Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


JPEG v RAW


oldham e2
11 198 England
28 Jun 2007 12:51AM
Can anyone explain to me the difference between these two files please

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
28 Jun 2007 12:54AM
A JPEG image has been processed by your camera, and a RAW image is unprocessed and has to be processed by you with imaging software.
jjmills e2
9 153 Scotland
28 Jun 2007 8:24AM
Think of RAW as the digital negative...

You can adjust a jpeg image but do more with the negative...
Tooth e2
9 5.8k 227 Ireland
28 Jun 2007 10:56AM
Go to search forums top right and put in jpeg +raw - you'll find several recent threads that should help
dazzaman e2
8 630 England
28 Jun 2007 5:04PM
raw is far superior quality to j peg, but takes a hell of a lot longer to mess around with.

by the way ive got cs2 and want to process a lot of images at once.

how do i do it.
darren.
elowes e2
10 2.8k United Kingdom
28 Jun 2007 5:47PM

Quote:Raw is far superior quality to j peg, but takes a hell of a lot longer to mess around with.


Yes, it is the best but no it is not so difficult nor does it take much longer to 'mess' around with. With a modicum of effort you will get the best result.

Think of it as working in your own darkroom to get the real result you want or going to Boots for a one hour turn round pack of snaps.

If you want images direct from camera and don't intend to do anything with them use jpeg. You can work on jpegs and better the camera results but there are limitations though having said that in most cases you would not know the difference.
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
28 Jun 2007 5:56PM

Quote:takes a hell of a lot longer to mess around with.


A hell of a lot longer? I'm prepared to accept a few seconds (maybe even half a minute) but if its taking you longer than that then somethings rather wrong IMHO.


Quote: ive got cs2 and want to process a lot of images at once. how do i do it.

Personally I don't use CS2 to process raw files but I was under the impression that you could select a load of files in bridge and then batch process them using camera raw.
rossd 11 1.1k England
28 Jun 2007 6:20PM

Quote:Raw is far superior quality to j peg,


Groans out loud and shakes head............
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
28 Jun 2007 6:23PM

Quote:Raw is far superior quality to j peg


Not if you don't process it well. Lol! Wink
miptog e2
9 3.5k 61 United Kingdom
28 Jun 2007 6:57PM
In simple terms: cameras all start with raw data and convert this data to JPG images with hardware in the camera. The conversion is based upon the settings you set in the camera, eg White Balance, Exposure etc. So RAW is unprocessed, ad JPG processed. If you want to make any changes its usually easier to do so with RAW data rather than the processed JPG. The two areas commonly fixed are White Balance and Exposure. Some people also believe that RAW captures better detail than JPG.

The downside of RAW are that the file sizes are much larger, will require processing by specialised RAW software.

If you want the the ability to really fine tune your images, shoot RAW.

Suggest you take a few shots in both RAW and JPEG and see which you prefer.

In the end, its simply personal choice.

Mike
carman e2
8 28 United Kingdom
28 Jun 2007 7:02PM
Landscape or portrait = RAW
Action or snaps =JPEG.
Much faster write times with JPEG so less delays waiting for the camera.
stevemelvin e2
9 675 2 United Kingdom
28 Jun 2007 7:13PM

Quote:Landscape or portrait = RAW
Action or snaps =JPEG.



Pretty much the way I decide which format to use too. With the addition of macro and still life to the RAW list.
Tooth e2
9 5.8k 227 Ireland
28 Jun 2007 11:02PM

Quote:I was under the impression that you could select a load of files in bridge and then batch process them using camera raw


I'm sure you can, and that's probably fine for applying similar settings roughly to a batch from a shoot. but seeing as the wole benefit of RAW is the power to individually optimise each to the best possible extent, then batch processing seems to me to be kind of missing the point.

And I agree with Lobsterboy, once you've got youtr workflow set up, and a bit of practice and got into a way of working, it shouldn't take more than a minute or less per pic

Stephen
29 Jun 2007 5:18AM
Batch processing only works if all the subjects are in same witht he same light. Essentiall a studio shoot or something similar.
I take shots while walking about so the light often changes and the subject is obviously never the same. Batch processing for me won;t work and also misses the point of shooting RAW in the first place IMHO.

What I do is shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time. The JPEG is on the worst quality, smallest size and on a 2G card the JPEG's sizes added together don't even reach that of one RAW image so card capacity is not an issue. I do it this way so when processing I find it easier to view the JPEG's as they load faster and I can have a rough idea of what a processed image could look like which enables me to decide which images on the card are worth processing in RAW. So if a card (2Gb in a 5D) has 150 or so images on it I may only select 20 or 30 that I deem worth while going further with. The method is not exact science but it does enable my workflow to be a little more efficient with my time! The end result is always better than the JPEG image though, which is the whole point of doing it this way!

Most the work done to my images is generally done in the RAW conversion software. This takes less than a minute generally. Photoshop is only really used for cropping and cloning out the dust!
Occasionally I do get to use the full power of PS though but I find a general rule of 15 minutes to be good. That is, if I have been editing an image in photoshop for 15 minutes and I still haven't got anyway near to where I want it to be then something is very wrong. Stop and start again or scrap it entirely. Again, not exact science but it saves my sanity ;-0
Doclassie e2
9 1.1k England
29 Jun 2007 8:04AM
I'm sure its been answered already in this thread.... but JPGs are 8bit and RAW files are 12bit. In practical terms this means a wider dynamic range and much smoother gradations of tone (which is useful for black and white conversions)

I honestly don't see why people who are even slightly serious about their photography don't shoot RAW ... unless you're shooting action and need top fps speed.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.