Still can't see difference between Raw and Jpeg ???

[Cookster670]

Ok..as some of you may know i recently got a new computer....this meant I can now use lightroom and process RAW files.

Until then, i've always shot in Jpeg and used Picasa (great tool for what it is)


Anyway...i have been processing both JPEG's (Simons wedding) and RAW files (emPhoto shoot), and to be honest..still can't see the difference.

Whatever I do, i can do to both formats with the same result. WB, pulling back highlights, exposure...etc.

So what am I missing here ?

I'm sure part of this is inexperience, but still not seeing anything that justifies the massive file size difference.

Any examples you can think of I should try ?

[K1W1]

RAW files give you more latitude for adjustment. Because jpegs are already adjusted and compressed in the camera (using the settings that you have programmed into the camera or the manufacturer did if you haven't changed anything) they have already lost a bit of data before you see them.
If your in camera settings are close to what is required then you are correct shooting RAW may not be a big or any advantage. The advantage of RAW is when things have gone wrong as the is much more scope for rescue.
BTW what software are you using now? If you are still using Picassa I think that does not edit the RAW file it just uses the embedded jog within the RAs file. You need to have the Joel inside the RAW file so you can have the preview on your camera LCD.

[aslan]

Michael, RAW has the huge advantage of being able to change things without compromising the original data. More importantly you can reverse changes if you don't like them again without compromising data.
The biggest advantage by far is that you can adjust exposure in post workflow by 2 stops either way CORRECTLY rather than artificially (which is what happens in a jpeg).
Cant beat RAW for exposure correction, or if you simply want to play with exposure (very valuable in portraiture)

[Lost]

now you have LR there is no reason not to use RAW.

Can be hard to see any different at time but as you get more experienced you will appreciate the more latitude for adjustments.

The only problem IMO is the files are larger to handle

I use raw mainly for the more adjustment latitude to cover my bad photography LO L

[Remorhaz]

Shoot a normal daylight scene (perhaps with a persons face somewhere in it) with tungsten white balance and correct the WB of the JPEG and RAW afterwards in Lightroom :)

[K1W1]

More importantly you can reverse changes if you don't like them again without compromising data.

That's not a problem now that there are non destructive editors like Lightroom or Aperture available. The only real issue is that the jpeg file does not contain as much data as the RAW file so the adjustment ability is limited as I said in the earlier reply.

[Photogenic]

OK, before everyone jumps down my throat this is said tongue in cheek. :)

RAW takes away the need to get it right in camera because you can fix so much so easily in post with a RAW file - knowing that if you blow the highlights and lose all detail or do the same for the shadow area you will still not be able to fix this. And this does come in handy if you see a shot and take it without the chance to change camera settings.
JPEG requires you to get it right in camera because you don't have as much room for improvement in post. So if you have slight adjustments it won't be an issue but anything big such as shooting on tungsten during the day as Rodney mentioned above you are going to be hardpressed to fix this with a JPEG file.

I know professional photographers who swear by JPEG and I know those who swear by RAW.

For me I have shot in RAW mode ever since I did a Photoshop course (because I learned how to use the RAW edit box properly). I love the simplicity of being able to open a range of photos and make changes and apply to the range in the RAW edit box (not sure what it's technical name is) without the need for having to save the change as an action and batch process for JPEG. I find this works well with my work flow. I then make individual adjustments to the file when it's fully open in photoshop.

Linda

[K1W1]

The real point is that there is no right or wrong. Nobody is compelled to shoot in either format it's just a case or using the one you are most comfortable with and if anybody is truly confused just shoot RAW+jpeg and have the best of both worlds (at the expense of hard drive space).

[aslan]

HaHa Linda, The point I was trying to make to K1W1.

I have been known to forget to reset my WB...............RAW editing makes it simple to fix my stuffups.

[K1W1]

The point I was trying to make to K1W1.


We have always been on the same wavelength. I said


RAW files give you more latitude for adjustment.

and you said


Michael, RAW has the huge advantage of being able to change things without compromising the original data.

the only difference is that you were incorrect about not being able to reverse changes in jpeg adjustment. These days you can.

[aslan]

I should have stated I dont have Lightroom mate, I still use Elements 7 for round two of post and it has limitations.

Obviously LR has far better capabilities.

[Lost]

RAW takes away the need to get it right in camera because you can fix so much so easily in post with a RAW file - knowing that if you blow the highlights and lose all detail or do the same for the shadow area you will still not be able to fix this.

I believe a perfect in camera exposure will usually make a better quality printed photo; but if most of us could actually see the difference is another point all together. Bit like the whiz bang Chef could taste the two drops of garlic in a bowl of soup. To most it would make very little if any difference.

Having said that; I would always suggest the use of RAW if the photographer has a program like LR where there is no need to convert the raw file until it is exported [saved]

I also suggest it's a good idea to bracket exposures in difficult light conditions. I usually over expose by one stop and under expose by two or more stops. For the newbies: with digital photography it pays to not over-expose a file as there will often be very little usable detail in any blown out highlights; however detail can be fitted out of underexposed (dark) areas.
"usable detail in any blown out highlights" that means there will be just bright white with no or little grey/black

[Cookster670]

Thanks guys...this has been useful

For the record, Picasa is a great application for managing and editing photos. It can do some amazing stuff that LR cannot...but it is more of an entry level program. It can also do non destructive edits as per LR

What I like about Picasa is that it's more efficient on disk space, whereas LR you need to export the jpeg once complete.

Having said all that i DEFINITELY see the benefits of LR...it's a great application and way ahead of Picasa in many ways.

The JPEG issue i'm still on the fence about. because i'm used to JPEG i do "try" get the exposure right in the camera first...so perhaps maybe that's why i see less benefit

I will however try Remorhaz suggestion about shooting with the wrong WB. I know there are times with Picasa and Jpeg where no matter what I try, i can't rescue the skin tones (of course, being partially colour blind doesn't help)

Thanks again guys.....food for thought. I will persist with RAW for a while and see how I go. LR is definitely here to stay though :-)

[Lost]

this meant I can now use lightroom and process RAW files.

now give your self time to learn how to use it. I suggest turning off ALL other editing programs and use LR ONLY. And a good book like Scott kelby's will save you posting lots of questions and hours of googling. But members will be happy to answer any of your questions you do have.

[K1W1]

And a good book like Scott kelby's will save you posting lots of questions and hours of googling.

Or if you are a visual sort of person $25 for a month of unlimited online tutorials at Kelby Training (http://kelbytraining.com/) could be a good place to go plus there is plenty of free info on Adobes learning site (http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/).

[Lost]

Or if you are a visual sort of person $25 for a month of unlimited online tutorials at Kelby Training (http://kelbytraining.com/) could be a good place to go plus there is plenty of free info on Adobes learning site (http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/).

true; but there is just something about having a open book beside you .

[K1W1]

I like the book idea as well I have four of Scott Kelbys books on this desk but these days lots of people use other methods of learning in addition to books.

[sejac]

The business of RAW V jpeg comes up once in a while.

No-one has ever given me any sound reasons for not using RAW. That's cause there aren't any, but there are good reasons for not editing jpegs if it can be avoided. I mean, you can if you want to, just like you can sniff petrol or jump off buildings if you want to, but it's better not to!

And also, shooting RAW has nothing to do with being a slack photographer, not exposing correctly and so on. "Real men shoot jpeg!" I don't think so. Aplogies to the girls. :p

In another life, I prepared a PowerPoint to help explain to students what Camera RAW was all about. Have a look if you want to.

Just Click Here. (http://users.on.net/%7Eseja/Digital_Raw.ppt)

[Snix]

I always thought real (wo)men shoot film!

[Scottymc]

One thing i will say. My Jpeg's have no where near the fine detail as my raw shots do. But they have less noise than raw (you can do a good job of removing noise on the raw, but canon does a remarkable job of that). If you dont need to crop at all the Jpeg's come out great. If you can nail exposure/colour balance right in the camera you dont need raw. Yes you can do more with Raw. But you can save time and file space with Jpg. God help you if you make a mistake though.
A good little test to do is to find a grey wall or something even a brick wall will do. Put your camera to shoot in RAW + JPEG L FINE mode (so the best quality Jpeg and raw file). Then shoot the brick wall. Then shoot it with your exposure compensation at +1. then +2 then +3. then -3. -2,-1 for eg.
Once you have done that then open the file up in your free 30 day trial version of light room located here (https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom)
see which one you can get from being over exposed etc. You goal is to make them all the same. See if you can save a +3 jpeg vs saving a +3 raw etc. Which one has lost more detail etc!.
I know its long winded but it will be a very fun thing to do for you!.

[Jacko]

I haven't read all the above because I have probably read it all before ,
Im sitting here looking at the photos I have taken in the last 4 days up the bush , Im editing a few and I cant be stuffed with the RAW files ,
some of the JPEG's I will just do a quick edit with Picasa others where I need to remove some shadow , I will use CS3

There is more room for a stuff up with a RAW but nowhere as much as some say , blow the highlights enough and yep you can fix em better with a RAW but it will still look crap .

Get right in camera in the first place , I take mostly JPEG , normal / medium ,
I have done plenty of testing , RAW , Jpeg , Fine / Large - all the way down to Small / Basic , just coz I can and for my own curiosity , prints up to A4 and a lot bigger
but A4 is all I can print at home

I still want someone to show me how much better a finished RAW file is over the same JPEG ( how about you Scottymc ) lets see some of that fine detail .
I don't want to see a photo of a brick wall

[sejac]

Jacko, if working with jpegs works for you, go for it. There is no rule anywhere that says:"You gotta shoot RAW!"

By the way, get it right in the camera applies to RAW as well.

The theoretical advantages of RAW are easy to research. RAW does give you more head-room for editing, and lets you do more things. One of the reasons for that is that RAW files contain more data, information. This also means larger file sizes.

And when a jpeg is created in camera (all cameras shoot RAW initially, and then convert to jpeg in camera) , data is thrown away in the process. In fact, whenever you edit a jpeg, data is thrown away. There is no such thing as "non-destructive" editing of jpegs. Data is always lost in the jpeg editing process, unlike RAW.

Now, this loss of data may not show up in the edited result, but then it just might, depending on what the final product is.

Here is a shot I took recently at a concert. Not the greatest of images, but it maybe illustrates the point. Continually changing stage lights, the singer moving around resulted in some pretty dodgy exposures, colors and light conditions. Here is the original, unprocessed image, just converted to jpeg from RAW, followed by my edit. Try doing that with the jpeg!!:p

http://www.sejaphotography.com/March_April_2012/2O0V4072-2.JPGhttp://www.sejaphotography.com/March_April_2012/2O0V4072.JPG

[Seesee]

Agree that most times jpeg is good enough to use, and yes it is good to get it perfect on camera always......if possible ?...but especialy with fleeting birding shots or other once in a lifetime shots then it may not always be possible to get it perfect every time, and retrieving blown highlights, iffy WB issues is best done, or has to be done from RAW.

WB is not always correct in camera, and though a slight warm or cool tone may be acceptable for most people may be seen as good enough, it is nice to know you can tweak that easily in RAW, not so easily or nicely from jpeg.

I use the best of both worlds, I shoot in both RAW and jpeg fine to maximise my chances. It's ones own choice to choose to shoot in either RAW or jpeg, if you shotb in jpeg only then you need to adjust on camera properly ...that's if you have time ?...with birding and things like sports where nothing is constant, with changing backdrops and light intensity from panning or subjects shifting it is better to edit in RAW and make most, but not all of those adjustment in PS than on camera. With landscape, macro, flora etc etc this is not so critical, and jpeg fine is good enough much of the time.

Seems a number of people think shooting in RAW will be better quality than in jpeg, no not necessarily. RAW is like digital negative, the images will be flat and ordinary and lack sharpness than if you set sharpening high in camera and shoot in jpeg. Camera settings for the most part are not really transferred when shoting in a RAW format. RAW is like a negative, most if not all images straight from RAW will need tweaking to enhance them.

So again, shoot in both RAW and jpeg simutaneously is a wise thing I feel and get the best of both worlds

[Jacko]

I started with JPEG when I first moved to digital , then I read how superior RAW was because it was the digital negative and how lossy JPEG was , so I thought I would find out for myself

I started taking RAW+Jpeg - fine / large , I would process both files ( not all of em ) just a select few and I was stuffed if I could see much if any difference , ok I admit the photos I take are probably not as extreme

I now set the camera to RAW + Jpeg for maybe just a few photos each trip just in-case , same with the Jpeg normal / medium , stuffed if I can see any difference .

I know it doesn't apply to you guys here so much , but on other forums , I have seen where ppl that are new to digital are told don't take JPEG its just a waste of time .

It just get under my skin , they are basically telling me all my photos must be inferior because they were Jpeg .

Some people actually believe everything they read on the Internet ,

I just have to try pretty much try everything for myself and Im not just talking photography

[Scottymc]

Next time im out shooting macro ill shoot in RAW + JPEG! I will post both shots just for interest sake!. I love doing stuff like that!.
I shoot in jpeg all the time mate. Because im lazy. I hate processing my pics and If i know the photos are not that important Ill shoot jpeg. If I know i need some help with the exposure ill shoot raw because it can help me a tad with the adjustments later.
But as i said mate if you can get it right all u need is Jpeg. They all end up that way anyway.
and once again. What ever makes you photography easier or more fun or you think its better you do it that way. No one can ever tell you how to do your photography.

[Photogenic]

I know Mark who does the fantastic macro work on here shoots only in jpeg - his photos are great.

[Cookster670]

thanks guys..this is all interesting stuff

For now, i am shooting raw+jpeg and will use see how I go. I don't doubt that i will get more lattitude with RAW, but for most of the stuff I shoot, i don't need it. So as a few people have mentioned, may just shoot both, and use the raw when I need to

I will also do that WB test when I get chance and see how that goes.

Charles..that was a very useful example you showed there. I doubt that could be fixed to that level with JPEG.

[Tatts]

How about taking both RAW and Jpeg and if everything works out fine you can delete the RAW files cos you don't need em. That way if you ever need the RAW files you have them :)

[Cookster670]

yep..Tatts..that's exactly what i'm thinking

[Scottymc]

I like the fact my camera can shoot 100 jpegs without buffering it can only shoot 15 or so raw!. that means my machine gun effect is even better the other way hahah.

[K1W1]

In fact, whenever you edit a jpeg, data is thrown away. There is no such thing as "non-destructive" editing of jpegs. Data is always lost in the jpeg editing process, unlike RAW.

Only correct for in camera jpeg creation not for modern software editors.


Try doing that with the jpeg!!

Why not make the photo available. Some people may like the challenge.

[Scottymc]

One thing on this subject too while we are here.
To view photos we need them in JPEg (for a forum etc) Do you think your camera does a better job processing them or the software we use?
I suppose you can control a tad better (if you know how) with a Raw image. The camera would probably be the better option if you have no PP skills.
I know for a fact that with my 7d. if i shoot over 1600 iso i put the noise reduction on in camera and shoot jpeg. i cant get it better in PP than what comes out that way.

[Seesee]

One thing on this subject too while we are here.
To view photos we need them in JPEg (for a forum etc) Do you think your camera does a better job processing them or the software we use?
I suppose you can control a tad better (if you know how) with a Raw image. The camera would probably be the better option if you have no PP skills.
I know for a fact that with my 7d. if i shoot over 1600 iso i put the noise reduction on in camera and shoot jpeg. i cant get it better in PP than what comes out that way.


Hard to answer mate, I guess a lot depends on PS technique and software, but yes most cameras, if not all are very capable of getting the good stuff with carefull setting { but birding and many action sports are a lot more hit and miss, aka guess work } However as carefull as one is with on camera settings the camera may not always get it perfect every timje. White Balance is a good example, something the camera gets right most of the time but often it just does not look exactly how you want it, too warm or too cool...this is where shooting in RAW is a bonus. Another good thing about RAW is if for example you are shooting under bright conditions like a midday landscape shot, and you either have no CPL filter or no choice in direction of shot, then RAW will help you adjust that bright sky in a few ways to alleviate that bright sky, to bring back cloud structure better { it's not a cure all though } Some can be done from jpeg to a degree, but the tweaks in RAW are simpler to use.

Whether you wish to use, or know good PS techniques is up to the individual, many folk are happy enough with shots straight out of camera, and much of the time they ar every good, but I for one tend to be a perfectionist lol lol and I believe all images can be improved to some degree with PS. Look at it another way, what if one day you manage that award winning shot, and a buyer wishes the RAW file to tweak any way they wish, they offer you $1,000,000 { give or take a dollar }.......but alas, you have no RAW image to sell arrrrrrrrghhhh !!!!!...easy solution.. shoot both RAW and Jpeg Fine, why take a chance ( so what if you only get 15 RAW shots in buffering, do you need any more ?...I never have }

[sejac]

In fact, whenever you edit a jpeg, data is thrown away. There is no such thing as "non-destructive" editing of jpegs. Data is always lost in the jpeg editing process, unlike RAW.


Only correct for in camera jpeg creation not for modern software editors.

We'll have to disagree on that point. You change a jpeg, you lose data. I once read somewhere that just but opening and closing a jpeg without editing, data is lost.



Why not make the photo available. Some people may like the challenge.

OK. Here it is (http://www.sejaphotography.com/March_April_2012/2O0V4072a.JPG). All 7Mb. Be my guest. Oh, and note as you go through the edit process, the file size will decrease.

[sejac]

..... shoot both RAW and Jpeg Fine, why take a chance ( so what if you only get 15 RAW shots in buffering, do you need any more ?...I never have }

Colin, I've heard several people as well as you advocate RAW and jpeg shooting. Why RAW and jpeg?

I only shoot RAW, back-up and store RAW, edit RAW. Takes seconds to convert RAW to jpeg.

Why the duplication?

[Cookster670]

We'll have to disagree on that point. You change a jpeg, you lose data. I once read somewhere that just but opening and closing a jpeg without editing, data is lost.


Hey Charles, with Some editors, eg Picasa, you can make changes to jpegs without it changing the original. I'm not sure where it stores the changes, but you can reverse them same as you can with raw and Lightroom. Of course if you save the changes, then I would agree the jpeg is altered, but you don't have to save those changes like you used to.

I know this for a fact as I can make changes in Picasa and print, export, email...etcmand all the changes are there, however if I use explorer to find the file, and open it, it's the original untouched file.

Thanks for that file by the way, im gonna give that a shot

[K1W1]

Hey Charles, with Some editors, eg Picasa, you can make changes to jpegs without it changing the original. I'm not sure where it stores the changes, but you can reverse them same as you can with raw and Lightroom. Of course if you save the changes, then I would agree the jpeg is altered, but you don't have to save those changes like you used to.

See there is the huge benefit of Lightroom that most people don't seem to grasp. In Lightroom you NEVER save an altered image. What you do is save the original image and a list of adjustments that have been applied. At any time in the future you can go back and change any or all of the adjustments. I can go back to photos I took in 2005 and redit them in Lightroom using the latest processing engine if I want. The original out of camera files whether they were jpeg or RAW are still able to be accessed.
If you EXPORT an image from Lightroom then what you see is the edited version but as I said the original is still retained in its original state within Lightroom.

[Scottymc]

I just did a test and im blown away from this. Every shot i took this morning, and there were quite a few, was almost identical as JPG. I found out though that using PS5 you can edit the Tones of the images just as well as you can the RAw files. But you cannot do it in Lightroom. You cant adjust the Colour temps to a number value , but you can on the raw. But you can adjust that in photoshop. -1 lightroom on jpg settings!.
I am changing my tune on this whole thread. In tricky situations or where I cant control the light etc ill use raw. But the pure speed ease of use and time savings i will use the jpg settings straight out of my camera. I cant tell you which one looks better or not!.
This is doing macro shots with a flash this morning. The only thing i will say I did change my in camera processing settings to add a tad more contrast and that seemed to work a treat!. And also the in camera settings seem to Expose to the right.
I might be a convert and one day only shoot Jpeg haha!.
i have printed some of the photos from today too. The out of camera jpegs seem to print better than my proccessed raws, and i didnt have any gamut issues, which i did have with the raws.
This is so fascinating. Ill continue to test!.
Seems like less colour depth though with jpeg. which would make sense, But once i converted my raw's to jpeg they lost that advantage.
I think ill just buy a 5d mark III and use jpeg settings.
Photo 1 vs photo 2
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7127/6929518386_8e07aa64b2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/6929518386/)
Rawtojpg1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/6929518386/) by Scotty McAdam! (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottymcadamphotography/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7193/7075602491_b5ca7719f3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/7075602491/)
Rawtojpg2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/7075602491/) by Scotty McAdam! (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottymcadamphotography/), on Flickr
Photo 3 vs photo 4
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5323/6929523048_8dd1ed4e22_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/6929523048/)
Rawtojpg3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/6929523048/) by Scotty McAdam! (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottymcadamphotography/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7231/7075591741_e60ac95d79_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/7075591741/)
Rawtojpg4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottymcadamphotography/7075591741/) by Scotty McAdam! (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottymcadamphotography/), on Flickr