Beginner Lightroom: Jpeg vs RAW Mobile Editing

P

Professor1991

Messages
255
Name
Anonymous
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All

I've recently gotten into the post processing side of photography. I've often had a dismissal type attitude in regards to post processing as I used to think "If the photos are good then why need to tinker them afterwards, why not make any corrections in-camera". As time has gone by, I've realized my mistake and I wanted to get into post processing aspect after a friend showed me a photo I took but he messed around with and I found the after picture far more appealing than what I thought was "good".

I've downloaded Lightroom on Android as I figured I'll start from somewhere and I have to say it's a nice piece of software. I've made a number of adjustments to some photos I took on a recent trip and I like them ! Thing is I've never taken a RAW photo and messed around with it and my question here is what level of RAW editing can 1 achieve over simple jpeg photos. I know what RAW photos are and the level of data they contain over jepgs but in jpeg editing I can edit the colour temperature, vibrancy, tint, saturation, contrast etc.... so what does RAW editing offer that simply trounces over jpegs ? As of now, my laptop to an extent just about handles the browser so I get the feeling any dedicated software we'll have to wait for the time being. Lightroom Android allows me to get a good feel for post processing.
 
In RAW you have much more latitude for editing - for example if the highlights in the sky are blown, with a RAW file you are much more likely to be able to bring back some detail.
 
To get an idea of the difference, try deliberately using the wrong settings for a shot - Set White balance to flash and under expose by 3 stops, for example

Take in both RAW and JPeg, then see what you can do with each in post processing to 'recover'.
You shoudl find the RAW much better at allowing you to get what you want.
 
Professor1991 said:
in jpeg editing I can edit the colour temperature, vibrancy, tint, saturation, contrast etc.... so what does RAW editing offer that simply trounces over jpegs ?
Click to expand...

Only to certain degree.

Let's take colour temperature for example (aka White Balance).
Very simplistically, each pixel in the JPEG is calculated as follows:

ColourValue = RawValue * Temperature

The final value is however limited to 255, so if ColourValue goes beyond that, it's simply clipped to 255.
Now if you want to change the WB of the JPEG image you first need to solve for RawValue, i.e:

RawValue = ColourValue / Temperature

But at this point you don't know if your ColourValue is clipped. Even if you do know, you can't do anything as that information is lost forever.
Therefore you will apply your new temperature to a clipped RawValue and get a wrong colour.

For an experiment, try changing WB on a JPEG, exporting it from lightroom (important because lightroom uses non-destructive editing), take the resulting JPEG and change back to original WB. Then compare original image and what you get after two conversions.

Similar argument applies to exposure, contrast, etc.
 
Faldrax said:
To get an idea of the difference, try deliberately using the wrong settings for a shot - Set White balance to flash and under expose by 3 stops, for example

Take in both RAW and JPeg, then see what you can do with each in post processing to 'recover'.
You shoudl find the RAW much better at allowing you to get what you want.
Click to expand...


Very good point and you should give it a go. I shot both Raw+Jpeg so I can fall back on the Raw file :)
 
Most interesting. I appreciate the replies.

I was just messing around with Lightroom Android and I figure that's the best way to get a "feel" for everything and I'm beginning to slowly understand how everything works. My logic at the time was I see people manipulating the colour temperature and so on of a RAW file and I think "Well if I can do that in a Jpeg why do i need RAW?". Would I be right in saying RAW essentially gives you more to work with and can deliver more "vibrant" shots, i.e. the type jped editing can't deliver without some form of photoshop ?

http://craigstocksarts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Necedah-BeforeAndAfter.jpg

Take the above photo (Not mine) for example. I like how a seemingly dull photo has been bought to life. I believe thats a RAW file thats been tweaked but had it been just a jpeg, would such a result have been possible ?
 
Someone told me once try Raw, and I did but not for long as the editing did my head in and I said Never again. Now I have a pretty good editing software, I shoot both Raw+Jpeg, as it does surprise me how much detail,lighting and other things that can be got back, I am NOT telling you what to shoot in either :)
 
Professor1991 said:
Most interesting. I appreciate the replies.
http://craigstocksarts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Necedah-BeforeAndAfter.jpg

Take the above photo (Not mine) for example. I like how a seemingly dull photo has been bought to life. I believe thats a RAW file thats been tweaked but had it been just a jpeg, would such a result have been possible ?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but the idea from @Faldrax is a really good one. Deliberately underexpose and over expose a shot, and record both RAW and jpeg. You will see, you can make much more extreme adjustments.

I'm not sure if you can make virtual copies in Lightroom Android, but if you can, it's really easy to make lots of different edits of the same shot and compare them (shortcut C ) - select two to start with. e.g. tweak the highlights on the jpeg and the raw and compare.
 
Professor1991 said:
Would I be right in saying RAW essentially gives you more to work with?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The RAW file is an 'unprocessed' version of the image, and contains the image data in whatever degree of detail your camera can capture (typically 12-14 bit colour depth).
The JPeg is processed by the camera, and is limited to 8 bit colour depth,
 
Does it make all that much difference (as far as colour is concerned) if all you are doing is looking at your images on a mass produced lap top screen? I suggest that you won't see any better than the basic jpeg type colour space of sRGB, as that is the colour gamut for most laptops. Sure you can correct the colour balance, but only within the jpeg standard space. You cannot see the more saturated colours of the native Lightroom raw image as they are outside the colour gamut of your screen.
 
RAW vs JPEG for editing/post processing ...

Essentially JPEG is a file which has already been processed (in camera). If you do further editing then you are always going to degrade from the original. With a RAW image you are starting with the original and processing that.

So if (in a simple example) you process a JPEG to increase the exposure by 1ev; then bring it back by 2/3ev each of those processes is done separately. With a RAW image however the first step of increasing the exposure happens to the RAW. If you then adjust the exposure again, bring it back by 2/3ev; what your software (Lightroom, etc) does is actually go back to the original image and will reset the level to how it was taken, and actually just increase from there to +1/3 ev.

It all depends how much processing you do ...
 
Eloise said:
If you do further editing then you are always going to degrade from the original.......So if (in a simple example) you process a JPEG to increase the exposure by 1ev; then bring it back by 2/3ev each of those processes is done separately.
Click to expand...
Maybe in Photoshop but not in Lightroom. Lightroom treats all images, whether tiff, jpg or raw in the same way, i.e. leaving the original file preserved despite the number of edits done. It is only on exporting that a jpg file will be further compressed, depending on the settings used. No matter how many edits done in the Develop mode, the original file remains unchanged. As a jpg is already compressed and (usually) sharpened, there will be degradation on export if changes to these factors have been applied. You can avoid a lot of this by exporting the file as a tiff, but why bother if you are just looking at a laptop screen!:)
 
BrynBoru said:
Maybe in Photoshop but not in Lightroom. Lightroom treats all images, whether tiff, jpg or raw in the same way, i.e. leaving the original file preserved despite the number of edits done. It is only on exporting that a jpg file will be further compressed, depending on the settings used. No matter how many edits done in the Develop mode, the original file remains unchanged. As a jpg is already compressed and (usually) sharpened, there will be degradation on export if changes to these factors have been applied. You can avoid a lot of this by exporting the file as a tiff, but why bother if you are just looking at a laptop screen!:)
Click to expand...
You're right if you stay within Lightroom. The theory is still the same though ... the camera has processed the RAW to create the JPEG so even if you only apply processing once in Lightroom, you are still processing the RAW image twice. Yes its only a very small amount of degrading; but why not avoid all that and if you want to process anything then use RAW.

Set your camera for JPEG + RAW if you want so anything you aren't post processing you can just use the JPEG.

Sorry but I just can't understand people who say that JPEG is better. At the most its more convenient and no worse in quality; but for any processing RAW *IS* better.
 
Eloise said:
Sorry but I just can't understand people who say that JPEG is better. At the most its more convenient and no worse in quality; but for any processing RAW *IS* better.
Click to expand...

It will depend on the individual needs and ability.

JPeg processing in modern cameras is pretty good for a wide range of scenes, and also allows in camera generation of images which would otherwise require multiple files (such as auto panoramas, multi shot twilight modes, etc).
In addition, it's all done for you, with no need to export to a second device and edit.

Sometimes, that IS better, and for some people the default JPeg processing might be better than they can manage themselves in PP.

Personally, I use RAW, and take the time to edit in LR later, but it is a lot slower, and takes more time.
(much to the annoyance of my wife, who wants me to be able to post holiday shots to share with family and friends as soon as I've taken them - luckily my A6000 will generate a JPeg from RAW and transfer wirelessly to my phone, so I can keep her happy AND have my RAW's for later :) )
 
Faldrax said:
It will depend on the individual needs and ability.

JPeg processing in modern cameras is pretty good for a wide range of scenes, and also allows in camera generation of images which would otherwise require multiple files (such as auto panoramas, multi shot twilight modes, etc).
In addition, it's all done for you, with no need to export to a second device and edit.

Sometimes, that IS better, and for some people the default JPeg processing might be better than they can manage themselves in PP.
Click to expand...
No, nothing you have said makes JPEG better (in terms of image quality) ... as I say it can be more convenient and the results as good; so it may be a better option in some situations. But once you start processing the JPEG is always (albeit IMO) a second option.

So short RAW+JPEG and buy a larger card if you need to!
 
Last edited:
Professor1991 said:
I was just messing around with Lightroom Android and I figure that's the best way to get a "feel" for everything and I'm beginning to slowly understand how everything works. My logic at the time was I see people manipulating the colour temperature and so on of a RAW file and I think "Well if I can do that in a Jpeg why do i need RAW?". Would I be right in saying RAW essentially gives you more to work with and can deliver more "vibrant" shots, i.e. the type jped editing can't deliver without some form of photoshop ?
Click to expand...
Yes you can tweak the colour temperature of a JPEG, but consider it this way. If you tweak a JPEG for colour, then its like being short sighted and putting a random pair of glasses on; they then make you long sighted so you put a second pair of glasses on to correct the over correction. With the RAW; you are removing the first pair of glasses and wearing a correct pair in their place. Maybe not a perfect analogy but it will do.
 
Eloise said:
Sorry but I just can't understand people who say that JPEG is better. At the most its more convenient and no worse in quality; but for any processing RAW *IS* better.
Click to expand...
I certainly didn't say that jpeg is better. Because I have the time and an Eizo 4k monitor, I always shoot raw. But many professionals will use jpgs for practical reasons, news, sport etc, even weddings. Setting the camera for raw + jpeg is IMO bad advice as it is a waste of space and time.
Eloise said:
Yes you can tweak the colour temperature of a JPEG, but consider it this way. If you tweak a JPEG for colour, then its like being short sighted and putting a random pair of glasses on; they then make you long sighted so you put a second pair of glasses on to correct the over correction.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is in any way a good analogy. For raw images where the there is not much colour contrast or saturated colours, there won't be any significant gain, for the reason that the colour information mostly lies within the jpg sRGB gamut. If the colours aren't there, there's nothing to tweak, whether it's raw or not. And again I would point out that if you're using a standard lap top and loading to the web, what's the point of sweating over a raw image when you're restricted to a small colour gamut. On the other hand, if you are printing your work, or using a high res 4k monitor, then fine, always use raw.
 
Eloise said:
No, nothing you have said makes JPEG better (in terms of image quality) ... as I say it can be more convenient and the results as good; so it may be a better option in some situations. But once you start processing the JPEG is always (albeit IMO) a second option.

So short RAW+JPEG and buy a larger card if you need to!
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree here.

I am happy that the results I get from RAW will be as good or closer to what I intend than if I shot in JPeg, and it appears you are too.

BUT that is because we have both spent the time and effort learning how to process images shot in RAW (and how to take images in a way that works best fro such processing, such as ETTR).

For someone relatively new to using a camera with a more complex set of options than a simple compact, for example, RAW can be a step to far - you need to learn how to process a RAW file, and until you have done so JPeg may well be 'better' in terms of final image IQ.

That's not to say one is better than the other, as with the 'convenience' factors (and in some situations that convenience could be the difference between selling a shot and not, it time is critical) - you need to choose the right one for you.
 
BrynBoru said:
I certainly didn't say that jpeg is better. Because I have the time and an Eizo 4k monitor, I always shoot raw. But many professionals will use jpgs for practical reasons, news, sport etc, even weddings. Setting the camera for raw + jpeg is IMO bad advice as it is a waste of space and time.
Click to expand...
I agree that for practical reasons JPEG may be the correct option. (IMO) Space is pretty irrelevant these days... when you can get cards which hold several thousand RAW+JPEG images, as for time definitely not - use JPEG for OOC images but have the RAW there for the images you do want to process.

I don't think this is in any way a good analogy. For raw images where the there is not much colour contrast or saturated colours, there won't be any significant gain, for the reason that the colour information mostly lies within the jpg sRGB gamut. If the colours aren't there, there's nothing to tweak, whether it's raw or not. And again I would point out that if you're using a standard lap top and loading to the web, what's the point of sweating over a raw image when you're restricted to a small colour gamut. On the other hand, if you are printing your work, or using a high res 4k monitor, then fine, always use raw.
Click to expand...
Not a perfect analogy perhaps, but are you disputing my contention that if you "correct" a jpeg you are processing a previously processed image?
 
Eloise said:
are you disputing my contention that if you "correct" a jpeg you are processing a previously processed image?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you may think I was in contention about double processing. You did say that:
So if (in a simple example) you process a JPEG to increase the exposure by 1ev; then bring it back by 2/3ev each of those processes is done separately. With a RAW image however the first step of increasing the exposure happens to the RAW. If you then adjust the exposure again, bring it back by 2/3ev; what your software (Lightroom, etc) does is actually go back to the original image and will reset the level to how it was taken, and actually just increase from there to +1/3 ev.
That is not correct as a jpeg, tiff or raw file are all treated the same in LR, as the original remains unaltered. You appear to be saying that unlike for a raw image, there is degradation of a jpeg when edited multiple times in LR. Also I said that there will be degradation on exporting a jpeg, but it depended on the degree of compression. So I don't see where the argument is supposed to be and I don't see that I am disputing anything. But it makes a nonsense of using jpegs if you end up exporting them as 100% quality files, as the whole point is that they are meant to be compressed anyway.
On the rare occasions I use them, I would only pass jpegs through LR for file management, cropping etc, and minor tweaks.
Perhaps we are straying off-thread and it is all hot air if we are talking about using bog standard lap top screens to view images over the web. Where is the benefit of raw processed images for that scenario?
 
If you use RAW then why bother with RAW/JPEG?

You can quite easily convert a RAW file to JPEG after all if you want to and it would seem to be simply taking up room unnecessarily on your card.

The only time I can see a necessity for it if you needed to export the JPEGs straight away.

And if you want to process JPEGs and are worried about image degradation then simply convert them to 16 bit TIFFs and edit them, keeping the original JPEGs safe.
.
 
Like, I suspect, a number of people, I started shooting jpeg, then went to jpeg+raw and now shoot raw only.
I agree, if you shoot raw then why bother with raw + jpeg? except if you need the jpeg immediately.
One thing I cannot understand is people who say (as Dave70D said) "Someone told me once try Raw, and I did but not for long as the editing did my head in and I said Never again."
Lightroom has a basic profile for every camera, so just opening a raw file gives a pretty good default approximation of the out of camera jpeg, without doing a thing.
The time you need to get really involved in "editing" (in reality "development") is if you want to optimise and get the maximum from your raw file, and even then you can do as much or as little as you choose.
 
Like @Bebop said @Faldrax gave you a good idea, try editing both RAW & JPEG images - and see what you can do. When I started out as a beginner, the ability to alter WB in RAW was a huge boon, as you get better with Lightroom - you can optimise the image greatly including graduated filters, etc. Try it ! :D
 
Dave70D said:
Reason I only shoot Raw+Jpeg is, another forum I use on G+ will only let you use a Jpeg for the photo challenges but all my Raw ones come on TP.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you're posting raw files on here, you'd have to convert them to jpeg 1st.
 
Dave70D said:
True, I edit in LR then finish off and resize in PS save as Jpeg put them on flickr then upload to here :)
Click to expand...

So you can use the same files for both here and your G+ forum. So the reason you shoot jpeg + raw is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top