RAW vs. JPEG - Regarding image quality there is no debate!

SLRUser

SLRUser

Messages
2,748
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just reading an article in "What Digital Camera" (a freebie from Birdfair 2013) and they compare RAW to JPEG when reviewing cameras and state things like "The JPEG image is a lot sharper than the RAW image" or "The JPEG image is a lot more saturated than the RAW".

Isn't the JPEG image derived from the RAW image? How can the JPEG possibly be better than the RAW?

All that it means is that the camera is better at developing images than you (or in this case, they) are.

The reason that the image is sharper is that you, or the camera, has selected a sharpen filter. The reason the image may have more saturation is because you, or the camera, has selected more saturation.

RAW may not be convenient, RAW may need extra work, RAW isn't for everyone.

However, trying to compare RAW to JPEG quality is like comparing a negative to a developed photograph. If you don't see the logic in this, stick to JPEG.

As I have already said RAW isn't for everyone, JPEG is a lot more convenient for a number of reasons. Just don't compare any image qualities as there is no comparison.

There I have said it. End of discussion.

Side note...if a camera does any sort of HDR but only in JPEG, then the above may not apply besides you can't compare anyway.
 
a raw file is horrible...jpeg will always be better to look at..

there is no such thing as an edited raw file...a raw file will always be a raw file.. even when you save it..its still the same raw file..
 
KIPAX said:
a raw file is horrible...jpeg will always be better to look at..

there is no such thing as an edited raw file...a raw file will always be a raw file.. even when you save it..its still the same raw file..
Click to expand...

...and the JPEGs will look better. :D
 
90% of my images require little or no processing, or are binned upon first viewing so would be fine if shot in JPEG. The remaining 10% require tweaking, many of these for white balance which is hard to do right unless shot in RAW. Hence I shoot in RAW + JPEG Fine mode.
 
Do people actually read threads before they post? I am not debating the convenience of JPEG, or how pretty it looks on a monitor.

If people don't know how to process RAW images or don't want to do so, or don't have the time to do so, or don't have the inclination to do so then don't use them. Simple as that. I am not advocating people should or shouldn't use them. There is no right or wrong in choosing to use JPEG or RAW as it is up to each individual's wants.

However let me repeat again. The quality of a JPEG image CANNOT be better than a properly processed RAW file. Period. If you somehow think it can be you are mistaken.
If comparing a processed RAW and a JPEG and the JPEG is better, you need to go back and process the RAW properly. And then maybe save it as a TIFF file.

It is like saying that an MP3 file is as good as the original WAV file. If you don't understand that analogy you have no right to post any responses (except funny ones).

Perhaps I have been pixel peeping too long, but in some of the stuff I do pixel peeping is extremely important.
 
lighten up fella :)

you cant edit a raw file.. it will always be a raw file.. so the truth is a jpg will always look better than a raw file... i can keep saying it and you can keep seeing somehtign else :)

a tiff file that started life as a raw file..edited then converted will look better than a jpg ..yes :)
 
SLRUser said:
Do people actually read threads before they post? I am not debating the convenience of JPEG, or how pretty it looks on a monitor.

If people don't know how to process RAW images or don't want to do so, or don't have the time to do so, or don't have the inclination to do so then don't use them. Simple as that. I am not advocating people should or shouldn't use them. There is no right or wrong in choosing to use JPEG or RAW as it is up to each individual's wants.

However let me repeat again. The quality of a JPEG image CANNOT be better than a properly processed RAW file. Period. If you somehow think it can be you are mistaken.
If comparing a processed RAW and a JPEG and the JPEG is better, you need to go back and process the RAW properly. And then maybe save it as a TIFF file.

It is like saying that an MP3 file is as good as the original WAV file. If you don't understand that analogy you have no right to post any responses (except funny ones).

Perhaps I have been pixel peeping too long, but in some of the stuff I do pixel peeping is extremely important.
Click to expand...
Chill, it's not really that important anyway:cuckoo:.

Everyone with even a little knowledge of digital photography knows that correctly processed and converted RAW's will be tecnically superior to in-camera JPEG's. The thing is that many people do not really notice the difference or care to spend time and effort making minor corrections.
 
Nobody can see a RAW file...

Both images are processed.


Discussion is meaningless.
 
I've NEVER shot raw in my 2yrs shooting digital, I haven't a clue how to manipulate it, and I don't have the software/knowledge either, so for ME personally I always shoot j-peg.

Simple
 
macvisual said:
I've NEVER shot raw in my 2yrs shooting digital, I haven't a clue how to manipulate it, and I don't have the software/knowledge either, so for ME personally I always shoot j-peg.

Simple
Click to expand...
I always shoot raw Iam not good enough to get it right first time I've got very limited software skills but it gives me a fighting chance:)
 
Editing a raw file to the level of a well recorded Jpeg is not "basic." For a lot of people a Jpeg (w/ the right WB) will be better. The move to raw is "another learning curve" and probably not something to be recommended as freely as we do...
 
macvisual said:
I've NEVER shot raw in my 2yrs shooting digital, I haven't a clue how to manipulate it, and I don't have the software/knowledge either, so for ME personally I always shoot j-peg.

Simple
Click to expand...

If you want to have a go you can for FREE!!!

I use CS5 but people mentioned some free RAW packages in another thread on here, UFRaw and FastStone, so I downloaded them and they seem to work quite well.

I also have a copy of RAWTherapee which seems to be quite good and it too is FREE.

GIMP seems to be a popular and FREE JPEG processor.

If you want to give any of these a go just Google them.
 
You can get most from the RAW. There is no question about it.

However, in some cases, JPEGs from a camera can actually look better than processed RAW. Getting JPEG from RAW is not simple process. Itis heavily affected by bayer mask coefficients you apply (white balance), tonal curve, level of sharpening, dynamic range adjustments, and million other parameters. It is a very hard to do it right.

In fact there is a good chance that camera manufacturers know the best the specs of their bayer mask for colour conversion and have very good tonal curves in camera and RAW convertor. They don't always share this know-how with others and perfect result is reserved only for camera or fortheir proprietary RAW convertor. Often this is a very hard to reconstruct the same look when you just apply Adobe standard 2013 in Lightroom...

I still very like JPEGs produced by Fuji X100 (with film simulation) for example. I struggle when trying to reconstruct that by processing RAWs in Lightroom.

Sometimes this happens to me with Nikon NEF's as well. When I load the pictures I like the JPEG preview, once it gets processed by ACR, the original "pop" is gone. Even with effort, it is very hard to recreate that look and at the end I get a picture that looks good, but still like the original Nikon more...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Editing a raw file to the level of a well recorded Jpeg is not "basic." For a lot of people a Jpeg (w/ the right WB) will be better. The move to raw is "another learning curve" and probably not something to be recommended as freely as we do...
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Some of these packages are a PITA to use but others are easy peasy and processing a RAW file normally takes me a matter of seconds. Certainly no more than a minute for the vast majority of my shots.
 
Raw is best but my favourite Analogy of this old chestnut........

I'm a chef but the take away Pizza I bought tonight was a far better Pizza - than the dough, Olive oil, Tomato sauce, Pepperoni, Onions, Mozzarella, Parmesan, Feta, Mushrooms and Peppers that I couldn't see because they were all at home in the fridge.
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase. There are two types of photographers in the world: those that understand a raw file and those that don't....

As Dave Allen used to say... may your God be with you.
 
Fact is jpeg is craw raw is better. As for more saturated and sharper... thats because the camera has pumped these things up for you. Raw is well raw there to be touched up by yourself. Dont listen to idiots like ken rockwell who talks complete rubbish. You will get dar better shots shooting raw. Anyone who disagrees is daft to be honest there is no argument. Id love to actually hear some reasons for jpeg other than togs who shoot n send instantly to newspapers and such
 
mpe said:
You can get most from the RAW. There is no question about it.

However, in some cases, JPEGs from a camera can actually look better than processed RAW. Getting JPEG from RAW is not simple process. Itis heavily affected by bayer mask coefficients you apply (white balance), tonal curve, level of sharpening, dynamic range adjustments, and million other parameters. It is a very hard to do it right.

In fact there is a good chance that camera manufacturers know the best the specs of their bayer mask for colour conversion and have very good tonal curves in camera and RAW convertor. They don't always share this know-how with others and perfect result is reserved only for camera or fortheir proprietary RAW convertor. Often this is a very hard to reconstruct the same look when you just apply Adobe standard 2013 in Lightroom...

I still very like JPEGs produced by Fuji X100 (with film simulation) for example. I struggle when trying to reconstruct that by processing RAWs in Lightroom.

Sometimes this happens to me with Nikon NEF's as well. When I load the pictures I like the JPEG preview, once it gets processed by ACR, the original "pop" is gone. Even with effort, it is very hard to recreate that look and at the end I get a picture that looks good, but still like the original Nikon more...
Click to expand...

How can canon or nikon know the best setup? they arent there on photoshoots with you
 
SLRUser said:
There I have said it. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

It would be a very pointless thread if that was the case.

It is silly to compare Jpeg to RAW - for reasons already stated, and debated, a gazzillion times across the net.

The real question is, do you prefer to process the RAW file yourself? or allow the camera to do it? Some prefer the latter because of time constraints - like sports photographers or photo journo's.

If you have the time, it is almost always better to do it in post. Allowing the camera to process it for you is just like sticking a filter over the RAW. It's much less personal.

I can't stand the types who claim their shots are "SOOC" - there's even groups on flickr dedicated. You want to scream at them that it's still processed, and there's actually as much skill involved in post processing. "SOOC" [straight out of camera] only counts for framing, and overall exposure. Nothing more.
 
I think there are still folk missing the irony some are adopting in this thread.

Raw isn't an image

Jpeg is is therefore a better image.

The sad truth - DSLRS have become a gadget available to the the masses - the skills or the know how to 'develop' that raw file are way behind what that camera can do when set to jpeg.

If you're on the fence - shoot raw & fine jpeg - 'develop' your own raw - compare results - get opinions - make your own mind up.

Even if your experienced - give it a try.
 
Last edited:
I am only surprised by 1 small technical detail considering this is towards the end of 2013

how the hell are will still stuck with displaying 8 bit images, in a very limited sRGB colour space? Wide gamut and at least 10bit should be here, which is a lot closer what RAW files are.
 
daugirdas said:
I am only surprised by 1 small technical detail considering this is towards the end of 2013

how the hell are will still stuck with displaying 8 bit images, in a very limited sRGB colour space? Wide gamut and at least 10bit should be here, which is a lot closer what RAW files are.
Click to expand...

I presume your refering to elements with 8bit? The new one will be out shortly... wonder if they change that as photoshop has stepped up its game
 
barratt1988 said:
I presume your refering to elements with 8bit? The new one will be out shortly... wonder if they change that as photoshop has stepped up its game
Click to expand...
Unless you have a 10 bit graphics card and 10 bit connection to your monitor - which also needs to be 10 bit capable, it won't matter what the software can do, you will still be limited to 8 bit...
 
arad85 said:
Unless you have a 10 bit graphics card and 10 bit connection to your monitor - which also needs to be 10 bit capable, it won't matter what the software can do, you will still be limited to 8 bit...
Click to expand...

I think now days alot of people do. More importantly if your limited to 8bit colours going edits to say a sky can become very destructive as you can get banding issues. Even if you cant see all the colours it becomes very noticeable.
 
arad85 said:
Unless you have a 10 bit graphics card and 10 bit connection to your monitor - which also needs to be 10 bit capable, it won't matter what the software can do, you will still be limited to 8 bit...
Click to expand...

there is no technical reason for using cheap 6bit 60% sRGB panels and 8bit cards either, other than slight cost saving from the manufacturer point of view.
There are plenty of good sIPS panels out there (lots more since iPad started) and plenty of good cards. Why not all of them, why is it not standard now?

Cost you say? Well yes and no, since if they dropped old tech (COST) they would ramp up production and it will get cheap.
 
SLRUser said:
Do people actually read threads before they post? I am not debating the convenience of JPEG, or how pretty it looks on a monitor.

If people don't know how to process RAW images or don't want to do so, or don't have the time to do so, or don't have the inclination to do so then don't use them. Simple as that. I am not advocating people should or shouldn't use them. There is no right or wrong in choosing to use JPEG or RAW as it is up to each individual's wants.

However let me repeat again. The quality of a JPEG image CANNOT be better than a properly processed RAW file. Period. If you somehow think it can be you are mistaken.
If comparing a processed RAW and a JPEG and the JPEG is better, you need to go back and process the RAW properly. And then maybe save it as a TIFF file.

It is like saying that an MP3 file is as good as the original WAV file. If you don't understand that analogy you have no right to post any responses (except funny ones).

Perhaps I have been pixel peeping too long, but in some of the stuff I do pixel peeping is extremely important.
Click to expand...

Now you use the word "processed" RAW, for the FIRST TIME, I see what you mean.

Without the "processed" bit, you do realise your post was incorrect?
 
barratt1988 said:
I think now days alot of people do. More importantly if your limited to 8bit colours going edits to say a sky can become very destructive as you can get banding issues. Even if you cant see all the colours it becomes very noticeable.
Click to expand...

Well I shoot in JPEG but I don't edit the OOC JPEG - rather I turn it into a TIFF file for all subsequent editing.

And I will agree that very occasionally the use of JPEGs can lead to the concerns you mention they are very few and far between and in most cases I have to look carefully to notice them and I'm looking at a very large picture on my 40" LED TV which also doubles as a monitor.

But the simple fact is that even if you did have a 10 bit monitor capable of viewing 100 trillion different colours at the end of the day you are still viewing an 8 bit image with a maximum possible 16 million colors by eyes which can see approx 10 million colours.

.
 
The problem is that the demosaicing and conversion of RAW captured by a camera with bayer sensor is not a simple one way digital operation. It is called interpolation for a reason.

There is virtually unlimited number of combination how you can make 8bit RGB out of 4x14bit data captured by sensor behind ever changing RGGB CFA array.

The Adobe and others are trying hard to make the conversion right, but often the results of their generic Adobe Standard profile is different than the result when using process tailored specifically for the camera sensor.

Camera makers know the best configuration of their CFA array and characteristics of micro-lenses used in their cameras. Therefore they know best which bayer coefficient to apply during demosaicing.

As much as I like ACR/Lightroom workflow, I know that if I want the ultimate results I need to use the ugly Capture NX2 for Nikon or just use JPEGs from the camera and make sure that my exposure is spot-on and the best possible tonal curve is applied.
 
petersmart said:
Well I shoot in JPEG but I don't edit the OOC JPEG - rather I turn it into a TIFF file for all subsequent editing.
Click to expand...
Whether you edit it as a 16 bit TIFF or as a 32762 bit YARP file, it doesn't matter. You have already lost the extra information contained in a raw file when it was first converted to JPEG in camera.
 
petersmart said:
'm looking at a very large picture on my 40" LED TV which also doubles as a monitor.


.
Click to expand...

Great way to see a completely different image to the one you are actually editing. TVs do a lot of processing to make small 720p or PAL image look sharp by all sorts of extrapollation, and at that size the dpi is ridiculous. I have 2x more pixels in 27" screen. I am not even going to the colour reproduction that is almost always on the bright and vivid side. Great for TV, not so great for color critical work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top