Raw vs JPEG

Maybe an allready asked question.

But what is the MAIN difference in quality between raw and Jpeg. On the monitor the difference is hardly seen, except when zooming in.

However I heared dynamics/colors are higher with raw.

It would figure because you are not leveling on an allready compressed picture. At this moment I only shoot JPEG large, but for important things I will switch to RAW, I'm a bit affraid for my HD space , I shoot between 100-200 shots a week.

Could someone confirm this.

Greetings,
Frank

J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
Maybe an allready asked question.

But what is the MAIN difference in quality between raw and Jpeg. On the monitor the difference is hardly seen, except when zooming in.

However I heared dynamics/colors are higher with raw.

It would figure because you are not leveling on an allready compressed picture. At this moment I only shoot JPEG large, but for important things I will switch to RAW, I'm a bit affraid for my HD space , I shoot between 100-200 shots a week.

Could someone confirm this.

Greetings,
Frank

There are two main differences:

1. JPEG's are compressed, and that compression produces some artifacts in the form of false details and pixelation. In fine mode, I have not found the artifacts to be apparent on prints up to 13x19.

2. JPEG produces 8-bit color files, while RAW produces 12-bit color files. What is the difference? The number of intermediate levels that can be recorded in each color channel. Both produce the same highlights and shadows and have the same dynamic range, but RAW gives you more intermediate shades. You can therefore stretch and pull those shades within Photoshop to a greater extent without making the gaps between them apparent (called posterization). The difference between 8 and 12 bits is important. 8 bits can describe 255 levels of color between zero and maximum saturation, and 12 bits can describe 4096 level of color between zero and maximum saturation. It is only a problem when you need to make large moves in the tone curve, such as stretching a grossly underexposed image or pulling up a lot of shadow detail while maintaining good sky color. If the exposure and gradation of the image is pretty close after you make the exposure, then you can probably do just fine with the 8-bit color.

Rick "who usually uses JPEG and only occasionally--so far--wishes he'd used RAW" Denney

Bottom line for me - JPEGs are cracking shots at best setting but what you have is a finished compressed JPEG, adjustments made to the image degrade it (albeit upto 10x8 you may not notice some adjustments.

RAW requires a workflow (which required BB or Adobe or C1 LE) but if you do shoots for clients on a regular basis you can obtain better results and a simlified workflow.

My advice download C1 LE for the 15 days trial, shoot RAW and if this works and you can live with it you have made your decision (C1 LE is about as easy as it gets).

If it doesn't work stick with JPEG (its not a bad second choice).

Many pros (who can be certain of exposure etc) work in JPEG, don't let the subject JPEG cs RAW distract from your photography they both work well.

John

Also RAW let you correct camera settings (as WB, contrast, saturation, sharpening, and even to some extent exposure compensation) AFTER the picture is taken in your PC, without image degradation. Also, the generated TIFF will have a 4:4:4 color subsampling, against 4:2:2 JPEG subsampling, so you will have better red and blue resolution. I know the info is interpolated but I've made comparisons between a JPEG (4:2:2) and a TIFF 8-bit (4:4:4) generated from the same RAW file, and the reds and blues were more natural in the TIFF, without the staircase effects present in the JPEG version in a very contrasted red/black border.

Yes, the ability to correct the white balance is a biggie, and one that I'd forgotten. It's mighty hard to do in Photoshop!

Rick "who can fix saturation in sharpening in PS, but not white balance" Denney

Ok,

I will start using RAW mainly.
I'm very picky in colordetails and thought I saw the difference but was not sure (I only have the 10D a week).

I use the RAW plugin for Adobe, bought it primarly for JPEG-2000 on my old camera but that is never used .

Greetings,
Frank

When I have a photo taken under less than the ideal conditions, only RAW holds enough image detail to work with. This link points to an example:

http://www.haskellct.c​om …hp?photo=447&ex​hibition=9

Here's an existing light shot (in a pub) at ISO 1000. If you select "Original" at the lower left of the exhibit window you'll see the image prior to processing with C1LE (not a great shot, but it demonstrates white balance control and noise reduction possible with a Raw file).

Flexibility makes the extra effort wih RAW images worth while for me.
_____
David

What is the best program to work with RAW files?

msvirick,

Here's a link to a Camera Raw review that contains links to discussion for Breezebrowser, YarcPlus and Capture One (available as C1LE for Windows based users).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …software/camera​-raw.shtml

These are all excellent programs... I have personally become partial to C1LE; when the Macintosh update (for 10D) comes out I'll be purchasing it immediately (Note: the OSX version CaptureOne with 10D support will only be for C1Pro $400 vs $99 for C1LE).

_______
David