Jpeg vs Raw images

DavidMaven said:

You can also rent gear that will make RAW and JPG images from a single > shot automatically, and compare them.

Click to expand...

Do the higher end boxes output "fine" JPG with the RAW? My D70 creates a low-res JPG when the JPG+RAW option is selected.

--

'You have to have an idea of what you are going to do, but it should be a vague idea.' -P. Picasso

Sure, I can SHOW you the difference with JPG and RAW:

My camara took a picture using two formats - RAW and JPG simulanteously.

This pic was taken using JPG:



This RAW pic was adjusted using ACR to bring details out of the road:



Try that with the JPG image. You'll never be able to recover that much detail.

Scottydog said:

Scottydog said:

You can also rent gear that will make RAW and JPG images from a single > shot automatically, and compare them.

Click to expand...

Do the higher end boxes output "fine" JPG with the RAW? My D70
creates a low-res JPG when the JPG+RAW option is selected.

Click to expand...

Don't know about higher end... but E500 can and so can Sony F828 (not a DSLR but I own it so I mentioned what I know...)

--
------
Neven Prasnikar @ Art Plus
http://www.artplus.hr

There is no difference if you nail the exposure - in fact the jpeg can look better!

The difference is in the flexibility that can save you in terms of 12/16-bit adjustments on RAW data.

Wishing You Great Light!
Paul

http://www.paulchaplo.com/FL_aerials_.htm

Funny, and here I thought that all Jpegs were processed RAW files!

No you can not, Nikon View converts NEF file to jpg than display it. What you comparing is one jpg converter to another, in your case converter from RAW to jpg in Nikon camera to Nikon View jpg converter.

george

Photoaddict, thanks for the samples. However, what is the reason for the lighter jpeg and darker "raw" ? When you processed the raw, was there not anything done to it at ALL? Couldn't you very easily darken the jpeg to match, and THEN compare details? Seriously wondering. Thanks.
--
Life is about choices...See Cuba: http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

One thing I'd like to add is that when you shoot RAW, you are capturing all 12 bits of information that will convert to a 16 bit file. These 16 bit files contain more detail and more exposure latitude. Plus RAW offers amazing flexibility regarding white balance and easier workflow if you must tweak multiple images. And who actually doesn't tweak, even a little bit, each file?

When you shoot Jpeg, the in-camera processing converts the image to 8 bits and essentially 'throws away' the rest of the information. When you bring a jpeg into the computer, your already working with a file that by comparison has less information to work with.

I used to shoot only jpegs but now prefer the added detail iand flexibility of working with RAW. What's kinda crazy with RAW is that you can recover up to about 1 full stop of detail in blown highlights. Try that with a jpeg file.

Cheers-
GearGuru

My Canon 10D and 20D both output even Large JPGs with RAW if so set, and I think the low-end Digital Rebel series does, too
--
[email protected]

What would have happened if you'd exposed the picture properly inthe first place?

Is there a JPG file at the right exposure to compare with?

BAK

The brain is a strange thing.

When applied with intelligence, you get one set of answers, and when applied differently, you get little semantic nitpicking showoffs being pedantic.

The kind of guy who says cars travel on air, because there's air inside the tires.

Yeah, but...

BAK

It was my understanding that with a D2x (for example), the color depth is only 12 bits even though you can save it directly as a 16 bit TIFF file.

echelon2004 said:

Having the camera throw away first 40% of the data to make a
bitmap, and then discard another 50% of the remaining data when
compressing it is NOT an option for me=)

Click to expand...

--



http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/myfavorites

The A/D converters are typically 12bit , giving a luminance value of 1-4096, which is then interpolated to rgb when converted from raw data to image. But if you save in an 8bit format, you lose 4bit/channel, with 16bit you lose nothing=)
--
Anders

http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4.html
http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4a.html

event photography and photo journalism

The loss of data is of course when comparing jpg (or 8bit tiff) to 16bit tiff.

For capture, raw is for me the best choise, but for those that don't want to determine how the conversion should be done, 16bit tiff should be the choise.

And if we're only talking about image formats, raw is not even in the run
--
Anders

http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4.html
http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4a.html

event photography and photo journalism

"However, what is the reason for the lighter jpeg and darker "raw" ? When you processed the raw, was there not anything done to it at ALL? Couldn't you very easily darken the jpeg to match, and THEN compare details? Seriously wondering. Thanks."

The JPG is lighter because it was overexposed by one EV. Sometimes cameras make mistakes and overexpose images.

You cannot darken the JPG to match the RAW file at all. The details in over-exposed JPG are gone for good while RAW has more information that you may be able to extract from highlights.

Try darkening the JPG file in Photoshop or Paint Pro - you'll find it's not possible to match the RAW image.

BAK said:

What would have happened if you'd exposed the picture properly
inthe first place?

Click to expand...

The level of detail (such as it is) would be similar between the two photo's. Actually, that detail was there to begin with but when the camera converted the raw sensor data to a JPEG file for output, it dutifully used the EV values that were in place at the time of capture and tossed the detail out in an attempt to match what it could only assume to have been the photographers intentions as best as it could.

The RAW file wasn't subject to conversion by the camera, giving the photographer the opportunity to adjust the EV value in post processing, bringing it more in line with what they were really after rather than what the camera had originally been instructed to do.

--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

This is where you will find the real value of RAW!

RAW give you a little cushion for error, JPEGS much less.

I always shoot RAW if time allows, about 90% of the time.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
D Two X and a spare.
Leica Digilux Two
FZee 30 & Sony R-One

What is really amazing is that of all the readers in this site, I've only seen 2, and really not very good examples of jpeg vs raw images. Almost unbelievable. Not to argue with the words and numbers given as replys, but as to photo evidence...?? ...well, if O.J. had had only this much physical evidence in his trial, there would have been no need for his dream team ! I was hoping to see pro quality images, ie portraits or wedd. shots, that would make a clear case without a lot of words needed. Do you see what I mean? Words are appreciated, but proof trumps. ...sigh...
--
Life is about choices...See Cuba: http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

jonrobertp said:

What is really amazing is that of all the readers in this site,
I've only seen 2, and really not very good examples of jpeg vs raw
images. Almost unbelievable. Not to argue with the words and
numbers given as replys, but as to photo evidence...?? ...well, if
O.J. had had only this much physical evidence in his trial, there
would have been no need for his dream team ! I was hoping to see
pro quality images, ie portraits or wedd. shots, that would make a
clear case without a lot of words needed. Do you see what I mean?
Words are appreciated, but proof trumps. ...sigh...

Click to expand...

We could pull up plenty of pretty pictures, whether initially output as RAW files and copied to JPEG or direct JPEG's straight from a camera. It's just that it wouldn't do a whole lot of good when it comes to defining the value of RAW output vs JPEG output.

We could post a grossly over or underexposed JPEG along with RAW conversion of the same image to show how RAW might alow us to compensate for our mistakes (as has been done) but thats really not the best use of RAW output. As much as that kind of thing can help in an emergency, it's generally best to get the exposure right to begin with with either kind of output.

We could post a direct JPEG with a bad color balance and then show how the WB might have been corrected in a RAW file editor, but all you would see is two JPEG's, one with a bad white balance and one with a proper white balance. Thats easy enough to imagine without seeing a demonstration.

Ultimately the only way to really get a feel for the advantages or disadvantages of either kind of output is to shoot some RAW files and start editing them in one RAW editor or another. Even then, there are enough differences between RAW formats and RAW editors that you might want to try out at least a few different ones before finalizing any opinions.

Short of that, here's a pretty picture. It happened to be shot in RAW and then copied to a JPEG. It wouldn't be too much different if it had been output as a JPEG to begin with. Maybe a few subtle variations in the contrast curves that wouldn't have bee attainable with an 8 bit original, but not much to write home about really.



--
Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

Thanks Tom. Your images of Chicago rock !!
--
Life is about choices...See Cuba: http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com