Reasons to use RAW over best quality JPEG

tahoejeepmom · 02-07-2013, 10:15 PM

Once you shot RAW you will never look back.

You can do so much more with a photo that was taken Raw then any JPEG.

Example time.

because you can turn this

into This.

You can edit a photo so much better in RAW. Try it thats the only way to really understand the power of a RAW file. Just reading about shooting RAW will not do it for you. I thought why would I shoot Raw sounds like over kill the files are so big. A 20mb photo in DNG will be 7MB in JPEG format. So it takes up memory space for sure. For me it is worth the extra storage. I have 16 gb memory card. Now that I started shooting in the RAW I can't image shooting any other way.

Last edited by tahoejeepmom; 02-07-2013 at 10:24 PM.

romeck · 02-08-2013, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by tahoejeepmom

Once you shot RAW you will never look back.

True.
For me. Since 4 years I shoot only in RAW only.
(and haevn't time for changing to jpg all them, so I choose the best ones, few only, six, twelve...)

Prawda.
Jak dla mnie. Od czterech lat robię tylko w RAWach.
(I nie mając czasu na wywołanie wszystkich do jpg'ów, wybieram zatem najlepsze, ledwie sześć, dwanaście...)

Stone G. · 02-08-2013, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by tahoejeepmom

Once you shot RAW you will never look back.

You can do so much more with a photo that was taken Raw then any JPEG.

Example time.

because you can turn this

<dogsnow>

into This.

<cookrun4>

You can edit a photo so much better in RAW.

Objection, your Honour! (Well, partly at least).

I do not disagree with "You can edit a photo so much better in RAW" . The bit-depth in raw files is unquestionably higher, but it is a myth that one cannot salvage even rather bad exposures in JPEG.

With your permission (I hope) I have taken your "dogsnow" dark JPEG image and - even though it was highly compressed for upload - turned it into this, using a fairly simple software (PhotoImpact X3):

luker · 02-08-2013, 05:09 AM

Yes, I took a picture of a large, black bird on snow, knowing I would have exposure issues. The JPG adjusted fine.

I took a bunch of photos with white balance set to incandescent, and checked after a few only to find the photos were blue. Switched to auto WB and continued.

On viewing, one click with the appropriate tool and the "blue" JPGs were indistinguishable from the correct ones.

I just haven't found the photo where raw helped-maybe because I spent so much time adjusting film scans previously.

tahoejeepmom · 02-08-2013, 10:03 AM

You lose a lot with the jpeg. Yes you can fix a jpeg photo I have done it too. I only shot JPEG for years till now. But you can't keep the same quality or sharpness. The noise gets messy it's just not the same.

The way I understand it is that jpeg files are already a bit processed by your camera. The raw file is untouched and you do the processing with a file that has everything the sensor caught.

Being able to tweak the luminance, luminance detail and luminance contrast are really helpful in fixing noise and making an image look sharper. Adjusting not just the sharpness but the amount, radius, detail, and masking all are great to help a soft photo look great. When it comes to fixing poorly exposed photos adjusting everything from blacks to whites shadows and highlights .

There are just more options in the basic editing processing or a DNG file then there are for a jpeg.

This was taken JPEG and it looked like this.

With some fancy Photo shop editing I made it into this.

SO yes you can edit a JPEG file just fine for most type of shots. BUT with photos that have messed up exposure the RAW file will look better edited.

luker · 02-08-2013, 10:29 AM

I think some of the perceived differences are coming from the editing software-all those luminance features are not part of raw, but are actually editable in jpg as well.

tahoejeepmom · 02-08-2013, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by luker

I think some of the perceived differences are coming from the editing software-all those luminance features are not part of raw, but are actually editable in jpg as well.

Yes you can still edit all of them with jpeg. With the JPEG it was already processed by your camera once and you are just doing it over again. Not sure I am making sense.

Here are some good reads on the topic that point out pros and cons of both.

Understanding RAW Files Explained

raw-vs-jpeg

10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-08-2013, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by luker

I just haven't found the photo where raw helped-maybe because I spent so much time adjusting film scans previously.

I admit this is an extreme example. The original shot was taken in RAW, but I can use the Pentax Digital Camera Utility to create a JPEG using the exact JPEG settings that were on my camera at the time.

It's an extreme example because I was using a Hoya 72 infrared filter. But I did use the camera to set the white balance to the best possible setting I could shoot with, to get a more useful color histogram.

I've taken enough of these shots to know that just a few adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW* can give me what I want, which is this:

Now, I can start with the full JPEG and get close to that, but the processing takes me twice as long and there isn't enough data. The details start to break down. In this case, I can't just take the JPEG straight from camera to print, or get the same quality result after processing a JPEG, or save time. I might have saved card space, but in 7.5 years of DSLR use, I have never used more than half of the card space I had with me.

A separate point: RAW requires some software commitment, usually understated in these threads. But those skills are always useful even for JPEGgers.

*I probably used a trial of Lightroom 4 for this, but since I didn't know what I was doing, I used it exactly like I would use ACR.

luker · 02-08-2013, 01:39 PM

I was really going to drop it- I mean, it isn't a big deal-but Tahoe Jeep Mom, I read those, tested and just found that they overstate their case.

Dave, thanks for posting that, it isn't the kind of thing I have ever tried-and though my results don't look exactly like yours, I got kind of close in PS Elements 2 within a very short time.

Besides, the concept and execution of your photo is what makes it great-not the file format or processing software.

MikeS1 · 02-09-2013, 05:32 AM

I use RAW whenever possible. The possibilities down the road to edit makes it worthwhile

davidsyd · 02-09-2013, 04:06 PM

I shoot jpeg for few years. But with SD memory cards being so cheap. I now total shoot raw with Jpeg.
like others said. You can do a bit more with Raw. IN case if and when I need to do more edit.

its just safe to have all the info in RAW format as a backup.

JinDesu · 02-09-2013, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Stone G.

Objection, your Honour! (Well, partly at least).

I do not disagree with "You can edit a photo so much better in RAW" . The bit-depth in raw files is unquestionably higher, but it is a myth that one cannot salvage even rather bad exposures in JPEG.

With your permission (I hope) I have taken your "dogsnow" dark JPEG image and - even though it was highly compressed for upload - turned it into this, using a fairly simple software (PhotoImpact X3):

This looks a LOT worse than the RAW processed one...

Nuff · 02-09-2013, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

This looks a LOT worse than the RAW processed one...

Agree, even the colour cast is different. I guess if someone has a really bad monitor it might look similar enough...

02-08-2013, 10:03 AM	#80
tahoejeepmom Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Tahoe Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 100	You lose a lot with the jpeg. Yes you can fix a jpeg photo I have done it too. I only shot JPEG for years till now. But you can't keep the same quality or sharpness. The noise gets messy it's just not the same. The way I understand it is that jpeg files are already a bit processed by your camera. The raw file is untouched and you do the processing with a file that has everything the sensor caught. Being able to tweak the luminance, luminance detail and luminance contrast are really helpful in fixing noise and making an image look sharper. Adjusting not just the sharpness but the amount, radius, detail, and masking all are great to help a soft photo look great. When it comes to fixing poorly exposed photos adjusting everything from blacks to whites shadows and highlights . There are just more options in the basic editing processing or a DNG file then there are for a jpeg. This was taken JPEG and it looked like this. With some fancy Photo shop editing I made it into this. SO yes you can edit a JPEG file just fine for most type of shots. BUT with photos that have messed up exposure the RAW file will look better edited. Last edited by tahoejeepmom; 02-08-2013 at 10:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
RAW to JPEG	nathancombs	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	10-16-2011 07:24 PM
RAW to jpeg	wildman	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	05-22-2011 02:51 PM
RAW to JPEG	Krzys	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	04-25-2011 10:32 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Pentax K10D - RAW or jpeg for maximum image quality?	rrobinson54	Photographic Technique	31	09-09-2007 11:43 PM

02-07-2013, 10:15 PM	#76
tahoejeepmom Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Tahoe Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 100	Once you shot RAW you will never look back. You can do so much more with a photo that was taken Raw then any JPEG. Example time. because you can turn this into This. You can edit a photo so much better in RAW. Try it thats the only way to really understand the power of a RAW file. Just reading about shooting RAW will not do it for you. I thought why would I shoot Raw sounds like over kill the files are so big. A 20mb photo in DNG will be 7MB in JPEG format. So it takes up memory space for sure. For me it is worth the extra storage. I have 16 gb memory card. Now that I started shooting in the RAW I can't image shooting any other way. Last edited by tahoejeepmom; 02-07-2013 at 10:24 PM.

02-08-2013, 12:08 AM	#77
romeck Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Piekary Śląskie Photos: Albums Posts: 155	Originally posted by tahoejeepmom Once you shot RAW you will never look back. True. For me. Since 4 years I shoot only in RAW only. (and haevn't time for changing to jpg all them, so I choose the best ones, few only, six, twelve...) Prawda. Jak dla mnie. Od czterech lat robię tylko w RAWach. (I nie mając czasu na wywołanie wszystkich do jpg'ów, wybieram zatem najlepsze, ledwie sześć, dwanaście...)

02-08-2013, 05:09 AM	#79
luker New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 20	Yes, I took a picture of a large, black bird on snow, knowing I would have exposure issues. The JPG adjusted fine. I took a bunch of photos with white balance set to incandescent, and checked after a few only to find the photos were blue. Switched to auto WB and continued. On viewing, one click with the appropriate tool and the "blue" JPGs were indistinguishable from the correct ones. I just haven't found the photo where raw helped-maybe because I spent so much time adjusting film scans previously.

02-08-2013, 10:29 AM	#81
luker New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 20	I think some of the perceived differences are coming from the editing software-all those luminance features are not part of raw, but are actually editable in jpg as well.

02-08-2013, 10:52 AM	#82
tahoejeepmom Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Tahoe Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 100	Originally posted by luker I think some of the perceived differences are coming from the editing software-all those luminance features are not part of raw, but are actually editable in jpg as well. Yes you can still edit all of them with jpeg. With the JPEG it was already processed by your camera once and you are just doing it over again. Not sure I am making sense. Here are some good reads on the topic that point out pros and cons of both. Understanding RAW Files Explained raw-vs-jpeg 10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

02-08-2013, 01:25 PM	#83
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by luker I just haven't found the photo where raw helped-maybe because I spent so much time adjusting film scans previously. I admit this is an extreme example. The original shot was taken in RAW, but I can use the Pentax Digital Camera Utility to create a JPEG using the exact JPEG settings that were on my camera at the time. It's an extreme example because I was using a Hoya 72 infrared filter. But I did use the camera to set the white balance to the best possible setting I could shoot with, to get a more useful color histogram. I've taken enough of these shots to know that just a few adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW* can give me what I want, which is this: Now, I can start with the full JPEG and get close to that, but the processing takes me twice as long and there isn't enough data. The details start to break down. In this case, I can't just take the JPEG straight from camera to print, or get the same quality result after processing a JPEG, or save time. I might have saved card space, but in 7.5 years of DSLR use, I have never used more than half of the card space I had with me. A separate point: RAW requires some software commitment, usually understated in these threads. But those skills are always useful even for JPEGgers. *I probably used a trial of Lightroom 4 for this, but since I didn't know what I was doing, I used it exactly like I would use ACR.

02-08-2013, 01:39 PM	#84
luker New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 20	I was really going to drop it- I mean, it isn't a big deal-but Tahoe Jeep Mom, I read those, tested and just found that they overstate their case. Dave, thanks for posting that, it isn't the kind of thing I have ever tried-and though my results don't look exactly like yours, I got kind of close in PS Elements 2 within a very short time. Besides, the concept and execution of your photo is what makes it great-not the file format or processing software.

02-09-2013, 05:32 AM	#85
MikeS1 New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 8	I use RAW whenever possible. The possibilities down the road to edit makes it worthwhile

02-09-2013, 04:06 PM	#86
davidsyd Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Sydney Posts: 77	I shoot jpeg for few years. But with SD memory cards being so cheap. I now total shoot raw with Jpeg. like others said. You can do a bit more with Raw. IN case if and when I need to do more edit. its just safe to have all the info in RAW format as a backup.

02-09-2013, 04:15 PM	#87
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Stone G. Objection, your Honour! (Well, partly at least). I do not disagree with "You can edit a photo so much better in RAW" . The bit-depth in raw files is unquestionably higher, but it is a myth that one cannot salvage even rather bad exposures in JPEG. With your permission (I hope) I have taken your "dogsnow" dark JPEG image and - even though it was highly compressed for upload - turned it into this, using a fairly simple software (PhotoImpact X3): This looks a LOT worse than the RAW processed one...

02-09-2013, 06:41 PM	#88
Nuff Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Sydney Posts: 671	Originally posted by JinDesu This looks a LOT worse than the RAW processed one... Agree, even the colour cast is different. I guess if someone has a really bad monitor it might look similar enough...