Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
When I first got into DSLRs I ran into the RAW Vs JPEG debate - we all do.
I took my time over it and for my own peace of mind tried to nail the thing down - I wanted to do the best I could with my images. Here's what I discovered. It's a lot to read on the screen, but you can copy it for your own use. I hope it's useful to anyone starting out:
Most Digital SLRs will allow you to shoot in two formats: RAW and best quality, high resolution JPEG. Despite the fact that RAW files use up significantly more camera storage space than JPGs, they are the preferred format choice among most professional photographers.
What is a RAW file? RAW images are extremely high-quality images that are not degraded by compression algorithms when recorded. However, they are not supported by most image editing programs in their native format, so they must be converted before use (Canon Inc. Software Starter Guide, p. 33).
What is a JPEG? The JPEG standard was written by the committee known as the Joint Photographic Experts Group, and it was designed for compressing full color or grayscale images (in particular, photographs and similar high-quality artwork). JPEG is a lossy file format; when the JPEG algorithm compresses the image, it reduces the size by chucking bits of the image away. How does it know what to lose? JPEG compression plays on the fact that the human eye can only see so much. We have trouble seeing small color changes, so JPEG loses some of this subtle information."
Which format should you use? Logically, and at face value, the choice seems obvious RAW is best. But theres much more to it than that. In fact, shooting RAW images all the time might not be best approach for you.
If nothing else the following quotes from professionals and forum users prove that a photographers intelligent choice of shooting format is very much dependant on his or her personal goals and preferences. Remember, whatever format you use in the field, its always best to edit your images in a format that doesnt degrade with use TIFF, for example.
Those Who Should Know
RAW conversion is defined as the way to interpolate the missing other colors in the RGB image.
"For JPG and TIFF files this interpolation is done by the processor chip in the camera and also, to save processing time, it is done for 8 bits of the available 12 bits of pixel information. In this process the other 4 bits are discarded unused.
Now we can explain why the RAW file can be compact and still keep all 12 bits of colour information. The RAW file is a dump of the grey scale data that the CCD captures, and it is then compressed by a mostly lossless compression scheme. This is what gives us a compact file and even more colour information than the JPG/TIFF files produced inside the camera (Digital Outback Photo).
JPEG has been widely criticized for the fact that every time you save a JPEG image some image data is lost due to compression. There is a cumulative effect since this occurs every time you save the image It takes repeated saving of the data before any kind of degradation becomes obvious As a general rule of thumb, low-res JPEGs will show degradation much more quickly than hi-res JPEGs (Jim McGee, vividlight.com).
I've had very good results shooting in the JPEG High image quality setting. I like the number of images I can put on my CF card and the results I'm getting making 13x19 prints from digital capture. However, I know that the RAW file (Nikon's NEF file) stores the maximum amount information or data within each photographic capture without losing anything to compression. Compare JPEG's 8 bit per channel or about 256 shades of gray per channel and 16.7 million colors, to the RAW file that allows you to capture the camera's 12 bits, 4,096 shades of gray per channel, the approximate 68.7 billion colors, and you can quickly see how the RAW file can be very useful in capturing the subtle details of an image just as you experienced it. This is also important information should you decide to make large high-quality prints (Gary W Stanley, vividlight.com).
The mode I shoot in all of the time no matter the subject or final use is the highest Jpeg setting available (Moose Peterson).
you've probably been told is that Raw files are 12-bits and JPEG files are 8-bits so they're 'better'. However that is apples vs. oranges. The 12-bit CCD is a linear encoding of light. Each of the 4096 levels represents an equal number of photons. The human visual system's response to light isn't linear though. Humans are sensitive to percentage changes in light, not absolute changes. So at the high end of the 4096 values there is "too much" information (the brightest stop of light is represented by 2048 separate values, from 2048 to 4095) while at the low end of the 4096 values there is "too little" information (the darkest stop of light is represented by only 2 values, 1 and 2!).
The camera uses a tone curve (essentially a modified gamma curve) to push that a little further, into an 8-bit (256-value) encoding. Sure there is some small loss of mathematical detail, but if the tone curve is the right one for the image and you don't need to move the exposure after the fact you'll be hard pressed to see the difference. And since essentially every output device in common use is 8-bits or less per color, your software is going to need to do convert the image to 8-bits per color at some point in any case. The only advantage of doing it on the computer is that you can change your mind or re-purpose the image after the fact by doing it several different ways.
A very similar argument is also heard about JPEG compression. There is a gnawing fear that somehow because JPEG is a "lossy" compression algorithm you'll be throwing away that vital pixel. The truth is that modern JPEG compression when used with the High quality settings found in modern D-SLRs or Photoshop is essentially visually lossless if used only once or twice on an image. There is no question that by forcing the choice of exposure, tone curve, and white balance at the time of capture JPEGs limit your options to change your mind after the fact just like slide film did. But that doesn't mean that slides aren't as good as negatives or that JPEGs aren't as good as RAW files. It means you need to decide on your goals for your photography and about which format fits your shooting needs and style (David Cardinal, NikonDigital.org).
Our findings are that up to ISO 400 there's little difference between RAW and JPEG images, obviously if you have the storage (and time to convert the images later) then RAW provides more flexibility, but it also limits the number of frames you can shoot on a single card and the burst abilities of the camera. At ISO 800 and 1600 it appears that the noise introduced into the image generates increased noise when shot in JPEG rather than RAW, this is probably because of the way the JPEG algorithm works, thus in nearly every test there was always less green channel noise in RAW images (dpreview.com).
From Forums:
Raw camera files are proprietary formats that do not allow saving out. Raw files are raw captures off a chip in a linear form of R, G, G, B arrays that are grey scale files in nature.
I've also found that for most situations the highest quality JPG is difficult (if not impossible) to pick out from a RAW image on my Fuji S2, EXCEPT under difficult lighting conditions, where the RAW formats options can provide a superior image.
There are two primary advantages to raw files. The first is that the white balance has not yet been applied to the image data (on most cameras, at least). If you do not white balance correctly, fixing it later in a raw file is a non-destructive change. In a JPEG you will lose some data as you are actually changing values rather than merely their interpretation.
The second benefit, again with many but not all cameras, is that the raw format typically offers more bits to work with than does an 8-bit JPEG. If you need to do heavy Photoshopping on the file, this helps prevent posterization or banding. Otherwise, the formats are similar. A raw file contains no more dynamic range than does a jpeg, just finer resolution within that range.
From what I understand, JPEG compresses most over areas of low detail. If you try to pull this detail out or even adjust the contrast over a smooth area, the artifacts will become VERY noticeable. This is *much* less a problem with higher quality values, but the possibility is still there. Avoid JPEG if you can.
you don't see any easily discernable differences between JPEG and RAW-based images, when seen at a normal viewing distance. JPEG is designed to look just the real thing, where your eye normally doesn't notice all the missing bits.
in my opinion, the greatest value of RAW over JPEG is workflow BUT the bottom line is, can yourreally see the difference just by picking the printed pictures up? In other words, you can not walk into a room and say, "That was shot in JPEG, and that was shot in RAW".
[Im a] photographer professional & semi-professional for 40+ years unless you examine a finished print at a magnification that no average person would use, it would be very difficult if not impossible to see the difference. I use this as part of an exercise with my students and have yet to find anyone who is able to tell the difference.
RAW is the closest practical thing you can get to 'unsullied', when extracting shots from a camera
Shooting RAW allows the educated digital photographer the ability to capture a moment with the most detail and in a way that a jpeg shooter cannot.
I photograph 5 to 10 thousand children a year. JPGs make beautiful 16x or 20x . If I want to do portraits I can shoot RAW. If I do schools I use JPGs. I love the versatility. Weddings, JPGs.
I just can't seem to get final images that look as good starting with Raw conversions as I can with the JPEGs! ...except for where I have had to rescue one deeply underexposed image, I've been able to make consistently better results from the embedded JPEGs than from the CS Raw conversions!
I have several magazines that I work for on a contract basis for doing various assignments. I have also been a press photographer. I use a 10D with a D60 as backup. All I have ever used is large fine JPEG. If the exposure is good, very little work needs to be done to the file. With instant feedback it is a simple process to get a correct exposure. I can see all the RAW purists having fits and leaping forward to denounce me, but I have a pretty good balance sheet showing that my clients are happy.
When I first got my 10D I tried both RAW and JPEG and decided that the time factor using RAW far outweighed the gains in quality. Yes there may be gains in quality with RAW, but every RAW converter I used gave different results - none of which were exactly what I wanted anyway.
The resultant image from an adeptly edited JPEG can easily look better than a Raw Conversion edited with inferior techniques/tools.
even if you know how to expose your pictures properly, the JPEGs are oftentimes unpredictable in the highlight and shadow area.
Another reason for shooting RAW is that a conversion process may be developed sometime down the road that will have the possibility of much better data mining than the current converters, and I'd have the RAW files on disk, waiting to be re-converted.
The best reason to use RAW over .jpg is depth of color. You probably know 10D RAW [and 300D] has a color depth of 12 bits, this allows for 4096 shades of red, 4096 green, and 4096 blue. When converted to a 16 bit tiff, it will have 65,536 shades of red, 65,536 green, and 65,536 blue available. .jpg has a maximum of 256 shades of red, 256 green, and 256 blue. There is 16 times the color depth available by using RAW vs .jpg, and another 16 times that once you begin post processing. I feel this is very important if your subject has lots of detail (landscapes for example). RAW compliments but does not replace talent.
At the end of the process there is the output.
One can talk about billions of colours but will the output - PC screen, type of printing paper etc. - support it?
So perhaps the answer is to work backwards from output to see what is the best for you? That is obviously what some photographers do judging by the quotes above. Very sensible.
Thanks for all the trouble you've gone to to post this. 
I'd like to agree with Carabosse - thanks for collecting and posting all this. I've recently converted to RAW shooting, and it's very interesting to read others experiences with it.
Paul
Thanks.
I have to say that I'm not yet ENTIRELY convinced about the merits of RAW generally, although I really would like to be!
In the past I've made JPEG originals, saved immediately as TIFFs (or my image-editing software format), done extensive editing work, and finally output as JPEGs again and got results on a par, if not better, than professionally hand printed photographs of my negatives.
I spent a lot of time looking into this subject (and RAW conversion software, too) for my website and one aspect of the debate that came up regularly was how alike quality RAW and JPEG prints were.
RAW makes a lot of sense, seems watertight, and the theory looks great on paper with more colour depth and greater shadow detail, etc, but the final printed image is the decider.
Interesting too that my pro lab scans film to CD as hi-res JPEGs, the accepted industry standard.
For me, after quite a bit of research, the jury is still out, but whatever process you use, I hope it delivers the quality you're after.
Sam
I shoot RAW all the time now....the scope that it gives for post-processing is quite mind-boggling.....I think that in a few years we will change our attitude to making photographs (more make than take..!) and see the post-processing as the really creative part of constructing the image.......capture is as important as it ever was for composition etc but working in the lightroom instead of the darkroom provides much more latitude to create mood and atmosphere in the shot than was the case with film....
I'm not trying to start a film vs digi war again...merely suggesting that capturing and processing in RAW will fundamentally alter our approach to photography in the future
phil
True Bri, much as I said in a similar thread. If youve got blown highlights, o so easy to just tweak it down a bit! There will always be advocates of both formats. Noel Carboni, who writes in the Rob Galbraith site,(www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=) and who turns out some excellent stuff, is a very switched on guy, and he claims there is nothing in RAW that he cannot do in jpeg! Some of his shots are convincing arguments. 
Sam, you seem confused by RAW and Tiff. You won't find any printed RAW files, only ones that have been converted into .tiff files or .jpgs. The beauty of shooting in RAW is the control that you have over the image before you convert it into whatever imaging software you use.
Sorry Keith, I didn't explain myself too well...
I know through experience that RAW files need to be loaded into image-editing software and saved as TIFFs, or whatever is appropriate. Then they can be printed onto photographic paper (digital prints) or any other preferable method.
My postion (or lack of it!) might be clearer from my site - theimageplane.net - (not a plug, just a fact!). I've done a lot of image-editing over the years, including correcting colour casts when film was shot indoors under various light conditions(correcting white balance?).
I've had a go at RAW shooting (and will again soon) and editing over several frustrating hours using C1 Rebel and Canon's software packaged with the 300D. To my eyes, time and time again, I could replicate RAW images that were adjusted in RAW-editing software. I've occasionally come across side-by-side images on the Web that show the benefits of RAW editing, and replicated those in my favoured image-editing software.
But I don't like to take sides in this. I need lots more experience in this, perhaps...
The level of debate among experienced dedicated photographers (see above and many other examples on the Web) proves to me that using RAW is not necessarily the best way for everyone to produce high quality photographs.
Sam
I shoot only in JPEG Fine mode. Funnily enough I never seem to have any trouble editing JPEGs. Removing colour casts is easy-peasy in PS... couple of clicks of the mouse button usually using the colour cast tool.
However, I only edit in PSD format and only ever resave once (as a JPEG) using the highest setting.
I wish I could show some of you my prints of JPEGs edited in this way. Pin sharp, great colour depth and not a trace of artefacts. Any defects are purely due to operator error when taking the pic. Lol!!
The caveat is that I do not print larger than A4 so it may be that RAW would have an advantage beyond that size.
Hi all
I have to say that RAW is definitely the way to go if you want to be certain of producing the best from your captured file.
Capturing in JPEG or any other mode is a bit like taking your negatives to Boots for processing, telling them to keep the negatives and only taking the prints and later on deciding you want to have an enlargement or whatever and so you have to scan the print.
Yes, you will get acceptable results on many occassions but it would have been better to have started wiuth the negative.
You do need to look at RAW files as a digital negative. It is not just about quality . Lets be honest, the majority of people using digital cameras are just the same people using any other type of camera. They may be photo enthusiasts but most of their photographs will never leave the computer and those that do are unlikely to get printed up to any size beyond 10"x8" or so in which case - what the heck
There is also one other consideration.
I trialed one of the first 'serious' DSLRs which was the Nikon D1 (I am ignoring Kodak's early efforts).
This was a poor camera from the point of view of image quality (strong colour casts and poor image definition) and having reviewed the camera for a magazine, I decided that digital was not for me at that time. However, Nikon took on board all the issues and produced the Nikon D1X which was a major step forward and a very good camera.
In those days, RAW image processing software was in it's infancy and although Nikon (and latterly Canon) released their SDK (Software Development Kit) to third parties to develop their own RAW converters) there were very few options available.
Now, you have many companies offering RAW conversion software from the vendors own to companies like PhaseOne (without a doubt, the best software available).
I recently used my PhaseOne product to re-convert an old RAW file from 4 years ago (it's a photo that is being used as a DPS in a magazine for next month). The difference between the converted image from 4 years ago and that from the PhaseOne software is astonishing.
To my point at last.
If you use a RAW file, you are using in effect a 'negative'. This means that the file you have contains all the RAW data for composing that image. As software technology improves, it is quite likely (as I have tried to demonstrate) that you can improve the quality of the image 'developed' from this RAW file. The range of tones now extractable from a RAW file by the PhaseOne software is incredible. I can see tones in my new image I never knew existed after my original conversion. Recovering blown highlights and extracting detail in shadow areas is also something that is only possible with any degree of certainty with a RAW file.
If you save as a JPEG - what you see is what you get. There is no RAW data to work on and so whilst you can change the appearance of the image (colour, conmtrast, brightness etc), you cannot possibly extract any nore details from the image. If you have blown the highlights, then whilst you can make changes to alleviate to a small degree the affect of this, you cannot truly recover them - likewise, shadow detail once lost (i.e by saving as JPEG) is not recoverable.
Remember, if you haven't captured it, it cannot be extracted and the only way to ensure that you have captured all possible image information is to save it in RAW format
Barrie
I interpret Barrie's post above as broad agreement that up to about A4 size it really doesn't matter whether you shoot in RAW or JPEG. Beyond that it could matter for highly critical work.
But that working with RAW is much like working in a darkroom with film. Skill - and good modern extraction software - is required and not everyone will want, or indeed need, to work with RAW files.
But for the great majority of us snappers, a JPEG at highest quality is all that is necessary.
(Hope that is an accurate summary).
So what happens to me literally a couple of hours after posting the above?
I go and shoot some outdoor pics with the white balance custom set to an indoor setting!!!! Fate taking a hand, methinks. :-(
Luckily I checked after doing a few and was able to reshoot but the best pics are nice and blue all over. Oh well, thank heavens for PS eh?
I think Barrie has put the case for RAW quite well. When I worked as a pro I did very little colour work in print, it was 95% slide. However when the arm was twisted to do a wedding I only used the best film and took that film to a high quality pro lab. If I was a guest at the wedding then somewhere like Boots would have been good enough.
I feel it's the same with digital. If I really want to get the shot it has to be RAW. The image captured has far more information stored, therefore I can get more information out of it. The average JPEG capture at its highest setting on my camera is 4 to 5mb, with RAW its 12.5mb, 3 times the information. It's like taking a shot with a 35mm film and then taking one with a 6x7 film. The 6x7 will have more information.
Another advantage, as pointed out by Carabosse's mis adventure above is that I just leave the while balance on auto and hey ho away I go. The other advantage is that I bloody well enjoy getting the very best out of my camera and soft ware.
Unless you try RAW and convert with good soft ware then how can you tell the difference. I've tried both and can see a difference and think that RAW is the way to go for the important shot.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top