RAW vs JPG

Kenski wrote in post #5721294
Oh no... That wasn't the point of this thread.. Like I said, it was stated that if you can expose and WB correctly, then there should be no reason to shoot in raw. Im NO professional so RAW is the way for me lol

Sorry, the talk about RAW vs JPEG seems always slips into comparison game...
I'm like you do not shoot right all the time, and sometimes cannot even convert it right.
that is why I need raw. there is no need to compare of two images shot in perfect condition
We know they will be the same.

In2Photos wrote in post #5718837
Yup I sure could. All I have to do is right click and click on properties. The JPEG converted from RAW will be larger. Why do you think that is?

Because the RAW converter used a different JPEG compression setting than the camera did when saving the JPEG. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or contents of the image being saved - just what setting was used when finally saving the image.

gcogger wrote in post #5721918
Because the RAW converter used a different JPEG compression setting than the camera did when saving the JPEG. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or contents of the image being saved - just what setting was used when finally saving the image.

actually more compression = less quality, so...

But then again: Less compression = more IQ, right?
(Not that anyone will be able to see the difference)

edit: Damn, blinded beat me to it

Raw gives you more editing headroom. If you really want to post a comparison between JPG and RAW, showing just a processed RAW with "as shot" settings is not going to tell the whole story. From that same raw file you could post many different variations of the image, where if you tried to do the same variations with a jpg the image would start to fall apart due to banding, posterization, color shifts etc. You can do things that aren't just about fixing errors. What if you want to really push the tone curve around for a certain aesthetic?

Now while I certainly prefer to shoot in RAW, I did end up switching to JPG at the recent Air Races here in Detroit, because I wanted the incresed amount of frames the camera could buffer and the total amount of shots I could take with the amount of compact flash I had on hand

It's nice to see this topic finally settle down into common sense comments. A few years back, things could and would get pretty heated over who was "right". Some defenders of the RAW format even left forums because of their views.

As mentioned earlier, RAW is a good tool at the right time and place. We shoot for money at horse shows.

When the shot calls for 'special' handling, we just hit the back buttons and jump into the needed format/quality. It is easy enough to go back to shooting whatever was called for.

Kind of a sweet opportunity that came over from the old film camera and processing workflow.

If you need it, RAW can be a deal maker for a shooter who is under pressure from a session in the arena.

blinded wrote in post #5721940
actually more compression = less quality, so...

OK, let me rephrase it. A larger JPEG image size tells you nothing at all about the quality of the image before it was saved. Yes, if you choose too much JPEG compression then the process of saving the file will cause the quality to degrade. This degradation will not be visible for a 'fine' quality JPEG from the camera.

I was arguing against the implication, made a couple of times in this thread (and many times elsewhere!) that the fact that a RAW converter produces bigger JPEG files than the camera means that the RAW converted image contains more information...

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #5722112
It's nice to see this topic finally settle down into common sense comments. A few years back, things could and would get pretty heated over who was "right". Some defenders of the RAW format even left forums because of their views.

Yeah Jon, It's nice to see a civil discussion. I got beat up pretty badly during those times by a couple of jpg defenders. I didn't leave because of that, but just ignored post from them. My point then as well as now is - whatever works for you at the moment.

I would take issue with your basis for saying that. To me, "Because the RAW converter used a different JPEG compression setting than the camera did when saving the JPEG." means the image contains more information, so is a higher quality.
So I'll keep shooting RAW, regardless of your reasoning.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5725144
I would take issue with your basis for saying that. To me, "Because the RAW converter used a different JPEG compression setting than the camera did when saving the JPEG." means the image contains more information, so is a higher quality.
So I'll keep shooting RAW, regardless of your reasoning.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that RAW doesn't have more information - by definition it does. After all, the camera produces the JPEG from the RAW data and JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm.

What is correctly being pointed out is that file size on its own is not necessarily a good indication of quality. You can resave that camera JPEG with a higher quality setting and all of a sudden it gets bigger. Obviously there is not more information than the original - but it is bigger.

e-k

Kenski wrote in post #5721294
Oh no... That wasn't the point of this thread.. Like I said, it was stated that if you can expose and WB correctly, then there should be no reason to shoot in raw. Im NO professional so RAW is the way for me lol

I would disagree with that, still. Some might say that a pro never needs to shoot raw because they get all that right... but shooting RAW is like having the negative to work from, then allowing contrast adjustments via papers or filters, and allowing dodging & burning as well as color adjustments with a greater amount of information to work from. That's just as valuable to a pro as it is anyone else because often times you know going in to a scene your camera isn't going to give you the result you ultimately want and that some amount of PPing is going to be needed. In those cases, I think it would be illogical to shoot JPG and miss out on having the extra information to work from.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5725144
I would take issue with your basis for saying that. To me, "Because the RAW converter used a different JPEG compression setting than the camera did when saving the JPEG." means the image contains more information, so is a higher quality.
So I'll keep shooting RAW, regardless of your reasoning.

If you take the same image and save it at 2 different compression levels then the larger file is theoretically better. There comes a point, however, when increasing the file size makes no visible difference. The size of images produced by a Canon camera in max quality JPEG mode is almost certainly beyond that point, so the fact that you can make a larger JPEG from a RAW file is meaningless. If you're worried about that sort of thing, then save as TIFF.

You've often tried to suggest that the fact that your JPEGs from RAW files are bigger than the ones from the camera means that they must contain more data. This is absolutely not true. I can take a blurred photo with poor contrast (in RAW) and save it as a larger file than a sharp, high contrast JPEG from the camera. JPEG file size is almost completely irrelevant to the RAW vs JPEG discussion.

By the way - I shoot RAW pretty much 100% of the time and would hate to be forced to shoot JPEGs. The compression level of the in-camera JPEGs, however, has nothing to do with it.

I haven't tested an untweaked image, so maybe if you get the jpg dead on in the camera, you won't see a difference. But there are some examples on page 2, post #58, that illustrate easily seen information loss in a web jpeg derived from a RAW file & one shot in the camera if you make a small white balance change.

E-K wrote in post #5720723
Convert them both to uncompressed TIFF and they are both going to be the same size.

actually no... because a JPG is 8bit

a 12/14bit RAW is opened as a 16bit TIFF has more information and so when saved will be much larger

theres a reason why medium format digital cameras shoot 16bit RAW's

IMHO, i think those who shoot JPG, don't have the knowledge to shoot RAW

Bobster wrote in post #5727733
actually no... because a JPG is 8bit

a 12/14bit RAW is opened as a 16bit TIFF has more information and so when saved will be much larger

theres a reason why medium format digital cameras shoot 16bit RAW's

IMHO, i think those who shoot JPG, don't have the knowledge to shoot RAW

Well actually no . If I save the JPEG as a 16-bit TIFF it will be the same size as a raw file saved as a 16-bit TIFF. The reason is that an uncompressed TIFF is a fixed size (ignoring additional meta-data), for a given colour depth and dimensions.

e-k