JPEG vs RAW

sten eriksen

Member
Messages
23
Reaction score
10
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?

RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automater?

what is the likelyhood of better end result?

is a convert for dummies available?

any input is welcome

Happy Easter

sten
 
Why don't you simply try to work with JPGs, get familiar with in-camera options and field techniques in order to get the exposures you need? If any call for some post-exposure intervention, see how you get along with it. You've likely heard that JPGs when developed don't take as well to being pushed and pulled as RAW, but if there's not a lot of developing required the JPGs may well be all that's necessary. My perspective on this is that when shooting JPG one exposes for the visual, but shooting RAW one exposes for the sensor's best potential with intentions of developing the visual in post. If JPGs meet one's needs, there's no reason to look further.

Eventually you'll either find peace with that, or those exercises will slowly lead you into a more involved relationship with your images.
 
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
more or less.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automater?
yes. make jpeg settings in camera . they will be saved to the RAW file and used by the manufacturers software to convert to JPEG.
what is the likelyhood of better end result?

is a convert for dummies available?
manufacturers software.
any input is welcome

Happy Easter

sten
 
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employee ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
This question is more complicated than it seems. The first thing to understand is that all cameras capture the light in an unprocessed (raw) state. The raw data are typically in 12-bit or more - that is, there are at least 4096 gradations of colour and tone.

For viewing the output is typically JPG, which is 8-bit - 256 gradations. If you shoot "JPG" what you are doing is letting the camera (or that employee) decide which data to use and which to throw away. And, as you see, a lot is thrown away. The main reason for shooting raw is to hang on to all the raw data as long as possible.

You are right, up to a point, to think that an experienced person can do the basic conversion better than a beginner. But with appropriate software that becomes irrelevant - if you use the software provided with your camera it does the raw-to-JPG development exactly the same way as the maker's employee.

Obviously, all that does is get us to square one: exactly the same processes have been carried out, it's just that they've happened in different places. At this point, therefore, you are no more likely to get better photos from raw than from JPG.

However, you have one advantage over that employee - you were there and saw the scene; and you know how you want your photos to look. If the employee's one-size-fits-all development happens to give you exactly what you want that's the end of the story. But if you want to make any adjustments of any kind you have a lot more scope to make them from raw than from JPG.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automated?
It depends on the software you use but it should be possible.
what is the likelihood of better end result?
That depends on your skill level. As I've said, there's no initial difference. It's important to know that whatever you do to a raw file you can never destroy the original data (unless you delete the file, which you shouldn't do). So if you make a mess you just go back to the start and try again.
is a convert for dummies available?
There should be a user guide, user manual or help facility with your software.
 
RAW will also add a step during image import
That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave
 
My perspective on this is that when shooting JPG one exposes for the visual, but shooting RAW one exposes for the sensor's best potential with intentions of developing the visual in post.
... is perfectly stated.
 
RAW will also add a step during image import
That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave
It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.

Then you need to manually replace the settings Lightroom ignored with sliders or presets.

These settings in the raw is not ignored by manufacturers software and no extra steps are needed.

This whole JPEG vs RAW is stupid. We all shoot RAW . Anything else is impossible.

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but you are missing the point.
 
Sorry, but you are missing the point.
and that is what ?

That you can import a raw file in Lightroom and it is no extra step for you compared to importing a JPEG because you will pull sliders and choose presets anyway ?

It is an extra step to import a rawfile in Lightroom in comparison to a jpeg because with the JPEG lightroom can not ignore the JPEG settings.

It is not an extra step if someone uses manufacturers software or dcraw.

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci
 
Last edited:
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
My experience is that my first raw conversions were considerably worse than the JPEGs, simply because I didn't know what to do, and oftentimes the number of options available are overwhelming.

A common beginner problem is overdoing it: making an image that's completely over the top in terms of effects. While this might be striking at first, it leads to a lack of unity in your images and the special effects quickly becomes boring. Subtlety is often key.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automater?
You can batch process your images in many converters, but if you don't make any changes at all, they why didn't you shoot in JPEG to begin with?
what is the likelyhood of better end result?
It depends on your knowledge and skill that comes from practice.
is a convert for dummies available?
The converter that comes with your camera is often easiest to use, such as my Nikon's View NX2. Professional packages such as Lightroom and Photoshop tend to be fast but have some more options.

Enthusiast converters — which are often free and open source — such as RawTherapee and Darktable — have a multitude of options that can be confusing to use well, and they also tend to be slow in order to squeeze the maximum amount from an image, and so aren't good for either beginners or for busy professionals.
Happy Easter
And also to you!
 
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employee ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
This question is more complicated than it seems. The first thing to understand is that all cameras capture the light in an unprocessed (raw) state. The raw data are typically in 12-bit or more - that is, there are at least 4096 gradations of colour and tone.

For viewing the output is typically JPG, which is 8-bit - 256 gradations. If you shoot "JPG" what you are doing is letting the camera (or that employee) decide which data to use and which to throw away. And, as you see, a lot is thrown away. The main reason for shooting raw is to hang on to all the raw data as long as possible.

You are right, up to a point, to think that an experienced person can do the basic conversion better than a beginner. But with appropriate software that becomes irrelevant - if you use the software provided with your camera it does the raw-to-JPG development exactly the same way as the maker's employee.

Obviously, all that does is get us to square one: exactly the same processes have been carried out, it's just that they've happened in different places. At this point, therefore, you are no more likely to get better photos from raw than from JPG.

However, you have one advantage over that employee - you were there and saw the scene; and you know how you want your photos to look. If the employee's one-size-fits-all development happens to give you exactly what you want that's the end of the story. But if you want to make any adjustments of any kind you have a lot more scope to make them from raw than from JPG.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automated?
It depends on the software you use but it should be possible.
what is the likelihood of better end result?
That depends on your skill level. As I've said, there's no initial difference. It's important to know that whatever you do to a raw file you can never destroy the original data (unless you delete the file, which you shouldn't do). So if you make a mess you just go back to the start and try again.
is a convert for dummies available?
There should be a user guide, user manual or help facility with your software.
 
Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
My experience is that my first raw conversions were considerably worse than the JPEGs, simply because I didn't know what to do, and oftentimes the number of options available are overwhelming.

A common beginner problem is overdoing it: making an image that's completely over the top in terms of effects. While this might be striking at first, it leads to a lack of unity in your images and the special effects quickly becomes boring. Subtlety is often key.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automater?
You can batch process your images in many converters, but if you don't make any changes at all, they why didn't you shoot in JPEG to begin with?
what is the likelyhood of better end result?
It depends on your knowledge and skill that comes from practice.
is a convert for dummies available?
The converter that comes with your camera is often easiest to use, such as my Nikon's View NX2. Professional packages such as Lightroom and Photoshop tend to be fast but have some more options.

Enthusiast converters — which are often free and open source — such as RawTherapee and Darktable — have a multitude of options that can be confusing to use well, and they also tend to be slow in order to squeeze the maximum amount from an image, and so aren't good for either beginners or for busy professionals.
Happy Easter
And also to you!
 
RAW will also add a step during image import
That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave
It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.
What?
 
RAW will also add a step during image import
That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave
It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.
What?
The JPEG settings saved to the raw file by the camera.

This part of the raw file contains information about whitebalance, saturation, contrast , sharpness etc.
 
The JPEG settings saved to the raw file by the camera.

This part of the raw file contains information about whitebalance, saturation, contrast , sharpness etc.
All raw converters, as far as I know, will read the white balance settings of the camera.

Only the manufacturer's own converters will honor the saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings. So View NX2 will read those settings from my Nikon cameras but Adobe software will not.
 
The JPEG settings saved to the raw file by the camera.

This part of the raw file contains information about whitebalance, saturation, contrast , sharpness etc.
All raw converters, as far as I know, will read the white balance settings of the camera.

Only the manufacturer's own converters will honor the saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings. So View NX2 will read those settings from my Nikon cameras but Adobe software will not.
Not true.

Dcraw do use the Jpeg settings so if using a photomanager like digikam that is based on dcraw the procedure will be as easy as to import a jpeg. No additional settings need to be made.

For editors based on dcraw they can choose to ignore the jpeg settings ofcourse. That is the whole point of a raw editor.
 
I started out shooting JPEG, thinking it was good enough. As I became more serious I moved to Raw. The thing is, I had taken a couple of once-in-a-lifetime shots in JPEG, and now I regret it. Point is, it's hard to predict the future but you have to live with the decisions you made in the past.

Most cameras shoot that shoot Raw can shoot Raw+JPEG, I think that would be a good place to start.

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
 
Last edited:
I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?
High, but it takes more time, as you acknowledge below.
RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automater?
How so? My images are all imported together.
what is the likelyhood of better end result?
Again, high. The question is whether it's worth your time or not. Most of the time, you'll find that JPGs are "good enough". For badly exposed photos where you REALLY don't want to lose the image because of some mood, it is nice to be able to fix it a lot more than you can fix a JPG. (since JPG compression throws away some of the data)
is a convert for dummies available?
Try DxO Optics Pro 10 software for free. It is easy to learn, as it has roll-over pop-ups and built-in help for most features. There are also YouTube tutorials to get you started. It's expensive to buy, but highly advanced and also intuitive.
 
RAW will also add a step during image import
That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave
It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.
What?
Maybe Lightroom is made for Born Again Christians? Who 'see the light?' Maybe the 'boring image' is easier to accept than a 'messy image?'

Or, on the other hand, it could have something to do with gamut.

"What is 'gamut?'" Maybe Cookedraw has some research to do? How boring.

Oh yeah... JPEGs are 256 colour, too. That's pretty boring, too. 8 bits. Terribly boring. Aren't there three 8 bit channels? Millions of colours? That sounds a bit messy.

Also. Check out Huffman compression.
 
any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top