What can you do in editing RAW that you can't do in editing JPEGs.

This is an offshoot of another thread I started, that has kind of turned into a RAW vs. JPEG question.

I have pretty much been convinced that if I have the time and space and am willing to do the work, the best way to handle pictures is to save them in RAW and use post processing software to create the JPEGs, which is what my wife wants as an end product.

She is asking me "exactly" what the benefits of saving the RAW picture is compared to just saving and using the JPEG out of the D300 -- and I will have to confess, I could not tell her exactly why we should be doing this, other than being able to reproduce a higher resolution picture that could be used to make a poster or for cropping.

I know there are other reasons. So could you help me out here. EXACTLY what editing can I do with a RAW picture that I can not do with a good resolution JPEG (i.e. adjust white balance, contrast, sharpen, brightness, etc.). Can I do (edit) all of this stuff with JPEGs or are some of these actionsor others only possible with the RAW picture.

Thanks.
--
Ron in Round Rock

Hi,

In RAW file using NX you can change any in camera setting beside ISO. If you set wrong WB, you can change it. If you under/over exposed image you can recover it up to + or - 2EV (steps). If you already have a camera and Capture NX, try to shot with flash and WB set to flash and take a picture, than set it to incandescent and take a picture. Than compare them. If you have a disagreement, just set NEF+JPEG. Than see what will better work for you.
--
Best regards

JPEg is like a baked cake. You can put a little extra sugar on top, or paint it to look a little lighter or darker. But the cake itself is finished.

RAW is like having the dough. You can put a little extra sugar or salt in it and bake it a little shorter or longer getting a really lighter or darker cake and you can bake several versions of it whilst still having all of the original dough.

Does this help ?

Roy

Out of 1 RAW files you can make an unlimited number of Jepgs. With as many different settings as you want.

With a Jpeg you cannot make changes forever as it will degrade as you continually change it.
Shooting Raw is like keeping your negatives with film.

--
Gotta Kick at the Darkness 'till it Bleeds Daylight

Just a good practice. With any file you should never edit or save over the original. Always start a new file. Right now as a photographer/editor you may think you are good but in the future you may think you suck or learn how to do it better/differently and then you could always go back to the original and take another stab at it.

Brendan Wield said:

Out of 1 RAW files you can make an unlimited number of Jepgs. With as many different settings as you want.

With a Jpeg you cannot make changes forever as it will degrade as you continually change it.

Click to expand...

roninrr said:

EXACTLY what editing can I do with a RAW picture that I can not do with a good resolution JPEG

Click to expand...

• adjust white balance

Requires RAW for all practical purposes. It is actually possible to adjust white balance on a JPEG image although very few people know how to do this as it requires a number of operations on channels. By contrast correcting a white balance on a RAW image is a very simple operation. If you start shooting RAW you'll find that the "auto" setting rarely gets it exactly right (including in sun light), and even a small correction can make a difference between a "wow" image and an even more "wow" picture. Another important point: sometimes the most artistic image is not the one with perfect white balance. Changing white balance on an image to get the effect you want is much easier done on a RAW image.

Note: there are many ways to correct a color cast, but white balance is a very specific color cast which under no circumstances can be simply corrected with curves applied to a JPEG image.

• contrast

Done on a JPEG image

• sharpen

Done on a JPEG image

• brightness

Done on a JPEG image

• exposure

Done in RAW. Again there are several way of modifying the image brightness, but changing exposure (i.e. simulating what would happen if you had exposed the image differently) is a very specific one which is just better done in RAW.

• highlight recovery

Can only be done in RAW.

Other issues with JPEG: compression aritifacts are sometimes visible (in particular if the image is noisy to start with: JPEG artifacts truly compound the problem). One gets more detail with a RAW converter run on a computer as the computer has much more processing power than the camera.
--
Thierry

IMHO... Also consider...

A - Save edits from NEF to an uncompressed TIFF.
B - Do other edits to the TIFF.

C - From the TIFF, create JPEGs that are resized and cropped as per their intended use (web, print, slideshow, etc).

D - If other (non RAW conversion) edits are needed after JPEGs are created, then go back to "B" - the TIFF.

If I need to do "D", I like to save a "major editing session" as a different TIFF filename like: Img_104055E1.tif, Img_104055E2.tif, etc. This way I can go back the "E1" version if needed.

Another consideration is to use CS3/4 or Elements and save editing sessions as layers in a PSD file. Files can get a bit large, but layers can be turned on and off to compare the effects of each edit / edit session.

Hope this helps.

Wayne

Thierry,

Thanks for the specific pros and cons information on what can be done in JPEG and particularly what cannot be done in JPEG, which was what I was really after. Now I am armed with some specific responses for my wife, who incidently is a painter and understands things about color and even, I think, about white balance.

Now, I just need to develop a practical way of handling, saving and processing the RAW images. Thanklfully, with the camera producing JPEG and RAW at the same time, in the mean time, I can give my wife the JPEGs until I can reasonably master the RAW post processing business, at least to an extent that I can do it quickly and am good enough at it to produce JPEGs that are as good or better than those produced by the D300.

BTW, when a JPEG or whatever is produced from a RAW file, is there a link (name, number, date or something unique) that is carried with the JPEG so that I can identify the RAW image from which the JPEG came from (easily, that is, without a lot of trouble so that I don't have to go to a lot of trouble organizing the RAW images -- i.e. so that I can just store them in just one big folder, maybe by year or something).
--
Ron in Round Rock

Shutter speed
Aperture
ISO
Everything else pretty much can be changed.
--
WSSA #44
http://www.pbase.com/image/30388325

Ron,

Unfortunately, the D300 (don't know about the new D300s) does not render very good jpegs when you start to bump up the ISO. Keep in mind that NR does not kick in until ISO 800. But jpegs from about 640 and above are not so good. The D90 does a fine job with the jpegs (and RAW of course).

IMHO... The D300 is a "RAW" shooter - and a mighty fine one at that (if you get one that's "free of defects and workmanship").

I really don't have the time (or the desire) to deal with RAW, but I've now "surrendered" to its benefits and its significantly increased workflow requirements. I believe "the climb will be worth the view".

My D300 came with a license key to Capture NX1. I plan to get NX2 and this 3rd party book...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/576736-REG/Luminescence_of_Nature_Press_978_1_60643_564_9_CD_Rom_The_Photographer_s_Guide.html

Good luck in your endeavors.

Wayne

Yep. The JPEG you create from the RAW will have the same name with a .jpeg extension instead of .nef. That is regardless if you use the default name out of the camera (i.e. DSC0001.nef) or rename your nef's before editing to somehting else (i.e. '091106 rons birthday 001.nef'). Have fun. Once you get used to using RAW, you may never go back. Just be ready to buy some bigger hard drives!
S.
--
The chaos about thee is the confusion within thee.

ISO 1600, NR was off,or at least, user NR was off but I think regardless, there is some NR that take place even though I have it off.



--
Alan

...
A real artist is the one born to share

Also, you were using flash. Plenty of light/exposure.

wow, i really like this analogy!!!

Sagittarius said:

Hi,

In RAW file using NX you can change any in camera setting beside ISO. If you set wrong WB, you can change it. If you under/over exposed image you can recover it up to + or - 2EV (steps). If you already have a camera and Capture NX, try to shot with flash and WB set to flash and take a picture, than set it to incandescent and take a picture. Than compare them. If you have a disagreement, just set NEF+JPEG. Than see what will better work for you.
--
Best regards

Click to expand...

RAW white balance is actually RAW, not "pushing colors to other colors". With JPEGs, the white balance is baked into the file even if you manipulate it. Also it is just easier! With JPEG white balances you have to work with curves and channels but with RAW it's either a simple click or usually 2 slider tweaks.

JPEGs limit the color spaces you can use to sRGB and AdobeRGB (find me a camera that offers anything else, I don't think you will). RAW data can take any input/output color spaces.

Ability to use different color renderings - if you shoot JPEG you will get Nikon's interpretation of color, but what if you wanted to see what Adobe or Capture One has in mind? With JPEG, it's not gonna happen. With RAW you can though.

JPEGs are 8 bit. That means 256 levels of red/green/blue (2^8) capable of about 16 million colors (256^3). That is a lot but with RAW you will be (at minimum) 12 bit, with 14 and 16 bit as well. So you will have 4096-65536 levels instead. I'm not even gonna go into the amount of colors since it is in the billions. It's important though because you might need these higher bits to work with when doing editing. If you were to make a gradient from black to white in both 8 bit and 12-16 bit and continue to compress and stretch them, the 8 bit one would start to show posterization faster than the others because it has less to work with. So if doing a lot of editing and you want the smoothest transitions, you need more. In most applications though, you would not see a difference or stretch to that limit though. But the extra bits are needed if you want to work in larger color spaces because I believe color can become posterized too.

RAW has more highlight detail.

Some JPEGs have noise reduction even with it turned off so if you really want all your detail that means you need it truly off, as in RAW.

Saving different looks of an image as a settings file rather than an actual image file saves a ton of space because you don't need to make an image each time.

Honestly, I don't see why people think RAW has to always be processed or take a long time. You can create new defaults and some look right to begin with. Not everything has to be some masterpiece (apparantly putting ~ and ~ around something crosses it out lol, didn't know we could even strikethrough here ) or even has that potential. I've been shooting RAW since I got a DSLR and while most aren't turned into images yet, it still gives me control in the future if I want it. Ask yourself, what will you LOSE by shooting RAW? You only get more flexibility - even images minorly tweaked could look better than JPEG equivalents.

why raw or why jpeg?

the question can be boiled down to one simple thought- what is the image quality of the pictures that the shooter is delivering to the pc? if the shooter is spending tjhe time care effort and using knowledge and skill in the field to shoot a accurate high quality jpeg then there is no advantage to the raw. the reason being is that jpeg is not going to getting/needing any pp except for touchups and sharpening. if on the other hand the shooter is not spending the care effort time and/or not applying or using the knowledge and skill in the taking of the picture so that at the computer he has to spend a lot of time and effort on a pp program to malke the good picture, then he should be shooting raw.

also, by its very nature raw can take massive amount of pping work. a jpeg pretty well has to be shot right in the field, simply because of the pp limitations. this not to say that a jpeg cannot be pped it can, it just the jpeg cannot take the large amount of pp work that a raw file can.

this all means that the jpeg is harder to shoot. the jpeger must put the effort into the taking of the pic in the field at the time of the shot, since he knows that he has limitations later in the pp work. the jpeger has to pretty well nail the exposure and wb when the image is shot, and he has to do this with every shot. the raw shooter knows that if a mistake is made in the field or he just does not have the skill or knowledge in the taking of a certain pic then he has the fallback position later in the raw converter and pp.

for me, i have been shooting for 40yrs, with film slides the first 32 yrs. with slides, it is a get it right or throw the slide out situation. when i now shoot, and i did not start out this way, i know that i will at least get 95%(100% on a good day) right in terms of wb and exposure. and i almost always will not be cropping later, this is because i made the composition right at the time the shot was taken. as for cropping, why be a member of the LBA club and not use all those lenses to get the compostition right. it should also be noted that i have already setup my 2 dslrs to get the accurate high quality jpeg. it took 2+hrs each dslr.

during auguat 09 my wife and i went on a 3 week trip out west, and using 2 dslrs i shot 543 images. of that 543 how many had a miss in terms of wb or exposure? zero. i got all 543 right. yes i am a jpeger. and i get them right becasaue i have been shooting long enough in enough situations and lighting to have aquired the knowledge and skill to make the jpeg shooting work. any person asking if they should shoot jpeg or raw should ask themselves the question-do i have the knowledge and skill to make the jpeg work on a consistant accurate basis? if there is any doubt that the user has the skill and knowledge then that person should be shooting raw not jpeg.

let me add that if i ever shoot any more weddings, and i do not plan to, then i would shift to raw in an instant. just becasue of the unknown and mixed lighting. and becaause weddings are a getitright no retake situation.

I like the comment above and practice what is said. I seldom shoot raw but every time someone mentions a comment like do it right the first time it blows out an argument. I did this earlier in the week over on the Nikonians forum and they were just short of throwing rocks at me.

The second half of the comment is also true for me about the wedding. I have only shot a few and they can have the most demanding settings and customers so raw is a good idea.

Indoors the expodisc is my friend. Outdoors auto is usually close but not always to be trusted. I have also learned recently that in live view you can adjust Kalvin wb and watch how it changes on the screen. Haven't tried it just yet as I heard about it yesterday.

Not mater what you shoot raw or jpeg it didn't happen if you didn't take it so get out and shoot.

Hi,

When I did buy my D300 I asked the same thing. I then took the camera in to a dark room, or a room that was poorly lit. I put the camera on a tripod and fired away shots (storing in all different formats) trying to keep the final picture dark. Kind of as shooting a night picture, you want the final picture to be more black than grey.

After this I opened them all on my computer and tried to increase the lightness. WOW ... All the jpegs and even the TIFF were horrible. Only the RAW picture still had data in every pixel. I could not believe how big the difference was.

So, the learning fro me was the following: if you want to modify the lightning or saturation of your picture afterwards, there is no other option than RAW. Try this out yourself and you'll see.

http://peter-lundqvist.smugmug.com/

GaryDeM said:

if on the other hand the shooter is not spending the care effort time and/or not applying or using the knowledge and skill in the taking of the picture so that at the computer he has to spend a lot of time and effort on a pp program to malke the good picture, then he should be shooting raw.

Click to expand...

No. You can always have better. It doesn't have to do with predictability.

GaryDeM said:

if there is any doubt that the user has the skill and knowledge then that person should be shooting raw not jpeg.

Click to expand...

Or you know, editing flexibility.

roninrr said:

I know there are other reasons. So could you help me out here. EXACTLY what editing can I do with a RAW picture that I can not do with a good resolution JPEG (i.e. adjust white balance, contrast, sharpen, brightness, etc.).

Click to expand...

Only one answer so far got the answer really right. The premise here is you've got a JPEG image and you've got a RAW image and you want to make some (any) change to the pixel data. It all boils down to one thing: bits. The JPEG has boiled in compression and has reduced the data set to 8 bits. Make changes to the JPEG and you risk--no, always incur--data gaps and rounding errors. These can and do show up in your processed image. You can prove this to yourself by doing this: edit a JPEG and move the color off normal and increase the contrast a bit. Save as JPEG. Now do it again. Now try to restore the JPEG back to its original color and contrast. You can't. You've built up so many gaps and rounding errors that you can't get back to the original data.

With raw, you're working with 12- or 14-bit data in a 16-bit container. That minimizes rounding errors in data changes. If you do make a huge change that creates a gap, the final reduction to 8-bits is still likely not going to have any gaps in it. That means that gradual tonal ramps (skies are a perfect example) generally won't get banding in them.

Note that your camera does the same thing I suggest: Nikon cameras now all work with the data in 16-bit space to apply all camera settings and data changes. They only reduce the data to 8-bit as the last step of creating the JPEG, same as you'd do if you shot raw.

Raw is all about using all the bits (data) you've got. If you start from a JPEG, you're starting with a reduced data set, period.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com