RAW vs JPG

[JasonMX]

In the music world I hate compressed audio and will always use the lossless format, but does it matter in photography? I also noticed that I took about 60 RAW shots and converted them to TIFF/JPG and they were more blurry they the JPG shots I took. Should that be the case?

[IncompletePete]

I always shoot in RAW when I can, I like to pay with the brightness to make it perfect, that's the only difference I find between the two formats really.

[JasonMX]

One question about RAW...

When you decode RAW -> JPG are you getting the exact same picture you took? Or do you have to use that software to re-create your camera settings before converting.

I am a little confiused about what RAW is. Is it the uncompressed actuall picture, with no camera options applied? Do you have to re-apply these settings while encoding to make it look like the picture you took.

BTW, I am a computer scientist so this stuff is very foreign.

[robertwgross]

Should that be the case?

Not really, but there may be other things going on. JPEG compression often looks different or brighter or sharper, but it isn't something that couldn't have been gotten out of the original RAW or TIF file. To me, many RAW files look flat. A little equalization and sharpening works wonders.

Understand compression and what it is doing, and it will help. If you take a TIF and do a "heavy" compression, then the JPEG may look like crap. If you do a moderate compression, the JPEG may look good on the screen and look a little degraded on the print. If you do a very light compression, then the JPEG will appear virtually the same as the TIF whether on the screen or on the print. Once you go better than a 95% quality compression, you are probably taking up more disk space and getting nothing at all in return on the screen or on the print. Some programs let you pick your compression, and some do not. In general, the camera does not.

---Bob Gross---

[Persian-Rice]

Shooting RAW has the advantage of letting you adjust things after the shot. Obviously if you don't take the shot properly, it gives you a little bit of stuff to work with. It will never replace taking a good shot, it's more of a last resort insurance against screwing up.

The "blurryness" comes from the lack of camera post proccessing done. It leaves it for you to do on the PC.

Cheers.

[JasonMX]

That is very true. The JPG compression algorithm looks for like colors and repeating patterns to compress it, so it's possible it could brighten/smooth an image.

I am going to Grand Cayman Island for a week in a month and want to get the best quality pics.

One last question...

If I take RAW images and convert them to uncompressed TIF files, are these exact replicas of the image I took? Do I have to do anything else?

[steven]

I didn't say anyone else also point out that in the RAW file no processing has taken place on the picture.

Depending on your camera and it's settings different processing takes place to the image before it is saved as a jpeg.

[JasonMX]

Ok, I think you brought out my exact point of this thread.

I was under the impression RAW files are digital negatives. All the settings on your camera (light, balance, etc..) are NOT used in RAW files. After taking the pictures as RAW files, you have to adjust/balance with the software which is what the camera does to JPG. Is that true?

[robertwgross]

I am going to Grand Cayman Island for a week in a month and want to get the best quality pics.


Shoot RAW files. Take lots of memory cards.


If I take RAW images and convert them to uncompressed TIF files, are these exact replicas of the image I took? Do I have to do anything else?

Shoot RAW files. When you get to your home computer, convert to TIF. If you are a purist, convert to 16-bit TIF, or if not, then convert to 8-bit TIF. Note that some programs cannot handle 16-bit TIF files. That is bits per color channel, not total bits. Total color bits is either 24 or 42 (48 bits).

Once you've edited or perfected the TIF files, then convert to a moderately high JPEG if you choose (by that, I mean something like 90-95% quality). Or, compress heavily to something for web publishing. But keep the perfect TIF files for printing large.

---Bob Gross---

[slin100]

On Canon DSLRs, shooting RAW usually buys you at least an extra stop of dynamic range over JPG. The loss is not atributable to JPG compression but to the in-camera clipping of the data prior to compression.

In the audio world, JPG would be akin to recording from 20 Hz to 10 Khz while RAW would be 20 Hz to 20 Khz.

In-camera adjustments (e.g. Contrast, Sharpness, etc.) are not applied to RAW images, so they must be reapplied by the RAW converter or done in post-processing, like Photoshop.

[JasonMX]

Ok, so that is why there are two files... .THM and .CRM. It looks like the .CRM is the image file and .THM is the camera settings the program uses to convert it? Is that right?

What program can I use to get the pictures looking like I took them (settings and all)? I have the programs the Digital Rebel came with and Photoshop CS. (8.0)

[robertwgross]

This varies a little from one camera to another. In general, the main file is your RAW file, and the Thumbnail file is used by the camera display and also to hold EXIF data (your shot settings). The Thumbnail file is actually a JPEG file, although it is not used much for quality images.

---Bob Gross---

[JasonMX]

So when I use the program that comes with my camera to convert RAW -> TIFF, it is applying the camera settings while encoding it. So the final TIFF is exactly what my camera took (with all setttings)

[robertwgross]

It depends. In general, the conversion program gives you the option of:
(A) Converting it straight over as the sensor saw it.
--or--
(B) Converting it using changes along the way. For example, when you shoot RAW files in and incandescent-lit room, then RAW color is what you get out. But suppose you had the WB set to incandescent. You might want that to change along the conversion process so that the result TIF has the incandescent WB glow instead of the drab RAW look.

---Bob Gross---

[slin100]

A THM file is a small thumbnail image that is used for quick display when reviewing images on the camera. It's also purported to contain some extra EXIF information that is not present in the CRW file. I haven't researched the forums enough to know whether or not THMs contain extra information is true. Suffice to say, many have encountered no significant problems from throwing them away. The CRW also contains EXIF information.

If you want to come as close as possible to "applying" the in-camera settings for Contrast, Sharpness, etc., then you'll probably have the best luck with using the Canon RAW converter that came with your camera.

[PhotosGuy]

Again... this says it all for me:
Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=306177#306177

[steven]

Ok, I think you brought out my exact point of this thread.

I was under the impression RAW files are digital negatives. All the settings on your camera (light, balance, etc..) are NOT used in RAW files. After taking the pictures as RAW files, you have to adjust/balance with the software which is what the camera does to JPG. Is that true?

Yes

[robertwgross]

Yes? Maybe.


I was under the impression RAW files are digital negatives. All the settings on your camera (light, balance, etc..) are NOT used in RAW files. After taking the pictures as RAW files, you have to adjust/balance with the software which is what the camera does to JPG. Is that true?

The RAW file carries the raw image data, and it also carries along the EXIF data. When you do a "straight conversion" to TIF, you'll have to manage the white balance and all that to get it looking right. The RAW file carries that EXIF data, though, and some programs can use it to do a modified conversion that will use white balance and all that. Therefore, your TIF does not need to be further managed. If you stored a JPEG file directly, then it will have white balance and all that figured into the file, so you don't get any choice in the matter, and one size fits all.

I prefer to keep control over those things.

---Bob Gross---

[JX]

Jason you wrote RAW vs JPG

In the music world I hate compressed audio and will always use the lossless format, but does it matter in photography? I also noticed that I took about 60 RAW shots and converted them to TIFF/JPG and they were more blurry they the JPG shots I took. Should that be the case?

I don't know what you skill level is with post processing raw files is. Not long ago I would have said the same thing. But if you really know what you are doing with a program like PhotoShop, a properly processed raw file will always look better than the same shot taken as a JPEG. After seeing what Photshop's Camera Raw can do, I very seldom shoot in JPEG mode.

[Andy_T]

One more thing, that maybe wasn't pointed out clearly anough...

When you want a sharp image, you have to sharpen it.

- With JPEG, this happens in the camera
- With RAW/TIFF, this is done in PS as last step

That means ... download your image, convert it to TIFF, do levels, whatever you want, SAVE ORIGINAL IMAGE. Then resize for the size you want to use it (either print or web), then sharpen. After this, convert it to high quality JPG, and the results will be great.

Point is ... once you have sharpened the image and saved as JPEG, you have lost some picture information that you need for further processing.

So if you later find something to change at the picture, use the image you saved before resize/sharpen, do the changes, SAVE, ... you get the picture :wink:

PS: I think this thread from Photosguy explains it even better, because it also shows images derived from JPG:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47414&highlight=raw

Best regards,
Andy

[spearce6]

For post processing of RAW files, I would highly recommend taking a look at C1 DSLR - I use the LE version for my 10D.

http://www.phaseone.com/

You can read a review of it on my website as well:

http://steve-pearce-photography.com/Rawshooting

I have heard quite a bit of talk lately about DPP as well, which I think Canon are bundling with some models now, but I think the attention is because C1 does'nt support the 20D - yet. I can't imagine support will be long in coming.

I don't know DPP, but can barely imagine a more efficient workflow than C1.

Steve

[drisley]

I used C1 Pro with the 300D for about 1/2 year and loved it!
Now, with the 20D, I was forced to use something else.
DPP has some VERY good features, and the colour accuracy is very good.
It uses a completely different engine than Canon's EVU, so the colour reproduction is quite different. EVU produces colours identical to an in-camera jpg. DPP is much more subdued, and it includes a "faithful" colour setting that produces output very much like C1 PRo (beta) for 20D.
However, there is a problem with DPP's demosaic algorithm that can cause some weird moire pattern (noise) in some images. And, it also has a problem where it produces a strange purplish halo around high contrast areas, very much like a sharpening halo, but purple. I didnt notice it for 2 weeks, but once I did, I was forced to change to EVU. Many people are hoping that the next version of DPP (1.5) will fix these 2 bugs, but most doubt it will.
C1 Pro is still king for workflow (and perhaps image quality) IMHO. DPP is my second favourite, followed by EVU, the Breezebrowser.
I dont really like Breezebrowswer because you can't adjust settings to an image, then go to another, adjust, etc, and then when you are done convert them all at once. With the 20D atleast, when you leave the Raw settings window of an image and then goto another image, all the unique settings are lost for the last image.

For now, EVU produces great images, but lacks features that allow me to easily regain highlight and shadow data (DPP is awesome in this category).

[Sam North]

One more thing, that maybe wasn't pointed out clearly anough...

When you want a sharp image, you have to sharpen it.

- With JPEG, this happens in the camera
- With RAW/TIFF, this is done in PS as last step

Yes, it happens in the camera, but...

I usually don't bother with the RAW format, so I shoot hi-res JPEGs and, to get more neutral results, I set my DSLR to customised parameter settings, although it’s worth remembering that when Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation and Colour Tone are set to zero, they are in fact set to 3 on a scale of 5. (Don’t turn sharpening 'off' completely.) The neutral JPEG images are loaded into PHOTO-PAINT and immediately converted to a lossless format for editing and archiving.

My images direct from the camera show virtually no signs of sharpening, a fact that allows for cautious and effective sharpening of the finished TIFF before it's sent off as a JPEG to be made into a digital print.

I just got back my most successful print yet - technically speaking! (Not so sure about the content.) The detail is very good indeed (2 stitched G5 shots) and there's no real signs of inappropriate sharpening (halos).

Sam

:)

[Hellashot]

Shooting in RAW mode is for printing purposes. It'll allow you to save it in 16bit color and have it never in a compressed JPG format. You will never notice a different on your computer screen.

[meow]

You will if the image is subject for post-processing.

You can't see a diffewrence if the final image is saved in 8 or 16 bit but it makes a world of difference during processing. 16 bit allows for a lot more than 8 bit. For instance you can adjust the curves a lot more without getting posterizing and so on. Of course, not all editors can handle 16 bit.

[RomanB]

There is a vast difference between RAW and JPEG: An important difference is that every time you manipulatee a JPEG file it will degrade some, but sharpness is another issue. Raw files are anti-aliased and for that reason are not as sharp as JPEG'S. That is why you will sometimes hear people complain that their pictures are "soft," meaning not as sharp.

There are several method to sharpen these files, the most common is using the ill-named unsharp mask in Photoshop. To do that, you go to filters, sharpen then unsharp mask. Don't be misled: it is neither an unsharpener or a mask. The first setting, the "amount," I usully put between 450 and 500, the "radius" I set at between 0.3 and 0.5 and the "threshold" I set at zero. You will notice the bigest changes with the amount, and you can see the changes in the preview. The bottom line is that it's all a matter or personal taste; there is no right or wrong. These are setting that usually work for me; your taste will probably be somewhat different so play around with it until you settle on your own preference.

You have to be careful that you do not create too much noise in your picture. If when you obtain the sharpness you want, but there is more noise than you want, you can eliminate some of the noise in Photoshop itself. Just go to "help" and type in "noise" in the index and you will find the methods to eliminate or greatly reduce the noise.

[Scottes]

An important difference is that every time you manipulatee a JPEG file it will degrade some,

Every time you *save* JPG it will degrade some. And this degradation is extremely slight, as has been proved in the past by members of this forum.

but sharpness is another issue. Raw files are anti-aliased and for that reason are not as sharp as JPEG'S.

Camera JPGs are also anti-aliased. Almost all digital cameras have an anti-alias filter that covers the sensor. So *all* images are anti-aliased by the camera by such cameras.

There are several method to sharpen these files, the most common is using the ill-named unsharp mask in Photoshop. To do that, you go to filters, sharpen then unsharp mask. Don't be misled: it is neither an unsharpener or a mask.

It is, in fact, both. If you understood the process you'd know that. The process is done by taking a copy of the image and blurring it ("unsharp") and then laying the blurred copy over the original ("mask"). This enhances the contrast of the edges, which is what sharpening is.

You have to be careful that you do not create too much noise in your picture. If when you obtain the sharpness you want, but there is more noise than you want, you can eliminate some of the noise in Photoshop itself.

Actually, too much sharpening can lead to sharpening artifacts, which can look similar to noise but these artifacts are definitely not noise. If you wish to reduce the enhancement of noise by the sharpening process simply raise the Threshold. You will most likely need to increase the Amount to compensate for the increased Threshold, but at least you won't sharpen the noise so much.

[planesh00ter]

pardon my ignorance , after reading all these posts, but I see the diff between RAW and the what the camera does to make the JPEG could be "tailored" for the individual so as to require less manulipation... is this in the future or I haven't read that far yet

[PacAce]

There is a vast difference between RAW and JPEG: An important difference is that every time you manipulatee a JPEG file it will degrade some, but sharpness is another issue. Raw files are anti-aliased and for that reason are not as sharp as JPEG'S. That is why you will sometimes hear people complain that their pictures are "soft," meaning not as sharp.


With all due respect, I have to disagree with your statement above (in bold). Coming straight out of the camera and without any processing, images converted from RAW and JPEG images are so identical that you really can't tell them apart. The strength of RAW is that you can post process a RAW image and get a better image than what you get with JPEG because RAW has a lot more processing latitude than JPEG does.

Here are two pictures I took with my 10D. Using the same camera settings, I shot one in JPEG-Large and the other was shot in RAW. The RAW image was converted to JPEG with EVU using the shot settings. No processing was done to either image, neither in EVU nor in PSCS.

The pictures below are resized images of the JPEG and RAW images. Can you tell which is which?

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_A.jpg

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_B.jpg


And, in case you want to claim that resizing negates the differences between JPEG and RAW, here are 100% crops from 3 different parts of these images.

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_A1.jpg

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_B1.jpg


http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_A2.jpg

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_B2.jpg


http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_A3.jpg

http://www.tanseikai.com/tanseikai/images/others/test_B3.jpg

[PacAce]

And I forgot to mention, the images above are not as sharp as they can be although the camera was set to the max sharpness possible. Both the JPEG and the RAW images from the camera would have to be sharpened to get them looking better. So when people complain about images from DSLRs being on the soft side, this is what they are referring to, and it doesn't matter whether the image was shot RAW or in JPEG.

[Scottes]

I'm going to guess, of the 100% crops, that all of the first ones are from RAW, and all the second ones are from JPG from camera. I can't tell on the first image because of the resizing.

[PacAce]

Before I say which is which, tell me what you based your guess on.

[Scottes]

Color transition. In various highlights the first image looked smoother than the second, so I guessed that the first was from RAW.

[evilenglishman]

can i join in? I would say shot A is the raw because its not as sharp as B

[PacAce]

Sorry, gents, but the first ones were all shot in JPEG and the 2nd ones were all RAW. :P

But, again, let me reiterate. These were straight from the camera without any post processing, except for the RAW, of course, which was converted to JPEG with EVU. With a little bit of post processing of each, I'm sure that the RAW image would have been a little more obvious.

[Scottes]

Obviously you stink at post processing.

:P

Just kidding, of course!

[PacAce]

Obviously you stink at post processing.

:P

Just kidding, of course!

I know you're kidding but let's say you weren't. It wouldn't be me that stinks but the RAW conversion program, no, since the only thing done to the RAW image was to convert it to JPEG with EVU? Hmmm, so what are we saying about EVU? :? Are we saying that EVU doesn't do a good conversion job or just that it doesn't do a good JPEG conversion job?

Now, I'll have to go home and try the RAW to 16-bit TIFF conversion and see how that fairs. :? :? :?

And while I'm at it, I might as well see how DPP compares, too. :mrgreen: :lol:

[evilenglishman]

bugger :lol:

[RomanB]

All I can say is that your conclusions about RAW and JPEG fly into the face of Canon experts, including a cite by the inventor of Photoshop. Please see:http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/tech_tips/index.html

And for a different perspective on this issue, please see:
http://luminous-landscape.com. Go to Tutorial and find the one on sharpening.

You will see that both of the expert take the same position I do.

[PacAce]

All I can say is that your conclusions about RAW and JPEG fly into the face of Canon experts, including a cite by the inventor of Photoshop. Please see:http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/tech_tips/index.html

And for a different perspective on this issue, please see:
http://luminous-landscape.com. Go to Tutorial and find the one on sharpening.

You will see that both of the expert take the same position I do.

Obviously you've misread or misunderstood what you read in these sites that you referenced because I read those references, too, and nothing I said contradicts what was written there. Maybe you would like to point out specific quotes from either or both of these site?

[RomanB]

Pacman wrote: "Coming straight out of the camera and without any processing, images converted from RAW and JPEG images are so identical that you really can't tell them apart."

The Canon expert, in the video previously referenced said in his second and third sentences: "RAW files coming out of the camera looking soft - how come? JPEG's come out sharp."

Now the way I read those two views, they are completely at odds. Can you please tell me where I might have misinterpreted the apparent disparity?

Thank you in advance for illuminating me.

[PacAce]

Pacman wrote: "Coming straight out of the camera and without any processing, images converted from RAW and JPEG images are so identical that you really can't tell them apart."

The Canon expert, in the video previously referenced said in his second and third sentences: "RAW files coming out of the camera looking soft - how come? JPEG's come out sharp."

Now the way I read those two views, they are completely at odds. Can you please tell me where I might have misinterpreted the apparently disparity?

Thank you in advance for illuminating me.

Let me ask you this. Do you have a Canon DSLR camera? If so, why not be a little adventuresome and try shooting in RAW and in JPEG and see for yourself. There's nothing like learning from your own personal experiences.

[RomanB]

Pacman wrote: "Obviously you've misread or misunderstood what you read in these sites that you referenced because I read those references, too, and nothing I said contradicts what was written there. Maybe you would like to point out specific quotes from either or both of these site?

I guess we just forget about the apparent contradiction. And yes, I happen to have a Canon 20D and I have shot in RAW and JPEG. My conclusions are the same as the Canon expert - and based "on my own personal experience."

[Scottes]

I'm confused here. What conclusions do you have thatare the same as the Canon expert? That RAW files from the camera aren't as sharp as JPGs from the camera?

[RomanB]

EXACTLY! I hope that clears up your confusion.

[Scottes]

Of course the RAW files aren't as sharp. The camera hasn't sharpened or processed them in any way. That's done on purpose, so that the end users can process the RAW files the way they wish.

The JPGs *can* be left relatively unprocessed by setting the correct parameters on the camera. Then the JPGs will be much softer and less saturated. Or you can increase the camera's processing so that the JPGs are even sharper, or more saturated, and so on.

But the RAW files will still be RAW and unprocessed. Again, it's done on purpose, to leave the processing decisions up to the end user, so the users get what they think looks good, not what the camera thinks looks good.

I'd have thought you knew that after reading all those articles by Michael Reichmann.

[RomanB]

"I'd have thought you knew that after reading all those articles by Michael Reichmann."


I think from my posts that it is obvious that I did know that; that was the reason for my posts in the first place. Or did I confuse you again?

[PacAce]

I think from my posts that it is obvious that I did know that; that was the reason for my posts in the first place. Or did I confuse you again?

Well, it seem very obvious to me that you don't really understand what RAW is because a RAW file by itself is not very usable. It needs to be converted into a image that can be diplayed on a screen or printed out. That's called converting the RAW file. Now, in the conversion process, you can elect to convert it using the parameter setting selected in the camera, which is the default, for EVU, FVU and DPP, or you can go out of your way to change the conversion processing anyway you wish. You don't have that option with JPEG. That is why I say, comparing RAW and JPEG, straight out of the camera, with the RAW being converted, obviously, and using the default shot settings, the images from the RAW and JPEG are almost identical.

Now, if you knew all this, you wouldn't have gone on and on about your claim that JPEG images are always sharper that RAW images.

[CyberDyneSystems]

RomanB,
Check your PMs.