JPEG v RAW - any difference?

[Dogfish_magnet]

Are you trying to say that a RAW file CAN be edited AS A RAW file?

.

When you open a raw file in a raw capable editor such as Adobe RAW via bridge you can change what you want, eg temperature , WB , correct for lens distortion, crop etc etc etc and all these changes are recorded within a separate file, these settings are then used to develop the image , once you have done this you can export the developed image to another format such as .psd , tif, jpg etc the raw data is never changed only the settings used to develop the raw image. delete the settings file and you will see the raw picture as it came out of the camera.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

This is quite possibly the funniest thread I have ever seen. It's a bit like saying why bother having an oven and cook when you can live on Tesco ready meals.

:bonk:

Have you eaten their dining experiences?

 

[chris321]

Right, trying desperately to shift the thread back in it's original direction (as amusing as the detour has been ), back to the original question:

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

Yes.

Here's a shot of mine, from a single RAW image:



Now, like it or not, it's impossible to create from a single JPEG, the information just isn't there. I know, because I tried. It was horrific

Yes, I could have used a tripod, and taken 3 differently exposed JPEGs then blended them, but I didn't really have time. Or a tripod. And everyone would have moved. So there you go - there's one difference, RAW can be used as a substitute for a tripod

Chris

 

[Marc]

As far as I'm aware all the programs which edit RAW use an intermediate file.

If that IS so can you save the edited RAW as a RAW file ?

.

When you edit the raw file in Lightroom, it automatically saves the edits. When you do it in PS (Using ACR)it does the same when you click the "Done" button. In each case, they are still the raw files.

 

[chris321]

As far as I'm aware all the programs which edit RAW use an intermediate file.

If that IS so can you save the edited RAW as a RAW file ?

.

Effectively, yes. Actually, no. You edit it with the intermediate file which gives you the advantage of being able to change things, without the disadvantage of fundamentally altering the original data. Best of both worlds!

 

[Lynton]

hey an analogy we can all use..........

TESCO ready meal is the JPEG......... (all taste and flavour removed - kind of does the job most of the time, but you are limited as to what you can do with it........)

Local high quality high st butcher and greengrocer - has all the RAW ingredients.............

And, its a big if, but IF, you have the means to and the know how to cook........... and have the confidence to cook, then wonders can be created.........

Simples!!!!!


Phew........ are we there yet?

and YES - you CAN edit from a RAW file.......... (given appropriate software) and no it doesn't convert before doing so...............


OVER and OUT!!!!

 

[Mikesphotaes]

When you open a raw file in a raw capable editor such as bridge you can change what you want, eg temperature , WB , correct for lens distortion, crop etc etc etc and all these changes are recorded within a separate file, these settings are then used to develop the image , once you have done this you can export the developed image to another format such as .psd , tif, jpg etc the raw data is never changed only the settings used to develop the raw image. delete the settings file and you will see the raw picture as it came out of the camera.

You can do all that with a jpeg, except when you go back it is different..........

......however if you take a virtual image in Lightroom...........

..........then you can still do what you like to the original jpeg.........

....................then you do have 14 milliion less hard-drives to contain the excess RAW images.

SIMPLES!

 

[redhed17]

But you can't edit a RAW file - they also have to be converted to another filetype (TIFF or JPEG) before editing.

So the same restrictions apply.

WHAT?

I would be interested in a step by step run through of your RAW editing process.

I don't know how you edited your RAW files when you did edit them, but if I open a RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw I am editing the RAW file/data, it hasn't been saved as a Jpeg or Tiff until I have finished editing (when I choose the Colour Space, Resolution, Bit Depth, File Format and Compression Level). So I can make use of all that extra information to make the changes I need to, and I can change the WB without degradation. All RAW editing programs do the same, you don't open the RAW file, save it as something else, Jpeg/Tiff, and then edit.

 

[awp]

Peter - take the blinkers off.




I'm going to bed! I expect this thread will be closed by morning.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Peter - take the blinkers off.




I'm going to bed! I expect this thread will be closed by morning.

Hopefully before then!

 

[dinners]

Years ago it was explained to me like this.....

Jpg = A nice plate of Spaghetti Bolognaise.

Raw = Pasta, Mince, Garlic, Peppers, Mushrooms, Tomatoes, Herbs etc

I can quite easily reproduce that plate of Spaghetti Bolognaise with the ingredients I have in my RAW file if I want to - but I can also do so much else.

 

[petersmart]

WHAT?

I would be interested in a step by step run through of your RAW editing process.

I don't know how you edited your RAW files when you did edit them, but if I open a RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw I am editing the RAW file/data, it hasn't been saved as a Jpeg or Tiff until I have finished editing (when I choose the Colour Space, Resolution, Bit Depth, File Format and Compression Level). So I can make use of all that extra information to make the changes I need to, and I can change the WB without degradation. All RAW editing programs do the same, you don't open the RAW file, save it as something else, Jpeg/Tiff, and then edit.

I gave that info at the start of this thread:

"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."

In other words I open the files (RAW or JPEG) in DPP - convert them to 16bit TIFF files to preserve the original files - put them through Neat Image - save the "De-noised" files again as 16 bit TIFF files.

Load them into my editing program (Photo Plus X2), and after editing resize, sharpen and save as a JPEG file.

I never edit directly the JPEG files so they always remain as they came out the camera.

.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

You can do all that with a jpeg, except when you go back it is different..........

......however if you take a virtual image in Lightroom...........

..........then you can still do what you like to the original jpeg.........

....................then you do have 14 milliion less hard-drives to contain the excess RAW images.

SIMPLES!

I'm sure you can........... if you really wanted to - personally i don't see the point of processing a image thats already been processed, its like trying to develop a roll of film twice :shrug:

 

[redhed17]

Just in case it does get closed, but I don't see why. :shrug: I think some people could learn a lot form this thread.

I just want to point out that Adobe Bridge is not an editing program per se, it manages your media files, letting you easily organize, browse, locate, and view said files. It does let you edit and attach 'some' of the Exif information, but not the actual images.

Once you double click on an image, it will open Adobe Camera Raw for editing RAW files, or Photoshop for editing Jpeg/Tiff/PSD files. Though I think you can change the default so as to also use ACR to edit Jpegs and Tiffs.

 

[Lynton]

I gave that info at the start of this thread:

From DPP they were converted to 16 bit TIFF files
.

ah there's the problem.............

RAW is RAW is RAW.............

no need to convert it until you have done the magic in whatever you choose to use............


I am beginning to think this is a p### take!!!!!

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Years ago it was explained to me like this.....

Jpg = A nice plate of Spaghetti Bolognaise.

Raw = Pasta, Mince, Garlic, Peppers, Mushrooms, Tomatoes, Herbs etc

I can quite easily reproduce that plate of Spaghetti Bolognaise with the ingredients I have in my RAW file if I want to - but I can also do so much else.

or

RAW = 35mm roll of exposed film
editing software / in camera processing = chemicals / darkroom
jpg = 10x8 print

 

[redhed17]

I gave that info at the start of this thread:

"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."

In other words I open the files (RAW or JPEG) in DPP - convert them to 16bit TIFF files to preserve the original files - put them through Neat Image - save the "De-noised" files again as 16 bit TIFF files.

Load them into my editing program (Photo Plus X2), and after editing resize, sharpen and save as a JPEG file.

I never edit directly the JPEG files so they always remain as they came out the camera.

.

Yes, I got that, that was for the images you posted, but if you did this when you used to edit RAW files, then you weren't editing RAW files, and therefore understandably saw no benefit. :shrug: As was said earlier for the images you posted, they are basically the same image, the camera used the 'in camera' settings to process the image, and your computer/DPP used the same 'in camera' settings to process the image. They 'should' be exactly the same, unless you changed something in DPP. Both the resulting Jpegs will be able to be editing to the same degree, because the are effectively almost carbon copys with the the same information available to edit.

 

[specialman]

Right, trying desperately to shift the thread back in it's original direction (as amusing as the detour has been ), back to the original question:

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

Yes.

Here's a shot of mine, from a single RAW image:



Now, like it or not, it's impossible to create from a single JPEG, the information just isn't there. I know, because I tried. It was horrific

Yes, I could have used a tripod, and taken 3 differently exposed JPEGs then blended them, but I didn't really have time. Or a tripod. And everyone would have moved. So there you go - there's one difference, RAW can be used as a substitute for a tripod

Chris

I'd be interested to see what that looked like straight from camera to see just how much of a change has been made. Great tonal range

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Just in case it does get closed, but I don't see why. :shrug: I think some people could learn a lot form this thread.

I just want to point out that Adobe Bridge is not an editing program per se, it manages your media files, letting you easily organize, browse, locate, and view said files. It does let you edit and attach 'some' of the Exif information, but not the actual images.

Once you double click on an image, it will open Adobe Camera Raw for editing RAW files, or Photoshop for editing Jpeg/Tiff/PSD files. Though I think you can change the default so as to also use ACR to edit Jpegs and Tiffs.

I have edited my original post - i just always say bridge as thats where my workflow starts with a double click

 

[petersmart]

ah there's the problem.............

RAW is RAW is RAW.............

no need to convert it until you have done the magic in whatever you choose to use............


I am beginning to think this is a p### take!!!!!

I convert them because I use Neat Image to "De-noise" them, and also because DPP is a very primitive editing tool.

.

 

[petersmart]

Yes, I got that, that was for the images you posted, but if you did this when you used to edit RAW files, then you weren't editing RAW files, and therefore understandably saw no benefit. :shrug: As was said earlier for the images you posted, they are basically the same image, the camera used the 'in camera' settings to process the image, and your computer/DPP used the same 'in camera' settings to process the image. They 'should' be exactly the same, unless you changed something in DPP. Both the resulting Jpegs will be able to be editing to the same degree, because the are effectively almost carbon copys with the the same information available to edit.

But since I convert both the RAW files and the JPEG files to 16 bit TIFF files then, since the RAW file contains more data (14 bits) as opposed to the JPEG files (8bit) according to almost everyone on here the TIFF (RAW) files should be palpably different to the TIFF (JPEG) files - but they're not.

And that's my whole point.

The difference in the final JPEG picture isn't really equivalent to the 6 bit difference - since the JPEGs we view on here are 8 bit.

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

.

 

[vaizki]

Not sure I want to pitch in on this but...

Editing (or better yet 'Developing') a RAW file in a RAW capable editor like Lightroom, Camera RAW or Aperture is different from exporting a TIFF from DPP and editing that.

Why? Because RAW files aren't actually RGB pixels just wrapped into a vendor proprietary format . If they were, cameras would produce TIFFs right out of the camera (well some of them do but not many). Instead the RAW file actually does contain RAW sensor data as it's read from the CMOS (throught the amps etc of course). This is NOT pixels at this point! It's a jumble of sensor photodiode readings, dumped into a file for out of camera processing. A RAW converter will "demosaic" this data, combining photodiode readings, white balance information, contrast/sharpness/color settings etc to provide RGB pixels which are then saved in JPEG, TIFF etc as requested.

This is also why the RAW format of every new Canon and Nikon has to be specifically ADDED into RAW capable editors. As sensors and algorithms develop the RAW format also evolves.

So why does this matter? Well RAW-developing software like Lightroom do not demosic once and then apply edits after. If you do fiddle with the sliders like exposure, contrast, highligh/shadow recovery, sharpening etc, they also can demosaic differently and use all the data from that sensor area and neighboring cells. Converting RAW into RGB pixels loses information. Even if they're 16bit RGB. Dumping it out as a JPEG just introduces compression artifacts.

Now HOW MUCH is lost.. well. If you can get the shot right in camera, practically nothing. If you're butterfingers like me or have a wife and kids like me who shoot with "interesting" settings all the time, you can do wonders.

 

[dazzajl]

I can't see what difference it makes whether you shoot RAW or jpeg if you have your head up your own bum when you do it. It's all so aggressive around here these days.

Of course RAW files have more options in post process than a jpeg will, it's a given. There was an interesting point to be discussed here before it was trampled to death in a stampede of rampant plonker waving.

How often do we actually use that extra leeway? Is it worth the extra storage and transfer/processing time that it costs us and would we gain more by slowing down a tad and making less mistakes in the first place?

 

[Lynton]

But since I convert both the RAW files and the JPEG files to 16 bit TIFF files then, since the RAW file contains more data (14 bits) as opposed to the JPEG files (8bit) according to almost everyone on here the TIFF (RAW) files should be palpably different to the TIFF (JPEG) files - but they're not.

And that's my whole point.

The difference in the final JPEG picture isn't really equivalent to the 6 bit difference - since the JPEGs we view on here are 8 bit.

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

.

yeah whatever.

If it makes you happy then so be it.

you are correct and all the people who developed raw imaging and processing are wrong........... as are 90%+ of professional / serious amateurs who swear by the increased flexibility that raw image editing offfers........

THE VERY FACT THAT YOU TOOK A RAW FILE AND CONVERTED IT TO SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE EDITING IT SCREAMS "I HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE HERE!" - tis akin to me taking my fillet steak, and mincing it up before thinking ah a beef wellington would have been nice......... :shrug:

but have fun, processing converted RAWS to match JPEGS's! :shake::shake:


my final say on the matter........... Many have tried, patiently to teach / offer advice help/ explain, but there seems a dogged determination that we are all wrong..........

Happy togging!

 

[Slimbert]

But since I convert both the RAW files and the JPEG files to 16 bit TIFF files then, since the RAW file contains more data (14 bits) as opposed to the JPEG files (8bit) according to almost everyone on here the TIFF (RAW) files should be palpably different to the TIFF (JPEG) files - but they're not.

And that's my whole point.

The difference in the final JPEG picture isn't really equivalent to the 6 bit difference - since the JPEGs we view on here are 8 bit.

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

.

So you don't think that the extra data in a raw file is helpful, in any way, when editing?!

 

[dod]

I can't see what difference it makes whether you shoot RAW or jpeg if you have your head up your own bum when you do it. It's all so aggressive around here these days.

Of course RAW files have more options in post process than a jpeg will, it's a given. There was an interesting point to be discussed here before it was trampled to death in a stampede of rampant plonker waving.

How often do we actually use that extra leeway? Is it worth the extra storage and transfer/processing time that it costs us and would we gain more by slowing down a tad and making less mistakes in the first place?

couldn't agree more Daz

 

[vaizki]

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

Think of it as cropping. If you have a large image (14bit photodiode reading) vs smaller tight crop view (8 bit rgb pixel jpeg), the larger image allows you to crop from wherever you want. Similarly, you can choose from which end of the 14bit scale you want your 8 bits. Or use all of them by tonemapping into a single-image HDR.

But it's not so simple, see my previous post about RAW vs pixels

 

[specialman]

The problem/question is do we fully utilise the technology and if so, does it benefit us?

I have no doubts that in some instances, for example, raw data will benefit the user who A) wants to get the most from said data, B) knows how to get the most from said data, and C) knows why they want to get the most from said data. Maybe they want to create massive prints where deficencies in jpeg capture will be most apparent. It can only be a good thing if that's the way the shooter thinks and feels confident using that thought train.

However, people who don't subscribe to that and shoot jpeg aren't nesseccarily selling themselves short in the majority of cases. I have thousands of correctly exposed jpegs that I will be able to process to look good. It's the ones where it's a little off in exposure that could probably benefit from having been shot in raw, but then again, I rarely rely on a shot that's a bit of a duffer. I have the luxury of repetition in my magazine shooting and generally, can get the shot on a different occasion. I can fully imagine that people who have one opportunity for a special shot - bird or sports shooters for example - would benefit from the 'safety net' of what raw data can help give them and that's great; technology has come to the rescue and again, that's no bad thing.

But to write jpeg off as just being rubbish is a bit shortsighted; I guarantee that the majority of people on TP could shoot jpeg exclusively and get the shot they wanted..... it might even help them fine-tune their eye for exposure so they're thinking about what they see, what the camera sees and records, and how that will translate once it's been recorded as a jpeg.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

But since I convert both the RAW files and the JPEG files to 16 bit TIFF files then, since the RAW file contains more data (14 bits) as opposed to the JPEG files (8bit) according to almost everyone on here the TIFF (RAW) files should be palpably different to the TIFF (JPEG) files - but they're not.

And that's my whole point.

The difference in the final JPEG picture isn't really equivalent to the 6 bit difference - since the JPEGs we view on here are 8 bit.

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

.

One of the reasons your not seeing a differance is that your not doing any processing to make use of the extra data contained within the raw file, your just going through a series of format conversions.

 

[petersmart]

I can't see what difference it makes whether you shoot RAW or jpeg if you have your head up your own bum when you do it. It's all so aggressive around here these days.

Of course RAW files have more options in post process than a jpeg will, it's a given. There was an interesting point to be discussed here before it was trampled to death in a stampede of rampant plonker waving.

How often do we actually use that extra leeway? Is it worth the extra storage and transfer/processing time that it costs us and would we gain more by slowing down a tad and making less mistakes in the first place?

Which is exactly what I've been saying - that's why I use the histogram and "blinkies" to make sure I don't burn out the highlights.

And as I just said once you have edited all those lovely 14 bit RAW files - you then throw almost half of those bits away because the final product is the 8 bit JPEG file.

.

 

[Slimbert]

One of the reasons your not seeing a differance is that your not doing any processing to make use of the extra data contained within the raw file, your just going through a series of format conversions.

 

[petersmart]

So you don't think that the extra data in a raw file is helpful, in any way, when editing?!

I'm saying that when it comes to the final JPEG file which is going to be viewed on here or on Flickr All that extra data is discarded.

And if I use the histogram and "blinkies" to give me a correctly exposed JPEG in camera then whether I use RAW or JPEG is irrelevant - all that extra data is discarded.

I can understand that a pro shooter would feel happier with that "safety net" but for me the advantages of JPEG outweigh any "advantages" that others may claim or indeed use.

.

 

[Almost_Invisible]

But since I convert both the RAW files and the JPEG files to 16 bit TIFF files then, since the RAW file contains more data (14 bits) as opposed to the JPEG files (8bit) according to almost everyone on here the TIFF (RAW) files should be palpably different to the TIFF (JPEG) files - but they're not.

And that's my whole point.

Just because one TIFF came from a file with more data than another does not mean it will look different. You have to PROCESS the data BEFORE you convert to TIFF.

The difference in the final JPEG picture isn't really equivalent to the 6 bit difference - since the JPEGs we view on here are 8 bit.

Hence a large amount of that 14 bit data on a RAW file IS thrown away - as soon as we turn whatever type of files we edit to the final JPEG file for viewing on here - you still only end up with an 8 bit file however many bits you start with.

.

Yes the additional data is thrown away once you convert it to a file format.
You are supposed to edit it while the data is still there. That is what gives you the possibility to process a better image than you ever can from the jpg.
Your method of converting raw data to TIFF using your camera settings is always going to give you an image very similar to the ooc jpg. That's what it was designed to do. In fact if it didn't then everyone else would complain!