How is RAW so much better?

Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Posts: 66 Location: Georgia

How is it better than jpeg? just curious....

Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 1875 Location: BRISTOL ENGLAND

It can be better in a lot of ways. Not saying that Jpeg is bad. Below are a few threads that you may be able to glean some info from.

How Bad is Jpeg, Really

Jpeg from and SLR

What Record Mode Do You Use

Raw or Jpeg

At the end of this discussion (RAW or Jpeg) luisv gives some good points which sum up the advantages of shooting RAW. There are lots more and let me know if theres anyhting you dont understand and Ill try and help.

:-D

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:51 am

RAW retains all the information that is captured at the time you take the photo. JPEG does not. And information is detail... so why give any away?!

With RAW, you can do all kinds of operations, such as exposure compensation, white balance, resizing, etc., while always retaining the maximum possible amount information from the original capture. With JPEG, you lose information at each step in the edit/save process.

:) keithwms

Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 52 Location: Washington

ive got a question...

luisv wrote this in the "JPEG vs RAW" and I didnt want to bring back a dead post.

Quote:

2) No artifacts. JPG compression is a lossy compression. This means that you lose quality in the compression of the file. This is not opinion it is fact. Most shots will display the issue if you print it at larger sizes 8x10, 11x14 etc. RAW files do not have compression issues. The data is all there to be used. This IS NOT digital noise. I am talking about artifacts (defects) introduced in addition to noise, if any.

So what were to happen if you shoot in RAW, open it in a RAW application (i just started using RawShooter) and did your editing, but then processed it to a Max Qual JPEG, threw it into Photoshop for rezising and such, and then printed it at a larger size (like the sizes in the quote)?
Would the artifacts still be an issue at that print size, or would they be less of one since you shot in raw and converted to a max jpeg?

How would you guys go about shooting in RAW and then printing out in a larger size (what does your workflow look like?). <-- this is my goal, to shoot raw and print larger photos.

It might be a confusing question, but I wanted to get the whole process down so you could see where im coming from.

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:00 pm

flynntastic wrote:

ive got a question...

luisv wrote this in the "JPEG vs RAW" and I didnt want to bring back a dead post.

Quote:

2) No artifacts. JPG compression is a lossy compression. This means that you lose quality in the compression of the file. This is not opinion it is fact. Most shots will display the issue if you print it at larger sizes 8x10, 11x14 etc. RAW files do not have compression issues. The data is all there to be used. This IS NOT digital noise. I am talking about artifacts (defects) introduced in addition to noise, if any.

So what were to happen if you shoot in RAW, open it in a RAW application (i just started using RawShooter) and did your editing, but then processed it to a Max Qual JPEG, threw it into Photoshop for rezising and such, and then printed it at a larger size (like the sizes in the quote)?
Would the artifacts still be an issue at that print size, or would they be less of one since you shot in raw and converted to a max jpeg?

How would you guys go about shooting in RAW and then printing out in a larger size (what does your workflow look like?). <-- this is my goal, to shoot raw and print larger photos.

It might be a confusing question, but I wanted to get the whole process down so you could see where im coming from.

Woudl be best to resize in RAW if possible. But if you want to go to JPEG in the very last step, for printing or posting to web, that's fine. The JPEG losses are actually not quite as catastrophic as one might think, but what should be avoided is multiple edit/save steps from/to jpeg. Keep it as raw as you can! And I htik it definitely makes sense to archive in raw (or tiff as a second choice).

:) keithwms

Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Posts: 66 Location: Georgia

Thanks!

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:21 pm

Everything Keith wrote is correct and very important. But there is one basic difference between RAW and JPG: RAW is a 12 bit format (12 bit per colour, of course) and as such can contain a far wider range of colours and brightness levels. You can get a similar quality with TIFFs, which allow 16 bit, but JPG is 8 bit.
regards
René

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:20 am

flynntastic wrote:

ive got a question...

luisv wrote this in the "JPEG vs RAW" and I didnt want to bring back a dead post.

Quote:

2) No artifacts. JPG compression is a lossy compression. This means that you lose quality in the compression of the file. This is not opinion it is fact. Most shots will display the issue if you print it at larger sizes 8x10, 11x14 etc. RAW files do not have compression issues. The data is all there to be used. This IS NOT digital noise. I am talking about artifacts (defects) introduced in addition to noise, if any.

So what were to happen if you shoot in RAW, open it in a RAW application (i just started using RawShooter) and did your editing, but then processed it to a Max Qual JPEG, threw it into Photoshop for rezising and such, and then printed it at a larger size (like the sizes in the quote)?
Would the artifacts still be an issue at that print size, or would they be less of one since you shot in raw and converted to a max jpeg?

How would you guys go about shooting in RAW and then printing out in a larger size (what does your workflow look like?). <-- this is my goal, to shoot raw and print larger photos.

The problem is the JPG compression. Regardless of where you apply it you will have some loss of data. As mentioned, just the 12bit (handled as 16bit is PS) to 8 bit conversion loses data.

To keep the best quality possible, shoot in RAW, convert with whatever tool you wish. That conversion should be made to a lossless format (assuming the converter forces the save of the file) like TIFF or photoshop's PSD format in 16bit (again derived from the 12bit file) mode. Edit using whatever photo processor you'd like and resize the lossless format. If, in the end, you have to save to JPG for web use or local drive space issues, fine. However, do it in using the maximum quality possible. All this assumes you can edit in 16bit mode.

My workflow:
1) Shoot RAW+JPG. I use the JPG for customer proofs in the portraiture.
2) Process the RAW files using Adobe Camera RAW. This is typically batch processes of global changes. ie WB, Exposure tweaks (expose correctly in camera), Black point setting, etc.
3) If I will be printing large, I resize the image to the needed size in ACR before going to PS.
4) Edit, using a layered process.
5) Resize using a PXL Smartscale (or Genuine Fractals) if the print is very large eg 24x36 or larger.
6) Save the final version, with all layers, in PSD format.
7) If I need to publish JPGs the images are sized down from the PSD file and saved in a medium setting. This is usually just for posting on a proof page.

It sounds like a great deal but I do this for 20 to 30 customer shots at a time from a typical shoot of 100 photos. It really only takes a small amount of time. Once you are used to the process is it mostly quite automated for me.

Joined: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 24 Location: Cape Town

Hi Luis

Thnx for that process flow. I think it helps us newbies quite a lot.

Regards
DD

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:33 am

I'm not going to get into the RAW vs JPEG debate.
I agree RAW is "better".
I shoot JPEG and tell everyone I shoot in RAW. (How do they know?)

BTW, here's a fun test. No, it's not JPEG vs RAW, but "lossy vs lossless" test. I won't tell you my score, but I'm ashamed of it. (Give it a bit to load all the images).

http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:04 am

goofup wrote:

BTW, here's a fun test. No, it's not JPEG vs RAW, but "lossy vs lossless" test. I won't tell you my score, but I'm ashamed of it. (Give it a bit to load all the images).

http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/

Ha, ha that's a nice little test. I really had to work on it...

I think, there are two answers to the problem: Whenever taking snapshots under "normal" lighting JPG is fine. But if you have high contrast shots or if you plan to really do intensive post-editing (and I often go over a photo two or three times with a pause in between), than shooting RAW and workng as much as possible on the RAWs, before converting to TIF for the final touches is the best way to go. It is not only that JPG artefacts get worse with each "save", also through processing (sharpening or even works on the tonal range) the artefacts get more pronounced.

I think each format has its applications, but RAW gives me more freedom for later processing.

regards
René

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:07 am

goofup wrote:

BTW, here's a fun test. No, it's not JPEG vs RAW, but "lossy vs lossless" test. I won't tell you my score, but I'm ashamed of it. (Give it a bit to load all the images).

http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/

Cool test. I got 7/10.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:47 am

10 out of 10, and I spent no more than 5 or 10 seconds per image. It's easy: just look at lines and edges.

I might have to shoot jpg for a church directory soon, and I'm not happy about it (not enough memory cards since I just switched to the D200). I will use any money I make to buy more CF cards, and hopefully not have to do jpgs again.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:27 pm

OK........... That settles it. I got 9 of 10 shots.

The one shot that got me was the black dress, full length, grey background shot. It was the hardest to see the difference b/c the subject was so small.

To see the difference was simple. I looked at the details. Things like the rolls and creases in the clothes. I also look at facial details and blemishes. In others, I looked at details like the veins in the hands and feet. In some the lack of contrast was so obvious that it jumped out at you.

It's all in the details. The other obvious issues were lack of color depth and tonal range. To see that, look at the apple in the "Snow White" model. In other, shots, look at the shadows. The subtle shadows dissappears.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:39 pm

goofup wrote:

I'm not going to get into the RAW vs JPEG debate.
I agree RAW is "better".
I shoot JPEG and tell everyone I shoot in RAW. (How do they know?)

BTW, here's a fun test. No, it's not JPEG vs RAW, but "lossy vs lossless" test. I won't tell you my score, but I'm ashamed of it. (Give it a bit to load all the images).

http://www.ranum.com/fun/lens_work/papers/jpegquality/

Doh! Doesn't work for me...I'm using Firefox, has anybody else got this to work with Firefox?