What is probably a stupid RAW/JPEG question

cunningpaul said:

Wow Amrik, I bet you used to throw away the negatives when you got
your prints back from the lab in the film days as well huh?
--

Click to expand...

Well said. I hope it makes the point.

RAW contains far more data, jpg not only discards data but it also re-compresses on every save, so potentially every save operation degrades the data. Disk space is really cheap now. One can get over a TB close to $500!

N

jamesbobo said:

I'm not afraid to admit it, I ask dumb questions!

Click to expand...

There are no dumb questions.

jamesbobo said:

So I shoot JPEGS and go to a nearby photo store with a Kodak kiosk to
upload photos for printing.
But so many people say RAW is so much better. But Kodak, or any
other kiosk, won't take RAW files. So if I shoot RAW I would have to
convert them to JPEG anyway.
So it dawns on me, would it be impossible to have a JPEG that's not
compressed and is exactly like a RAW file? In other words, shoot RAW
but have it encoded as a JPEG so that card readers would be "fooled"
into thinking it isn't RAW.

Is that not possible?

Click to expand...

Nope, that is not possible. Jpeg is a specific defined format. RAW is not and is different for each brand of camera, if not model.

The only advantage I see in raw is it's been post processed in a graphics program. You can do that with jpegs if you are a half way decent photograper and get exposures and such right and have the so called raw quality.

While lots of folks claim not the majority who do raw are doing so to correct their errors in using the camera.

In any case if you process RAW for printing and want highest quality you need to calibrate every step of your processing to match the printer you will use. Printers at consumer places are not that closely calibrated so there really is nothing to calibrate to, you take your chances. If you are going to worry about this stuff have your prints done by a pro print shop and get their calibration info and use it.

Walt

Gregg Helleren said:

The RAW file contains the data "exactly" as captured by the sensor -
without any white balance adjustment, sharpening, DRO, noise
reduction or compression.

Click to expand...

Actually this is not so on any brand of DSLR, they all change the data the sensor put out some before storing it in RAW. Canon has said some noise reduction is done, which works for them because adobe takes account of that. Nikon also does noise reduction on theirs and again adobe adjusts their processing.

Walt

"Why not shoot in RAW+JPEG? You get the JPEG file for your trip to the kiosk and those 5x4 prints and the RAW file if you want to process at home or just archive. "

LOL ... why on earth would anyone archive raw files? They are waste of space. A few thousand pictures, and you have gig/tera bytes of junk. Moreover, as Rockwell said, it's proprietary camera specific format. There is no guarantee that 10, 20, 50 years from now the software at that time would even be able to open/read these files, just like some 20 years old proprietary text documents can't be opened in modern word processing software.

Gregg Helleren said:

Why not shoot in RAW+JPEG? You get the JPEG file for your trip to the
kiosk and those 5x4 prints and the RAW file if you want to process at
home or just archive.

Click to expand...

This makes a lower quality jpeg than the camera can do. It shoots a jpeg with less data that the best jpegs out of the camera have.

Any way you do it, if you use RAW properly you are going to use a lot of extra time at the computer.

Walt

mkdafne said:

And Amirk, don't be vulgar and call professional photographers "crazy
nuts", especially on a site about photography. It ends up making you
sound stupid.

Click to expand...

I don't see any professional photographers in this discussion, I do see a bunch of uninformed lemmings following each other. A good many professional photographers shoot jpegs, not raw. Raw costs them tons of money in processing that it's not necessary to spend. Jpegs increase profits.

Walt

domk275 said:

Amirk said:

It's no better

Click to expand...

sorry, but that statement is, quite simply, wrong. RAW has more DR,
and the ability to adjust WB much more easily and without any
side-effect. Not to mention the ability to change any PP setting
nondestructively. RAW is superiour to JPEG. Maybe in some cases JPEG
can be as good, but that doesn't make RAW "no better".

Click to expand...

The dynamic range you get on a print is generally limited by be printing process.

If you have the ability as a photographer to use the camera properly with the correct settings then those theoretical "advantages" of RAW fall by the wayside.

Jpeg is way superior to RAW in the time taken and storage needed.

Your statement is deliberately misleading.

domk275 said:

domk275 said:

Have a look: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell? Really?

Click to expand...

He probably knows more than you! Almost certainly does.

Walt

beakydave said:

Matter of opinion, not fact. There seems to be some misguided belief
that a RAW file requires hours of work. With a proper workflow the
time can be insignificant, far outweighed by the benefits. Like I
say, if you can't see the benefits, you ain't doing it right.

Click to expand...

If you are batch processing RAW with presets you are just transfering shooting jpeg from your camera to your computer. The "advantages" of RAW require that you individually process and perfect the images. If the time you are taking is insignificant, then the improvements over properly shot jpegs are insignificant too.

Walt

try JPG shooting a dark brown horse jumping event at 5 FPS on a full sunny day. Because of time constraints, changing sun angles and sky background you may have exposure issues whether you manually expose or use auto exposure. Your brown horse might become a black horse or your sky may be clipped. Pretty near impossible to fix these issues if only JPG. However, RAW during post processing, will give you much more latitude to fix these issues. I agree, most pics are fine shot in JPG (as I usually do) but RAW has its place.
Bert

jamesbobo said:

I'm not afraid to admit it, I ask dumb questions!

So I shoot JPEGS and go to a nearby photo store with a Kodak kiosk to
upload photos for printing.
But so many people say RAW is so much better. But Kodak, or any
other kiosk, won't take RAW files. So if I shoot RAW I would have to
convert them to JPEG anyway.
So it dawns on me, would it be impossible to have a JPEG that's not
compressed and is exactly like a RAW file? In other words, shoot RAW
but have it encoded as a JPEG so that card readers would be "fooled"
into thinking it isn't RAW.

Is that not possible?

Click to expand...

I am going to try to avoid the religious arguments you may see on this thread.

RAW is everything the Sensor saw.. so on an A700 there are 12 million sensor readings in monochrome.

25% of them are red level readings in 12 bit that has 4096 levels of red it can encode.
25% of htem are blue level readings that same as above
and 50% of them are Green level readings.

More on that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

So when that is converted to JPG..

The camera or software "demosaics the RAW" so that each pixel has information for RGB using the near by readings of other colors to extrapolate the full color info. For RGB is has to then reduce each color reading to 8 bits or red and 8 bits of Blue etc. That means each color goes from 4096 levels of color into 256 so you toss out a ton if possible color information.

Also the JPG when done has tossed out a bunch of info that can be used to shift exposure. That info was in the RAW it is gone forever in the JPG.

Here is an extreme example..
This Raccoon was running across the street and ran out of the range of my flash.

The top is the JPG from the camera I almost deleted the image from my camera the bottom is a JPG created from raw data. This could be a family shot or a recital or new born shot in low light .. The shot is gone in JPG and salvagable in RAW.. not high art if you need to do this for the full image.. but the moment is saved.





Also when a JPG is created it uses a White Balance setting from the camera. If that is wrong.. then you get images that are too blue or too yellow and there is much less ability to correct that in JPG.

RAW has no WB (just the measurement the camera suggests) so you can choose the correct WB and make images work.

With the current software like Lightroom it is easy to import RAW.. Batch apply settings to most of the images then you still have the ability to work with special images to bring up lost shadows or correct blown highlights or change WB .. working with the full range if info the camera you paid for collected.

If you shoot a lot.. are not fussy and have a slow computer.. JPG is fine..

I have found a few treasures in the RAW that would have been lost in JPG. So I shoot RAW almost 100% and I found the RAW + JPG just cluttered my drive up.

Each is valid depending on what you need.. but For images I care about I can always get a better image on a PC with software vs what the camera pushes out in a 5th of second.

One final thing all JPGs in the standard format have some level of compression that is lossy meaning
A) that the compressed JPG is not identical to the original image
B) each time you edit and save that JPG its quality goes down

Fine on the Sony compresses much like the main setting on other cameras. X-FINE has very little compression. But you still have turned 12 bit color data into 8 bit color data to do it.

There are those that are happy with the lens that came with their camera and the JPGs it creates and that is a valid choice for them. Me I like finding that extra bit of detail and having the ability to perfect the feel of my image from the RAW file.

---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

Amirk said:

"Why not shoot in RAW+JPEG? You get the JPEG file for your trip to
the kiosk and those 5x4 prints and the RAW file if you want to
process at home or just archive. "

LOL ... why on earth would anyone archive raw files? They are waste
of space. A few thousand pictures, and you have gig/tera bytes of
junk. Moreover, as Rockwell said, it's proprietary camera specific
format. There is no guarantee that 10, 20, 50 years from now the
software at that time would even be able to open/read these files,
just like some 20 years old proprietary text documents can't be
opened in modern word processing software.

Click to expand...

What is the big deal about HD space and why do you keep quoting Ken Rockwell? A one TB hard drive is less than $100 now.

I think it's highly unlikely that raw files will not be supported 10 or 50 years by now. Why would they suddenly cut off support for no apparent reason?

I think jpegs are good for the majority of people, however if you do any post processing at all other than cropping, it doesn't make much sense to shoot in jpeg. With raw it's much easier to change the white balance and you have more dynamic range to work with.

If you can't develop a raw better than a jpeg, you are doing something wrong. Especially if you are using a Sony Alpha camera which is notorious for poor jpeg output.

If you are interested, here is a link to dpreview advocating the usage of raw/
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/01/raw-headroom.html

Here are two before and after examples. Jpeg out of camera first and developed raw after.

BackToSlr said:

RAW contains far more data, jpg not only discards data but it also
re-compresses on every save, so potentially every save operation
degrades the data. Disk space is really cheap now. One can get over a
TB close to $500!

Click to expand...

If you are resaving jpegs over and over again you really are a moron. It just shows how dumb you are about graphic processing.

By the time you get a actual picture you can see out of the RAW you have thrown away just as much data as jpeg.

Actually if you really save your RAW as negatives were archived it's not one hard disk, it's several in different locations, and those have to be maintained and refreshed forever too. If you are sticking your files on just one disk you might as well just toss them.

Walt

Kumabear wrote:
Especially if you are using a Sony Alpha camera

Kumabear said:

which is notorious for poor jpeg output.

Click to expand...

Ah you are talking about a Sony FF Alpha camera. Well, that's your bad choice.

Walt

n/t

apaulct said:

Think back to the old film days ... it was a two step process. First
you developed the film getting the negatives, then printed from the
negatives.

Click to expand...

I shot Slides, one step.

Shooting slides, like shooting jpegs means getting your shot right to start with, not trying to patch it later.

Walt

WaltKnapp said:

Kumabear said:

Especially if you are using a Sony Alpha camera
which is notorious for poor jpeg output.

Click to expand...

Ah you are talking about a Sony FF Alpha camera. Well, that's your
bad choice.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Do you mean it's a bad choice to shoot raw if you are using the A900? I was talking about Sony Alpha cameras in general whose jpeg engine does not seem up to par with other camera companies

What is really stupid is saying you are asking a stupid question. If you dont know something, that doesnt make it a stupid question... the only thing stupid would be not asking a question because YOU think it's stupid. But what is worse is saying you are asking a stupid question.

--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

Ok, so let me correct a few things said in this forum thus far, as a lot of it is actually wrong. Firstly, i'll comment on te post right above me.

Walt said:

"By the time you get a actual picture you can see out of the RAW you have thrown away just as much data as jpeg."

Unfortunetly Walt, I have to disagree with you. I'm pretty sure you just said this in the heat of the moment and realize that it was a bit of an overexaggeration. This statement doesn't really make sense, and you should clarify it. See, lets say you take the same night time picture twice, once in raw and once in jpeg. In both instances, the picture is just wayyyy to dark. The problem with jpeg is that your ability to adjust the picture is already compromised because the color tones are distorted. One of the main differences between a jpeg and a raw photo is the difference in the color scale. Raw photos pick up many more different shades of colors. So if the dark areas in a picture have some hue to them, the raw photo will be much better suited to produce better color if the picture was brightened. This goes for any other post production procedure as well.

One of the many reasons why people argue against raw is because modern day cameras have ways of correcting inperfect shooting positions (i.e. different white balance modes, etc.). This tends to get lost in raw format. So, people will see a more balanced jpeg compared to an unproccessed raw picture and will think that the raw is bad. However, everything that can be done in camera with jpeg (or even PP) can be done better afterwards with raw in a Post Production editing program (such as Photoshop). This is just plain fact. It really is. There is scientific reasoning behind it and as i have studied the matter extensively before (in school and on my own) , I would happily explain to anyone who wants me too more in-depthly.

Furthermore, to the OP of this thread, my advice is not to compress your photos to jpeg. Firstly, most people who work at the typical photo kiosk have no idea what they're doing and have minimal training. There are places that except sony raw files and will do PP for you there too. You just have to find one. If not, they have to except .tiff files. It's a must if you work with photo development.

As with regards to processor speed and memory space, yes raw photos do take up a lot more space (almost 10 Mb more per picture), but so what? A blank DVD costs 10 cents nowadays. Whenever your done shooting, burn them onto a DVD. Hell, even give that copy to the people at the kiosk and ask for it back. Problem solved. Any core 2 duo processor above 1.90 with at least a gigabyte of ram is completely capable of handling raw photos. And as for organizing them, it's a breeze. Get picasa 3, its free and works very well. I hope this was of some help.

P.S. I should make a note to everyone else here that online photography reviews tend to be pretty crappy, especially when they deal with PP and image quality because they are written by amateurs or people with very limited training and education on the matter. I hope i dont need to remind people to always take other people's work with a grain of salt. Just commen sense. Cheers.

Sorry Walt, wrong again. If you use noise reduction or different white balance with jpegs, then you are already patching up the picture.

"I think it's highly unlikely that raw files will not be supported 10 or 50 years by now. Why would they suddenly cut off support for no apparent reason?"

It's not highly unlikely. Given it's propriety format, the company can change the format and in few years, the old format can be forgotten and no longer supported by new software. Also a camera company can go out of business and in few years, the modern software no longer supports all the old format. Why do you think that's unlikely? It's very likely indeed. I have trouble even opening all kind of text documents that are in different format ... especially if it's some old propriety text format from 80s.