What is the differance between Raw and Jpeg images? I

[MRCPhoto]

have made up my mind to get myself a 10D (when the $$ allows), and want to have at least a basic understanding prior to the purchase.
Thanks
Meesha

[yb98]

Raw is the data coming directly from the sensor without any processing.
Jpeg is the image resulted after processing the raw data.

You can let the camera do the raw-jpeg conversion for you. Or you can do it yourself on your PC using specific softwares. In the second case you have more control and get often a better image quality.

Yacine.

[Pekka]

In technical terms

RAW is
- 16 bits per channel data
- without color profile
- without sharpening *
- without noise reduction
- without saturation
- without curve or gamma corrections
- without white balance

RAW conversion software handles converting the files to usable image files. You can decide every detail of export process after you have shot the images.

*) As a sidenote: 10D does slight sharpening to RAW's, 1D series RAW's are totally unsharpened.

JPG is
- 8 bits per channel data
- destructively compressed
- sRGB or AdobeRGB color profile
- sharpened
- saturated
- noisereducted (perhaps)
- white balance applied

All the above is set inside camera before you shoot.

[hmhm]

- 16 bits per channel data

Canon raw is 12 bits per channel.
-harry

[Pekka]

- 16 bits per channel data

Canon raw is 12 bits per channel.
-harry

Correct. My mistake, was thinking exporting.

[Rob Larsen]

The RAW file is captured without the in-camera settings such as white balance, sharpness, saturation, contrast, and exposure curve applied. Prior to converting the file from RAW, you can selectively apply those settings in the computer. This allows you to make those adjustments utilizing the maximum data available prior to converting to TIFF or other format. In RAW you also have about 1 stop of additional exposure latitude you can extract from the file.

I find that about 85% of my post processing work is done during the RAW conversion using C1DSLR. Now I primarily only use PS when doing selective editing and compositing.

EDIT: I defer to Pekka's much better answer posted while I typed slowly... :D

[robertwgross]

Yes, the sensor RAW data is 12-bits. Then when that gets extracted out as a TIF file, you can go with either 8-bits or 16-bits per color channel, which means 24-bit or 48-bit TIF. Otherwise, you end up with 8-bit JPEG.

---Bob Gross---

[Motorsports Photo]

In simple terms raw is what you have to re-process in your computer before you can do anything with them. Jpegs can be instantly shared by almost anyone. Jpeg has less correctable problems, while a raw image (from others descriptions) can be made into a fine image from almost crap.

-Pete

[robertwgross]

Jpeg has less correctable problems, while a raw image (from others descriptions) can be made into a fine image from almost crap.


No, no, no. I never shoot anything that is crap. Sometimes I shoot stuff that has severe technical problems.

---Bob Gross---

[Jesper]

RAW vs JPEG has ofcourse been discussed many times before...

Here's a good explanation: RAW, JPEG and TIFF (http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/) by Bob Atkins on photo.net

And here is another good one: Understanding Raw Files (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml) on Luminous Landscape

[RichardtheSane]

Jpeg has less correctable problems, while a raw image (from others descriptions) can be made into a fine image from almost crap.


No, no, no. I never shoot anything that is crap. Sometimes I shoot stuff that has severe technical problems.

---Bob Gross---

:lol: :lol:

[Motorsports Photo]

Severe technical problems..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

my fingers were ust tired so I didnt want to type long words at that moment.

-Pete

[CyberDyneSystems]

All good explanaitons.. also .. please look at the Top Tips and Links stickies at the top of th forum.. I know the links thread has many many excellent articles on the subject.

[PacAce]

Jpeg has less correctable problems, while a raw image (from others descriptions) can be made into a fine image from almost crap.
-Pete

I bet you a lot of RAW shooters wished that your statement were true but, alas, the old adage "garbage in, garbage out" prevails even with digital photography.

However, as Bob pointed out, those with "severe technical problems" (which, btw, is totally different from "crap") could very well be salvaged. :mrgreen:

[RichardtheSane]

Jpeg has less correctable problems, while a raw image (from others descriptions) can be made into a fine image from almost crap.
-Pete

I bet you a lot of RAW shooters wished that your statement were true but, alas, the old adage "garbage in, garbage out" prevails even with digital photography.



But it is true. I can be hopeless with exposure, rubbish at composition and totally incapable of choosing an interesting subject, but if I shoot RAW then I can fix all that and it will print out for free at walmart... :lol: :lol:

[Longwatcher]

You asked for it.

Why yes you can turn crap into fine art if shot in RAW, whereas if shot in jpeg it won't enlarge up past 16x24 without jpeg artifacts that show it do be just a picture. Whereas had you taken your picture of crap in the RAW format, why then you could potentially blow it up to ove 32x48, frame it and hang it in a gallery, thus making a fine art picture out of it.

It would not be the first time crap has been turned into fine art.

8) 8) 8) :roll: :shock: :roll: 8) 8) 8)

[PacAce]

You asked for it.

Why yes you can turn crap into fine art if shot in RAW, whereas if shot in jpeg it won't enlarge up past 16x24 without jpeg artifacts that show it do be just a picture. Whereas had you taken your picture of crap in the RAW format, why then you could potentially blow it up to ove 32x48, frame it and hang it in a gallery, thus making a fine art picture out of it.

It would not be the first time crap has been turned into fine art.

8) 8) 8) :roll: :shock: :roll: 8) 8) 8)

Well, now that I think of it, I guess you have a very good point. One man's garbage is another man's treasure, I suppose. Or to rephrase that, one man's crap is another man's art. :mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:

[Ken Fong]

From a metering standpoint, I am just beginning to appreciate what RAW offers over JPG. From all the discussion on 'shooting to favor the right side of the histogram', RAW seems to offers an additional 1.5 stops of lattitude. I could be wrong, but if you unintentionally overexpose (clip) the highlights, there is a way to bring back some of that data in post-processing...something that normally would be lost if shot in JPG. I reserve JPG for my snapshots and shoot RAW for portraits and 'fine' work.