Raw v JPEG - am I missing something?

[odd jim]

Hi guys! I know shooting RAW is better than JPEG as its not compressed, but I've never really shot a lot on RAW. I've been doing a little experimenting with shooting RAW and JPEG simutaniously recently and then PP'ing both to see the difference, and unless I'm missing something I cant tell them apart (when doing identical PP'ing).

I'm using Photoshop Elements 4, but converting the RAW into a TIFF file first using Canon's Zoombrowser EX (as Elements doesnt recognise RAW files :bang. In realistic terms is RAW much better?

 

[AliB]

Oh yes Jim. The best way to have a look at RAW is by using either ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to open the pic before you do anything else to it. That's where you can alter WB, exposure, straighten, crop etc and it's totally non destructive.

If you don't have ACR you can also use Canon's own version that you should have got with your camera (Canon DPP Digital Professional Pro)

Again you do the RAW work before you do anything else. After processing, you can save as a JPEG or a TIFF depending on what you want to use it for .

Hope that helps.

 

[joxby]

Raw is easier and quicker to work with.
If you're going to shoot raw, then convert to tiff before edit, you might as well shoot jpg.
You have to edit raw files whilst they are still raw files.

 

[cannockwolf]

but converting the RAW into a TIFF file first

that is your problem, all you are doing is making the same file as the jpeg from the raw file then comparing them, you really are comparing the same thing!

To get the most out of raw get a trial of lightroom from adobe, then im sure you will see a difference

 

[joxby]

Well, I think we shot that to death...

*collective high fives*

 

[AliB]

*high five back*

Hope that helps Jim. RAW first.

 

[oldgit]

Raw is easier and quicker to work with.
If you're going to shoot raw, then convert to tiff before edit, you might as well shoot jpg.

Wrong. TIFF can and will store all the same information as a RAW, but maybe not as compact.

JPEG is 8 bits per pixel, the correct settings on TIFF will store 16bits per pixel, more than your camera (which probably does 12 or 14 bits)

 

[cannockwolf]

Wrong. TIFF can and will store all the same information as a RAW, but maybe not as compact.

JPEG is 8 bits per pixel, the correct settings on TIFF will store 16bits per pixel, more than your camera (which probably does 12 or 14 bits)

it can but i bet it was only 8bits when he did the conversion

 

[Yv]

Now now peeps, 'Smug' is not very becoming of you! :nono:

for the OP, they are right, you do have to do your processing to the RAW file [the edits will be stored as a seperate file which can be deleted and thus returning the raw to its original state, hence the non destructive terminology]. A raw file is exactly what the camera saw with no in-camera processing, the raw data as it were. A jpg wil have been compressed and processed by a load of digital circuits that have no idea of what you were doing or trying to achieve and whilst modern cameras are getting better at this, a raw file will still contain more data with which you can work with, particularly in shadow and highlight areas. SO for instance its easier and gives a better result if you need to adjust white balance, or recover under/over exposure issues, rescue shadow or highlights - you can achieve a more satisfactory result.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

that is your problem, all you are doing is making the same file as the jpeg from the raw file then comparing them, you really are comparing the same thing!

To get the most out of raw get a trial of lightroom from adobe, then im sure you will see a difference

Not quite true....a jpeg file is processed in camera using settings that can be set via the menu,so depending on the camera and the settings you may be applying in camera sharpening ,saturation adjustments or any other in camera options there are, where as a RAW file is just that raw unprocessed data from the camera with no in camera processing applied.

Must type faster.... Yvonne beat me to it with a much better explanation .

 

[joxby]

Nevermind

 

[oldgit]

Yv Smug is not good. Your answer is spot on.

To quote the original question

I'm using Photoshop Elements 4, but converting the RAW into a TIFF file first using Canon's Zoombrowser EX (as Elements doesnt recognise RAW files :bang. In realistic terms is RAW much better?

If you are using 16bpp TIFF then you have all the info.

ie:
RAW = all info
JPEG = 8 bpp + compression artifacts (compromise)
TIFF, DPNG, PSD = all info (with correct options set)

There is no difference between a RAW and a 16bpp TIFF. Infact you could say, and you'd be right, that the TIFF is wasting space. In any decent PP package (PS/Gimp/Correl) you can correct for WB from the TIFF.

 

[pxl8]

There is no difference between a RAW and a 16bpp TIFF.

White balance is the deal breaker here. Then of course there's non destructive editing, being able to decode using different profiles and tonal curves and so on. None of these are the same when done to a 16bit tiff as they would be using raw :nono:

 

[odd jim]

Thanks for your replies guys, it has clarified it for me! I'll use the software from Canon until I upgrade from Elements, which I suspect might be in the very near future!

 

[Scotty B]

For me having the ability to change exposure either way to bring back shadow/highlight detail is the main advantage for RAW over JPEG.

Example: I was at a wedding and the bride and her daughters where wearing similar ivory colours with the sun shining on them. The shot was blown and all the dresses became one white block. Without RAW there was no way the shot could be saved but thankfully I could change the exposure by 2 stops bringing back the detail.