats the difference?


plus... my raw files always come out sooo bland.... like hardly any colour and really dull looking....


----------



## Arch (Jan 19, 2009)

why is a thread thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?


----------



## Katier (Jan 19, 2009)

Arch said:


> why is a thread that thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?



Good question


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 19, 2009)

oh sorry..

i had some questions so i did a search...

then I had some more questions...


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 19, 2009)

Arch said:


> why is a thread that thats better off in the TPF archives being bumped?



Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones?  "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 20, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones? "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.


The problem for me is, there is no question in the following post of which restarted the thread....



dEARlEADER said:


> bump


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 20, 2009)

The way I see it, all digital photos start off in RAW.  That's the file the camera uses when you snap a picture.  If you are shooting in jpeg then you are allowing the camera to decide which data is important and which is not.  The camera makes that decision for you and discards the data it deems unnecessary.
When shooting in RAW, the camera saves ALL the data and lets you make the decision as to what should be kept and what should be discarded yourself.
If the end result is that both formats render the same photograph...then the camera was right in the first place.  If however, the camera was wrong...RAW gives you the opportunity to make those adjustments yourself.
I shoot in RAW...because every now and then...I like to think I'm smarter than my camera
That's how I see it.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 20, 2009)

Captain, Interesting observation!

but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 20, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Folks are forever moaning about people posting new topics instead of searching and asking questions in old ones?  "Do A Search!" should be the official forum slogan.




Hey Mister,

we are all trying to learn here

thank you


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 20, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Captain, Interesting observation!
> 
> but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space




Thanks,

RAW does require a lot of real estate on a drive, but I guess that the price you pay!


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 20, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Captain, Interesting observation!
> 
> but RAW files eat up a lot of hard drive space


Only if you keep the RAW files (which before people jump on this, I know you would want to keep original files.)

Upload 40 mb RAW to computer (general file size.)
Process RAW to finished JPEG.
Save finished 5 mb JPEG to your liking over camera presets.
Delete RAW file.

Takes the same space as shooting JPEG to begin with.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 20, 2009)

Hard drives are about 30 cents a gb these days, and only getting cheaper.  I can remember my Dad commenting on the PC I got in the early 90s "You'll never fill that 170mb hard drive in your lifetime!"  Now I've got just over a terabyte stacked next to me.   

All digital photos start out as raw data, and most end up as jpegs when they are finished image files.  Setting the camera to jpeg or raw is just choosing the processing software.  If the camera is set to jpeg the in-camera processing software is used.  If the camera is set to raw I get to choose the processing software.  

I find the in-camera options limited; there's a couple of slider bars for contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc... with a few positions each.  I prefer the wider range of control choices and precision adjustment I get with Lightroom or Camera Raw.  I also like processing on large, calibrated screens.  Yes jpegs can be reprocessed, but it makes sense to me to try to just do it right the first time.  For many situations it probably doesn't make much difference one way or the other, but every once in a while, particularly when I'm trying to pull detail out of the shadows, I'm really glad I'm working with a 16 bit psd created from all of the original data, and I have the option of setting the tone curve for the very first time.  But not everybody wants or needs that, and plenty of pros and serious amateurs shoot only jpegs with no problems.

When I first started shooting digital I saw a difference in the noise and contrast between in-camera jpegs vs processing raw files myself, so I've always gone with raw.  I admit I haven't done much practicing with jpegs, nor experienced what newer processing software allows for processing jpegs.  When I started white balance alone was enough reason for me to shoot raw over jpeg.

Raw files often look drab when they pop up on screen processed with the default software parameters.  You need to figure out your basic processing settings, and save them as the new default or a preset.  I am not familiar with the Nikon software, but Canon DPP (the raw processing software that comes with the DSLRs) can be set to process raw files as if it were done in-camera.  All the same picture modes can be chosen, etc...  So it should be possible to create a jpeg identical to an in-camera jpeg.  With other software it would just be a matter of some practice and testing to figure out settings that would give similar results to the in-camera processing.

The in-camera software is only going to get more and more sophisticated.  Every DSLR I've bought has more and better options than the last.  I don't think it's going to be long before we'll be able to install our own choice of in-camera processing software in our digital cameras (I've already hacked my digital compact with CHDK).  Instead of jpeg or raw the cameras will create smart objects or something that offers both options and more from the same file.  Raw vs jpg will be a thing of the past, although out-of-camera processing will probably continue to be popular.  At least until our cameras can display large holograms in the air, or jack the images straight into our brains.


----------



## Ejazzle (Feb 26, 2009)

If you can properly expose and adjust WB then why do you need raw? 

Is there a point to shooting in raw if youre not selling or making large prints of your pictures? If not, then wouldn't PP the raw files to what the camera already can do to the jpeg just be a waste of time?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 26, 2009)

Ejazzle said:


> If you can properly expose and adjust WB then why do you need raw?
> 
> Is there a point to shooting in raw if youre not selling or making large prints of your pictures? If not, then wouldn't PP the raw files to what the camera already can do to the jpeg just be a waste of time?




ahhhh haaa...

IT LIVES AGAIN!!


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 26, 2009)

Ejazzle said:


> If you can properly expose and adjust WB then why do you need raw?
> 
> Is there a point to shooting in raw if youre not selling or making large prints of your pictures? If not, then wouldn't PP the raw files to what the camera already can do to the jpeg just be a waste of time?



If you trust yourself to get the exact exposure and exact white balance every shot, more power to you


----------



## lschaaf (Feb 27, 2009)

Ejazzle said:


> If you can properly expose and adjust WB then why do you need raw?
> 
> Is there a point to shooting in raw if youre not selling or making large prints of your pictures? If not, then wouldn't PP the raw files to what the camera already can do to the jpeg just be a waste of time?



I'm not sure.  Since this is the Beginner's Forum, most people are probably not selling pictures yet.

I'm a fairly new photographer, trying to develop my skills, both with exposure and composition.  I've been shooting all RAW, and with family life, sometimes it takes me a week to download my pics (usually around 400-600 files), edit them and delete the repetitive and boring pics and do batch adjustments to brighten, sharpen, etc.... Then I filled my hard drive in 3 months!  I know hard drives are cheap, but as a beginner, none of my photos are something I want on my wall yet!  So I don't want a stack of drives with pictures I may never do more with than look at for memories.  So, I've been converting everything to jpg and deleting the RAW to save space.

I think I am just going to shoot jpg for my training shots and just use RAW for special locations where I might get that "good enough to want to blow up" shot or when taking pics for friends (I've done some engagement shots for a friend and family photos for others).

Everyone has their reasons for what they use, some wedding photographers only shoot jpg, others wouldn't dream of not shoot RAW.  Me, I'd do RAW because I'd probably need a lot of PP help!  But for my training, I want to learn to do it right in the camera and am making the switch to jpg for space.

Lisa


----------



## adamwilliamking (Feb 27, 2009)

dewey said:


> It's easier to shoot JPG... I don't think anyone will argue that.


 
Can you explain how it is easier, or how shooting raw is harder??


----------

