RAW vs. jpeg

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Conrad - 29 Sep 2006 14:30 GMT

Hi,

I took some inside shots (room with florescent lighting) with my Canon
Digital Rebel set to capture both RAW and jpeg images at the same time
- same shot. Surprisingly (or, not so surprisingly) the jpeg images
looked much better. Now I understand that RAW images have not been
tweaked in camera - wheras, jpeg's have been altered with camera
software. However, the jpeg images looked very good right out of the
box.

Michael Guncheon, in his book on Canon Digital Rebel (Magic Lantern
Guides), suggests high resolution jpeg's may be very acceptable as an
alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space
on memory card).

It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions
and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg.

I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is
today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high
resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same
shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and
see if there are any differences in final prints in examination.

Poor or weak shots might be better helped from RAW files and tweaking -
I don't know.

OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade
bread.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Reply to this Message

Don Stauffer in Minnesota - 29 Sep 2006 14:40 GMT

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon

I kind of liken it to darkroom work. Did you do a lot of burning,
dodging, trying various contrast papers for a negative? RAW has a lot
more dynamic range for those shots that aren't quite exposed exactly
on. If exposure is good, and you don't want to do a lot of tweaking,
JPEG can be fine. JPEG does not lose resolution, only tonal scale.

Paper prints do not have a lot of tonal scale capability anyway. If the
jpeg is close to what you want, and you don't need to do a lot of
editing, it is fine. If you need to do a lot of tweaking, you'd be
better off with RAW.

Reply to this Message

Rod Williams - 29 Sep 2006 15:05 GMT

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon

My XT does a great job with jpg too. If you get correct exposures and
color balance all the time then maybe you don't need RAW. I am not that
good and usually have to tweak mine, so I shoot RAW when I feel that my
subject is important enough to need the added security. I do have to
admit, I have done some drastic corrections to jpg with very good
results. Don't let anyone tell you you can't correct jpg's because you
can, just not nearly as much as RAW.

Reply to this Message

bmoag - 29 Sep 2006 16:21 GMT

Do you like your photos "good enough" or the best that they can be?
Choose well, for one choice is irreversible and the other infinitely
mutable.

Reply to this Message

John McWilliams - 29 Sep 2006 16:34 GMT

> OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade
> bread.

Conrad- I have never known you to be so trollish!

<s>

In any event, there's a time and place for RAW, and same for JPEG in my
work flows.

One's mileage will vary, IIRC, and TTFN!

Signature

John McWilliams

There was a television ad for M$ Outlook with the sequentia "Confutatis"
from Mozart's Requiem (K 626) rising in the background.

"Where do you want to go today?" flashes on the screen while the chorus
sings: 'Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis,' ["The damned
and accursed are convicted to the flames of hell."]

Reply to this Message

PTravel - 29 Sep 2006 17:22 GMT

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space
> on memory card).

A couple of points:

As you note, RAW is not "tweaked" so it's not surprising that, for some
shots, your jpegs look better "out of the box." However, RAW also offers
the possibility for a far greater range of correction. For example, you can
recover over-exposed highlights that might otherwise simply appear "blown"
on a jpeg, and you can do this on a channel-by-channel basis. There are
also programs available that can create an "averaged" image, selectively
combining parts of the image to compensate for over- or under-exposure. The
net result is far greater dynamic range than is possible with a
camera-processed jpeg. Finally, remember that jpeg is a lossy format -- you
are losing picture detail right off the bat, which may be an issue if you do
much correction to the image, or make large prints.

> It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions
> and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon

Reply to this Message

Scott W - 29 Sep 2006 17:32 GMT

> I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is
> today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high
> resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same
> shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and
> see if there are any differences in final prints in examination.

If you only shoot jpeg then you are loosing a lot of the dynamic range
that the camera is capable of. For a lot of shots this might note
matter but for a lot of other shots it can me a real lifesaver to have
the extra headroom.

BTW if you use Canon's raw converter you should get almost exactly
the same jpeg from is as you do from the camera, if you use the camera
settings for the conversion.

Here is an example of what raw can get you, the top is the jpeg image
from the camera and the bottom is from the raw image.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980

We were on a cruise ship going passed pretty fast and so there were
only a few seconds to grab the shot, not nearly enough time to do a
careful check for metering. If I had being shooting jpeg only I would
have been pretty unhappy with the resulting photo.

Scott

Reply to this Message

Gary Edstrom - 29 Sep 2006 20:50 GMT

>OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade
>bread.
>
>Best,
>
>Conrad

Well, it depends. Are you trying to create a fine work of art, or are
you simply taking pictures for personal pleasure? RAW implies that
you want to spend some time at your computer tweaking the picture to
perfection. Is the picture worth the extra time?

My Canon 20D has the capability of saving both a JPEG and RAW version
of the same picture. If I am in doubt, I set it to this mode, and
review the resulting pictures when I get home. If I like the JPEG, I
delete the RAW. Most of my shooting, however, is done in the JPEG
only mode with minimum compression. I have been VERY happy with my
results.

Gary

Reply to this Message

W (winhag) - 29 Sep 2006 23:10 GMT

Another variable is what you use to convert the RAW file. You will get
different results from different RAW conversion software.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be one that is the 'best' some do
better in some areas some in other areas. I typically use the RAW
conversion built into Photoshop. While overall it is good. I know from
experience, there are certain areas where it falls short of the Canon
conversion (and vice versa) :(

> >OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade
> >bread.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Gary

Reply to this Message

Conrad - 30 Sep 2006 14:01 GMT

Hi,

Thanks all for your useful comments. Really appreciated.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Reply to this Message