JPEG v RAW - any difference?

[petersmart]

Is there any discernible difference between shooting in RAW or shooting in JPEG?

I used to shoot in RAW because I accepted the (almost) universal view that RAW was betterthan JPEG.

Until I checked it out - and found that, for me, there was no discernible difference.

There is a great deal of debate on here about the pros and cons of RAW v JPEG - But until now I have seen no comparisons between the two.

So here is a comparison.

For this test I set my 450D to produce both RAW and JPEG (large) from a single shot - so there can be no arguments that the two files were produced a few seconds apart.

These files were produced following the same techniques I use for processing both RAW and JPEGs.

From DPP they were converted to 16 bit TIFF files then using my editing program they were reduced in size to 800px on the long size and saved as a JPEG file at just under 200Kb to fit on here.

Nothing else was done - these files are just as they come from the camera without any other editing:

​

One is RAW and one is JPEG - but which is which?

I have more to show.

.

 

[petersmart]

Again - which is RAW and which is JPEG?

1

2 ​

.

 

[BandyQuill]

i find with the lower end canons its not so much about the shot that is 'right' its the ones that are bin fodder that can be saved in raw but as a jpeg nothing can be done, it also gives me more ability to change and to learn overall

 

[petersmart]

Well I have found that the only thing which can prove difficult is burnt out highlights - but I find this in RAW as well.

All I do is check the histogram and turn on the blinkies - problem solved.

.

 

[CraigF]

This is a really silly comparison.
Let me explain very quickly and simply the pros and cons.

Jpeg processing is done in camera and it should be a case of just downloading them and cropping and off you go.

Raw on the other hand is what it says "RAW" as in Raw Steak v Cooked Steak.
Raw gives you the flexibility to do a hell of a lot more non destructive editing.

Oh and your pictures are both Jpeg as Raw is not a file format you can save as and upload.

 

[petersmart]

This is a really silly comparison.
Let me explain very quickly and simply the pros and cons.

Jpeg processing is done in camera and it should be a case of just downloading them and cropping and off you go.

Raw on the other hand is what it says "RAW" as in Raw Steak v Cooked Steak.
Raw gives you the flexibility to do a hell of a lot more non destructive editing.

Oh and your pictures are both Jpeg as Raw is not a file format you can save as and upload.

Of course they're JPEGs - so is every other picture on here.

But one was produced in camera as RAW and one as a JPEG - as I already stated.

Precisely to see whether there was any discernible difference between them.

.

 

[Donki]

This is a really silly comparison.
Let me explain very quickly and simply the pros and cons.

Jpeg processing is done in camera and it should be a case of just downloading them and cropping and off you go.

Raw on the other hand is what it says "RAW" as in Raw Steak v Cooked Steak.
Raw gives you the flexibility to do a hell of a lot more non destructive editing.

Oh and your pictures are both Jpeg as Raw is not a file format you can save as and upload.

This is why I really dont think people understand why are people saying they prefer RAW :bang:.

 

[BandyQuill]

the computer will have processed the RAW file (.cr2) file to what the software thinks it should look like, RAW isnt an image as such it has to be rendered, thats why it can show up differently in other software as far as i know! and both of the pictures are JPEG, if you put up a raw and a jpeg one would show one wouldnt XD

why is this coming up so much at the moment ?

 

[petersmart]

This is a really silly comparison.
Let me explain very quickly and simply the pros and cons.

Jpeg processing is done in camera and it should be a case of just downloading them and cropping and off you go.

Raw on the other hand is what it says "RAW" as in Raw Steak v Cooked Steak.
Raw gives you the flexibility to do a hell of a lot more non destructive editing.

Oh and your pictures are both Jpeg as Raw is not a file format you can save as and upload.

As long as I don't change the original JPEG file - which I don't - there is no problem at all with editing.

.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

TBH this must be the most pointless thread I've seen posted on here

So you can process a raw file just like your camera

 

[petersmart]

the computer will have processed the RAW file (.cr2) file to what the software thinks it should look like, RAW isnt an image as such it has to be rendered, thats why it can show up differently in other software as far as i know! and both of the pictures are JPEG, if you put up a raw and a jpeg one would show one wouldnt XD

why is this coming up so much at the moment ?

Once again - I'm not putting up a RAW file - I'm putting up two JPEGs - one produced from a RAW file and one produced from a large JPEG file.

With no discernible difference.

Which is exactly why I now shoot in JPEG.

.

 

[BandyQuill]

but the jpeg was made from the RAW file by your camera... soooo all thats been put up are 2 files pretty much identical other than one you had to process and one your camera did...

 

[Donki]

As long as I don't change the original JPEG file - which I don't - there is no problem at all with editing.

.

But thats the point there is!!!!!!! The dynamic range on a RAW file is bigger than a JPEG, there is mor information to play with in PP.

You say there is no noticeable difference in shooting RAW and JPEG, I would say that there is and your pictures show it, one in each set has slighly more contrast and I'd say saturation, probably due to your cameras in body prossessing, whatever you have it set at.

 

[CraigF]

Jpeg is an incamera processed picture which will take it very best best guess plus apply and changes you might have made to contrast, sharpness, etc, in the camera menu.

Raw on the other hand is a recording of the scene you shoot using pixels.
Now, the camera will take a rough guess and show you an image on the back screen of the camera as to how your picture looks. Also when you download it the computer software you use will take it's best guess also and show you the image. Its at this point you look and say..."hmmmm...it was like this and that" so you go change it then open the file into whatever editing software you use and make your final adjustments.

You are correct with the original Jpeg file but if you use raw you dont have to worry about this as it is never adjusted.

 

[Roy C]

If someone does not know the advantages of RAW then the answer is simple - RAW is not for you. On the other hand, if you do see an advantage in RAW (as I do) then shoot in RAW 'simples'

 

[petersmart]

TBH this must be the most pointless thread I've seen posted on here

Suely not?

So you can process a raw file just like your camera

No - to show that it is possible to get virtually the same results using JPEGs as using RAW - with some extra advantages.

And perhaps help people to realise that some sacred cows are already past their sell by date.

.

 

[CraigF]

Also you are using a Jpeg basic v Raw basic comparison.

This is wrong due to what i explained about the camera and software doing best guess.

 

[diggerz]

TBH this must be the most pointless thread I've seen posted on here

So you can process a raw file just like your camera

Hear Hear

 

[Astraeus]

I think you may have missed the point regarding exactly why RAW is often classed as a superior format to JPEG and it has very little to do with the out-of-camera quality of the shot. RAW offers a much higher degree of flexibility in terms of post-processing and editing when compared to JPEG but it does not attest to offer better quality, sharpness, contrast or any other image variable.

I think the RAW vs JPEG argument is very much a case of "horses for courses".

 

[CraigF]

No - to show that it is possible to get virtually the same results using JPEGs as using RAW - with some extra advantages.

And perhaps help people to realise that some sacred cows are already past their sell by date.

.

Lets look at you pics of the petrol station.
In Raw i could have brought the detail or at least some of the detail in the clouds back. You can't in Jpeg because that was the cameras best guess.

 

[petersmart]

Also you are using a Jpeg basic v Raw basic comparison.

Which is exactly what I wanted to do - to see whether there were any discernible differences.

This is wrong due to what i explained about the camera and software doing best guess.

Well it's not exactly a guess is it - instead it's a very accurate algorithm which has been developed at great cost and man hours.

.

 

[Donki]

Which is exactly what I wanted to do - to see whether there were any discernible differences.



Well it's not exactly a guess is it - instead it's a very accurate algorithm which has been developed at great cost and man hours.

.

Do you not see the differences in the pictures then, none at all?

 

[Donki]

Suely not?



No - to show that it is possible to get virtually the same results using JPEGs as using RAW - with some extra advantages.

And perhaps help people to realise that some sacred cows are already past their sell by date.

.

How is it past its sell by date? I know for a fact, PP a RAW imge is better and easier than a Jpeg.

 

[specialman]

BTW, this thread stems from another thread about jpeg settings, for those who don't see the context - the Op was trying not to crowd what was a deteriorating thread.

It beats me why some of the TP faithful harp on about all this quality and potential to edit when they clearly aren't paying that much attention to what they're seeing through the viewfinder in the first place.

So raw files will give you the option to create a better final edit? You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear and all that......

All this talk of processing to create a better end product seems to be just that - talk. C'mon people, this endless willy waving about who knows the most about file formats (etc) is getting tiresome and only goes to highlight who can and can't process their images properly....

 

[Roy C]

What is surprising with the two sets of pics is that they are fairly close - as the jpegs have been processed they should be a lot better than the unprocessed RAW shouldn't they ?

 

[dod]

TBH this must be the most pointless thread I've seen posted on here

So you can process a raw file just like your camera

I disagree with that.

Yes, we all know that from a processing point of view a RAW file contains more data. That's not in question and in some cases, but fewer than people would like to believe, it may allow a shot to be rescued.

However, when it comes to the final output on screen, or print, there's about as much difference between two well exposed images as there is between two fivers in my wallet.

There's a certain snob value associated with shooting RAW, just as there is with "I only shoot manual". Both have their benefits and drawbacks. Don't just blindly use one or the other because "it's far superior".

For goodness sake, if that was the case wouldn't the camera manufacturers only give us one option?

 

[Donki]

BTW, this thread stems from another thread about jpeg settings, for those who don't see the context - the Op was trying not to crowd what was a deteriorating thread.

It beats me why some of the TP faithful harp on about all this quality and potential to edit when they clearly aren't paying that much attention to what they're seeing through the viewfinder in the first place.

So raw files will give you the option to create a better final edit? You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear and all that......

All this talk of processing to create a better end product seems to be just that - talk. C'mon people, this endless willy waving about who knows the most about file formats (etc) is getting tiresome and only goes to highlight who can and can't process their images properly...

Real nice way to add to a debate resorting to that, clever .

Its not to do with rescuing a shot or anthing like that.

 

[Chaz Photos]

Of course they're JPEGs - so is every other picture on here.

But one was produced in camera as RAW and one as a JPEG - as I already stated.

Precisely to see whether there was any discernible difference between them.

.

As you said in your OP you done nothing to the RAW it when you what to work on it you will see the difference

 

[petersmart]

Lets look at you pics of the petrol station.
In Raw i could have brought the detail or at least some of the detail in the clouds back. You can't in Jpeg because that was the cameras best guess.

But the detail in the clouds IS there in JPEG:

​

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

.

 

[petersmart]

What is surprising with the two sets of pics is that they are fairly close - as the jpegs have been processed they should be a lot better than the unprocessed RAW should't they ?

No - the two images have been processed in exactly the same way - and they are both virtually identical.

.

 

[awp]

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2975657&postcount=107

 

[BandyQuill]

too late XD

 

[petersmart]

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=2975657&postcount=107

Nothing which causes people to think is pointless - even if they disagree.

.

 

[Roy C]

No - the two images have been processed in exactly the same way - and they are both virtually identical.

.

I thought you said in your first post that all you did was to send to your editing program, convert to jpeg and resize. If that is so then you did not do any imaging editing as such. The raw is completely unprocessed whereas the jpeg has been processed in Camera.

 

[petersmart]

I thought you said in your first post that all you did was to send to your editing program, convert to jpeg and resize. If that is so then you did not do any imaging editing as such. The raw is completely unprocessed whereas the jpeg has been processed in Camera.

No what I said was:

"From DPP they were converted to 16 bit TIFF files then using my editing program they were reduced in size to 800px on the long size and saved as a JPEG file at just under 200Kb to fit on here."

But the same settings were applied to both - sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone were identical.

In DPP the camera settings are applied to the RAW file - you can of course change them but I didn't.

So the RAW file and the JPEG file both had the same settings applied to them - and produced identical results.

.

 

[stumac]

both pics im sure looked the same on the back of the camera,but if your wanting to take them into photoshop etc the end result will be much more pleasing with the raw file.

 

[petersmart]

both pics im sure looked the same on the back of the camera,but if your wanting to take them into photoshop etc the end result will be much more pleasing with the raw file.

No - they actually look the same on here - I don't bother viewing pictures on the camera screen - I use that for the histograms and the "blinkies".

.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I disagree with that.

Yes, we all know that from a processing point of view a RAW file contains more data. That's not in question and in some cases, but fewer than people would like to believe, it may allow a shot to be rescued.

However, when it comes to the final output on screen, or print, there's about as much difference between two well exposed images as there is between two fivers in my wallet.

There's a certain snob value associated with shooting RAW, just as there is with "I only shoot manual". Both have their benefits and drawbacks. Don't just blindly use one or the other because "it's far superior".

For goodness sake, if that was the case wouldn't the camera manufacturers only give us one option?

Where in my post have i said one format is better than another where in my post have i said you should be able to tell the difference

All this post proves is the OP can process a RAW file to look the same as in -camera processed raw file.......

Totally pointless.............

 

[dod]

Where in my post have i said one format is better than another where in my post have i said you should be able to tell the difference

All this post proves is the OP can process a RAW file to look the same as in -camera processed raw file.......

Totally pointless.............

You didn't, it was the bit about it being a pointless thread I disagree with.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

No what I said was:

"From DPP they were converted to 16 bit TIFF files then using my editing program they were reduced in size to 800px on the long size and saved as a JPEG file at just under 200Kb to fit on here."

But the same settings were applied to both - sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone were identical.

In DPP the camera settings are applied to the RAW file - you can of course change them but I didn't.

So the RAW file and the JPEG file both had the same settings applied to them - and produced identical results.

.

of course they will be the same

Both images originate from the same raw file and both images have had the exact same processing - the camera's processed one and DPP has processed the other, but both devices have applied the same settings.