JPG v. Raw

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Thanks

Sorry, can’t post any samples for you because my ISP don’t provide such service with uncompressed viewing (only I can but not for guest) of the original images. I can tell you my recent experience with the XT.

I purchased the XT with the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens. My first test on it is to test the lens sharpness and CA distortion. With this test I only use the out of the box camera’s default settings and JPEG with parameter 1. To my surprise the CA distortion is very nasty in the image and it is beyond acceptable (to my taste). I then toke the same shoot in ‘P’ mode with the same image size but set to RAW. After I converted the RAW image using the Canon’s own converter, I found the CA distortion is well under control and it is quite acceptable. As far as sharpness tests goes it is more complicated and don’t want to discuss that in this post.

Later on I have the chance to discuss this CA issue with a professional photographer (he uses the 20D and 1D MK II) in the camera shop. His comment is that my finding is correct because the in camera JPEG processing will emphasize the CA distortion so it becomes nasty in the resulting image. If you are shooting in RAW then at least you have the control of the image processing so the CA would also be (and can be) under control. This is of course assuming that you know how to use the RAW converter properly.

Another thing I found is that once the JPEG image is having sharpening haloes and strong CA (out of the camera) then it is impossible to correct that with further post processing. If you force it then you will introduce noise, image softness, posterlization, etc. In other words, you are trading it with even more nasty stuff.
You asked “Can JPEG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?”

Well, I guess that could be done but the chance are slim (again, here is to assume that you know how to use the RAW converter properly). I believe that at least you should start out by using an excellent prime lens so you may have a better chance to achieve that goal (to even the odds).

morrow said:

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what
a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also
showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I've taken some shots (300D) in RAW and they always come out with an excessive amount of noise and very very underexposed

Any suggestions?

morrow said:

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what
a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also
showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Thanks

Click to expand...

morrow said:

They also showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state

Click to expand...

There is no such thing. JPEG principially includes some data reduction (loss of information) and compression.

On the other hand, what you see on the monitor or paper is never JPEG, because that is no viewable. The JPEG data has to be decoded (this includes the decompression), and afterwards it is not JPEG any more (in the computer memory). If you make any modifications to it, that non-JPEG, pure image data will be reduced and compressed again, and then you have another JPEG file.

In other words, the monitor control card requires color values pixel-by-pixel, but JPEG does not keep the data that way.

You can find a short primer on JPEG @ http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=11406486

morrow said:

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Click to expand...

It depends on high closely you look at them.

--
Gabor

morrow said:

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what
a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also
showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Click to expand...

People are always doing that and then raving on about "how great RAW is"

I usually have a go at editing their unmodified JPG and reposing it to give a fairer comparison.

morrow said:

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Click to expand...

Here's one example from a while ago...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=11648318
(mollified = modified... dam voice dictation software)

morrow said:

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Click to expand...

Yes, the majority of time. (except for in extreme cases)

afmo said:

I've taken some shots (300D) in RAW and they always come out with
an excessive amount of noise and very very underexposed

Click to expand...

the exposure calculation is independent of the recording mode, i.e. your shots can not be underexposed "because of raw". Look for the problem in your raw post-processing.

--
Gabor

morrow said:

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Thanks

Click to expand...

When you take a photo that is stored as JPEG on the camera, you lose some information. You lose some colour depth and dynamic range, and you lose some detail due to lossy compression. However, the vast majority of the information is still stored in the JPEG and, in general, with an amount of careful processing you can approximate the results from RAW.

If you really botch up the WB, over sharpen, add too much contrast, over saturate, or want to do a lot fine post processing, the results may not be as satisfactory. Do a good job taking the shot and the difference should be academic.

Posting samples has limited value, since the impression given depends on how poorly the JPEG was taken and the post processing skills of the photographer. You should decide on what to use based on your skills, purpose, shooting conditions, and personal preference.

--
Tim Auld, Digital Salvo Sports Photography: http://www.digitalsalvo.com

jlibus said:

You asked “Can JPEG images be editing to look as good as processed
RAW images?”
Well, I guess that could be done but the chance are slim (again,
here is to assume that you know how to use the RAW converter
properly). I believe that at least you should start out by using an
excellent prime lens so you may have a better chance to achieve
that goal (to even the odds).

Click to expand...

That's because you had your camera set up in Parameter 1 with everything at a +1 setting. Indeed once you have sharpening halos they cannot be removed... or lost highlights and shadow detail because of the high contrast setting, there is no getting it back.

The amount of times I have seen people plugging away with that ghastly P1 setting for JPGs, then not surprisingly try RAW and start raving on about how much better RAW is.

Better to shoot JPG in Parameter 2, or even at negative settings for contrast and/or sharpening... then use Photoshop for the final finishing touches.

morrow,

I do have some samples of unprocessed RAW and converted processed jpgs here:
http://www.pbase.com/sandman3/ready_for_spring

I know this is not exactly what you are asking for.

morrow said:

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Click to expand...

THis depends entirely on the quality of the original shot. If you perfectly nail the exposure AND are using jpg parameter settings for minimal in-camera processing, I think you can get very close to the quality of a RAW image.

Those of us who shoot RAW can tell you that we do not always nail the exposure ~ and this is when the real strength of RAW is evident. I have saved more than a few shots that were underexposed by more than a stop! This is just impossible with jpgs. Same is true with white balance issues. Fortunately these are a rare occurance with the Rebel.

Also, the ability to take advantage of the 16 bit processing strength of PSCS is well suited for RAW workflow. Certainly you can convert a jpg to 16 bit and continue to work ~ but it is not as effective as starting with a 12 bit RAW image.

Hope this helps,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Sandman said:

Those of us who shoot RAW can tell you that we do not always nail
the exposure ~ and this is when the real strength of RAW is
evident. I have saved more than a few shots that were underexposed
by more than a stop! This is just impossible with jpgs. Same is
true with white balance issues. Fortunately these are a rare
occurance with the Rebel.

Click to expand...

All it took was me mis-shooting an entire day at a hard-set indoor white balance (from the day before) for an outdoor event. All my JPEGs had a horrible bluish cast to them. That was all it took for me to start shooting RAW constantly....

Memory is cheap. Re-shooting is costly (if not impossible). Shoot RAW.

--
Doug

Photos! http://www.toombs.us/coppermine

Help me start my Canon DSLR mailing list! Sign up at http://toombs.us/mailman/listinfo/canondslr_toombs.us

Sorry I never did a comparison where I had controled conditions to be able to show a RAW and JPEG side-by-side.

I suggest you take a look at "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS" by Bruce Fraser. If you don't have PS CS, just browse through the book at your local bookstore. In the first few chapters, Fraser gives great explainations on why Raw is superior to JPEG.

As others have saidk, if you nail exposure and white balance perfectly, then the JPEG will be just fine. However, if you get either wrong, you'll start using up the images potential for modificaiton in order to perform the corrections.

The thing about Raw is that it takes more space (both in CF memory and long term storage), and requires post processing (which may take a lot longer to perform if you aren't experienced with Raw processing).

With the XT's blazing speed and the lower prices for CF memory, hard disk, and DVD blanks, I think the Raw storage penalty is going away. As for post processing, there's a number of Raw processing workflow software and associated tutorials out there to greatly minimize the impact of processing Raw over processing JPEG.

morrow said:

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what
a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also
showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Kiwi said:

jlibus said:

You asked “Can JPEG images be editing to look as good as processed
RAW images?”
Well, I guess that could be done but the chance are slim (again,
here is to assume that you know how to use the RAW converter
properly). I believe that at least you should start out by using an
excellent prime lens so you may have a better chance to achieve
that goal (to even the odds).

Click to expand...

That's because you had your camera set up in Parameter 1 with
everything at a +1 setting. Indeed once you have sharpening halos
they cannot be removed... or lost highlights and shadow detail
because of the high contrast setting, there is no getting it back.

The amount of times I have seen people plugging away with that
ghastly P1 setting for JPGs, then not surprisingly try RAW and
start raving on about how much better RAW is.

Better to shoot JPG in Parameter 2, or even at negative settings
for contrast and/or sharpening... then use Photoshop for the final
finishing touches.

Click to expand...

--
JWP

Thanks for all the replies. Quite a bit more info for me to start researching.

Marcos Villaroman said:

As others have saidk, if you nail exposure and white balance
perfectly, then the JPEG will be just fine. However, if you get
either wrong, you'll start using up the images potential for
modificaiton in order to perform the corrections.

Click to expand...

Usually people advocating RAW say that. Simply not true. Exposure and WB doesn't have to be "perfect" straight from camera. JPGs can stand a surprising amount of postprocessing if handled correctly.

morrow said:

In another thread I saw where someone had shown an example of what
a RAW picture looked like before & after processing. They also
showed a JPG but only in an unprocessed state.

Could someone post a picture in RAW & JPG and then show
approximately equal processing on them? Everyone says their is a
difference and I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Can JPG images be editing to look as good as processed RAW images?

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, no -- for example, you can extract more fine detail out of RAW images than are present in JPEG's, and you can up-rez RAW files with fewer artifacts than are present in JPEG's (in particular sharpening haloes). Also, things like high-ISO noise can be managed much better from a RAW file.

However, in practice this won't matter unless you're printing very big and your picture contains the right kind of fine detail.

If the picture is correctly exposed and white balanced and the dynamic range of the scene fits neatly into the tonal range of the picture, and you're printing no bigger than 8 x 10, and you're shooting at moderate ISO, you won't see any difference.

The main point of RAW isn't so much that the quality is better (even though it always is, even if only a little), but that it gives you more room for maneuver -- whether it's for creative purposes (e.g. doing a radically different interpretation of the picture, say, a low-contrast "neg-like" version with lots of subtle shadow and highligt detail), to rescue a boo-boo (e.g. a shot where you've accidentally blown the highlights by a stop or underexposed by a stop and a half), or to push the limits of the camera further (e.g. get rid of ISO3200 banding using a very clever RAW converter, or push the damn thing to ISO6400 or even beyond).

As an illustration, here are enlargements of a crop with fine detail. The first one is RAW converted about a year and a half ago with one of the best RAW converters at the time (noticeably more detailed than in-camera JPEG, although unfortunately I don't have that for this picture), and another that I converted yesterday with Raw Shooter Essentials -- notice the much improved high-frequency detail. This detail is simply not present in the in-camera JPEG rendition, and there's no way of recovering it afterwards... at least not with tools we currently have at our disposal.

Old:



New:



Note: I've enlarged the samples a good deal to demonstrate the difference. You would notice it in an 11 x 16, but probably not in an 8 x 10.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Kiwi wrote:
[snip]

Kiwi118644 said:

Usually people advocating RAW say that. Simply not true. Exposure
and WB doesn't have to be "perfect" straight from camera. JPGs can
stand a surprising amount of postprocessing if handled correctly.

Click to expand...

That's quite true. However, it's not uncommon to have to get into post-processing techniques that are a lot more laborious than what you'd do in RAW -- for example, having to use one of several dithering techniques to reduce posterization in the sky or other flat, graduated area. Even surprisingly small adjustments will cause problems like that which will be quite obvious even at web size. With RAW, you simply don't need to worry about it.

I shot JPEG exclusively for two years before going with RAW, and still work a lot on my old files: believe me, I'm speaking from experience.

Then, of course, there are situations like this: look at the area around the spotlights, where the color has gone totally out of whack. This is unfixable without resorting to retouching techniques -- i.e., using some ways to "paint in" color. Had I shot it in RAW, I'm pretty certain that one of the converters I use could've maintained the color correctly in the highlights (and if not, there are a number of things I could've done to make retouching easier and improve the result).

Moreover, this weird lighting caused severe problems for the in-camera demosaicing: if looked at at 100%, the detail in the red areas is noticeably blocky and stairstepped; this constrains the enlargement potential of the picture to about 8 x 10. If the band decided it wants to make a poster from this, they would've been SOL. These problems could be greatly mitigated by using different kinds of RAW conversion techniques.



BTW, the picture is virtually straight out of the camera (other than resizing for the web) -- no aggressive post-processing involved.

Bottom line: yep, there are times when you'll want to use JPEG instead of RAW, but you will be making a trade-off in quality, enlargeability, and editability. If the trade-off is worth it, then by all means shoot JPEG -- but don't kid yourself that the trade-off isn't there or is insignificant for anything other than extreme circumstances.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Petteri Sulonen said:

If the picture is correctly exposed and white balanced and the
dynamic range of the scene fits neatly into the tonal range of the
picture, and you're printing no bigger than 8 x 10, and you're
shooting at moderate ISO, you won't see any difference.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. Regarding the 8x10" limit, I've made two 20x30" prints from 300D JPEGs. Both myself and everyone who saw them were amazed. Mind you, they were perfectly shot (not by myself).

--
Tim Auld, Digital Salvo Sports Photography: http://www.digitalsalvo.com

I've got some pretty big prints from JPEG's too, and they look very good. However, I've also got prints from RAW's and they do look better still -- although you have to look quite closely to see the difference. However, the more detailed and less artifacted images may look somehow "subliminally" better even if you can't say exactly how.

Or not.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

I am not saying that you are not correct and I have done that too. The resulting images do look pretty good. IMO if that is what you are doing then you are still post processing most of your images. In this case I would rather work in RAW because there are much more room for me to manipulate the image without introduce artifacts so quickly. Don’t forget, post processing from RAW you have 16 bits image to work with. Verses processing in JEPG which is already down scaled to 8 bits image and the threw away subtle details can never be recovered.

Kiwi said:

jlibus said:

You asked “Can JPEG images be editing to look as good as processed
RAW images?”
Well, I guess that could be done but the chance are slim (again,
here is to assume that you know how to use the RAW converter
properly). I believe that at least you should start out by using an
excellent prime lens so you may have a better chance to achieve
that goal (to even the odds).

Click to expand...

That's because you had your camera set up in Parameter 1 with
everything at a +1 setting. Indeed once you have sharpening halos
they cannot be removed... or lost highlights and shadow detail
because of the high contrast setting, there is no getting it back.

The amount of times I have seen people plugging away with that
ghastly P1 setting for JPGs, then not surprisingly try RAW and
start raving on about how much better RAW is.

Better to shoot JPG in Parameter 2, or even at negative settings
for contrast and/or sharpening... then use Photoshop for the final
finishing touches.

Click to expand...

Petteri Sulonen said:

As an illustration, here are enlargements of a crop with fine
detail. The first one is RAW converted about a year and a half ago
with one of the best RAW converters at the time (noticeably more
detailed than in-camera JPEG, although unfortunately I don't have
that for this picture), and another that I converted yesterday with
Raw Shooter Essentials -- notice the much improved high-frequency
detail. This detail is simply not present in the in-camera JPEG
rendition, and there's no way of recovering it afterwards... at
least not with tools we currently have at our disposal.

Old:



New:



Note: I've enlarged the samples a good deal to demonstrate the
difference. You would notice it in an 11 x 16, but probably not in
an 8 x 10.

Click to expand...

That's a good illustration of the 2 RAW converters (and I can guess which ones). This really convinces me that its not just sharpening that's happening but actually more detail being pulled from that RAW.

Diane
--
Diane B
black and white lover, but color is seducing me
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries