RAW vs JPEG Debate

Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...

you can also do HDR without bracketing. :D

*gonna be ordering a camera that can shoot in RAW on friday. (/dance)

I thought I would expand this to include two more mediums RAW v JPEG v PSD v TIFF

I capture in RAW and edit and save using PSD so that all my work is captured so that it can all be redone if I deem it necessary.

JPEG - I only use this for the WEB and nothing else.

TIFF - I use this for archiving. The reason for this is that it is the only format which is guaranteed to be available in the long term - RAW changes per camera and the chances for the software to be available for Canon CR2 or CRW or any of their other RAW formats in 10 years time is pretty small - that goes for Nikon and all the other manufacturers.

PSD changes depending on Adobe's needs but if you store with migration in mind then there is a good chance it will be around longer than the RAW software.

JPEG - lossy compression and JPEG 2000 is taking off too slowly to be guaranteed to be around in 10+ years.

TIFF - its the only one that most Governments see as being around in 20 years time and recommended for archiving important documents as well as not loosing any information from the photo through lossy compression.

This then leads to the discussion for the archive medium - how much longer will DVD's be around in their current format? Be prepared to move to other formats in the near future.

I could go on about this for a long time as I am in IT and currently working on archiving projects which need storage of documetns for a minimum of 50 years (Ouch!).

Roger

Benjamin,

I hope you don't mind me hijaking the thread, if you do please get the moderator to delete it and I'll start another thread on this issue.

I think its important to store things properly for longevity,

Roger

[QUOTE=benjikan]..In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.
..
QUOTE]

RAW is like a negative. It's an intermediary step which allows you to do lots of changes and make the image the way it should be. It even allows you do go back and do it all over again if you want.

JPG is the finished product, optimised for storage online (i.e. with less bit depth and compressed). I've never noticed any difference between a print made from RAW and a print made from JPG fine.

I shoot RAW all the time. Once I've produced the JPG from it the RAW gets archived offline and is more or less forgotten.

I shoot Raw because, with the proper workflow, Raw delivers more information to the final print. In most cases, with today's technology, the difference is not directly observable. However, it can become significant on images that need a lot of post-processing work.

@Roger: Are you really so certain that TIFF will survive as a dominant format? TIFF was developed by Aldus and Microsoft Corp, and the specification was owned by Aldus, which in turn merged with Adobe Systems, Incorporated. Consequently, Adobe Systems now holds the Copyright for the TIFF specification.TIFF is a trademark, formerly registered to Aldus, and which is now claimed (though not yet registered) by Adobe Systems, Inc. Adobe Systems has also been busy of late deveoping the Digital Negative, or DNG format. It's being touted as a universal format that carries all the information of a Raw file. Adobe Systems has gone so far as to provide DNG converter free of charge.

Now, in today's world, Adobe would be foolish to suddenly drop all support of the TIFF format. However, I can see a scenario in the not-too-distant future where Adobe phases out the TIFF format in favor of their new brainchild. It is of note that Adobe's own engineers are decidedly mum about the way they see the future.

I'm not saying you're wrong Roger, just that I wish I had your optimism. I see it as a crapshoot. Does Adobe go with an accepted standard, or push for having rights to the first widely accepted universal Raw file format?

One thing is for certain. As Raw becomes more and more popular, the stakes get higher and higher.

- Joe U.

The TIFF format can be used by any application and nearly all applications support it - (haven't found one that does not support it yet).

All Governments that I am aware of support and require TIFF as an archive for photographs and images where lossy formats are not acceptable.

If Adobe tried to make this proprietary (huge license cost) and change it the backlash from the industry and governments would be very painful to Adobe. There are no guarantees in this industry and anything could happen. However this is the safest bet at this time.

Roger

I shoot in both RAW and JPEG formats depending on the situation, however with the addition of PS CS3 and Lightroom to my software library I can see myself shooting RAW more often editing in PSD and then saving for web JPEG.

However I'm going to throw something else into the ring now just to generate some more discussion, what's your folks view on Adobe's new DNG format?

Honestly, I shoot JPEG most of the time. I'm fully aware of the benefits of RAW, but I just don't have the time or the patience to process hundreds of RAW files after every time I shoot. It's easier for me to shoot it right in the first place. If I mess up so bad that I would need a RAW file to save the shot then I'd rather just re-shoot the picture.

Now that's not to say I never shoot RAW. I use it for special occasions only. Situations where I know I'm going to want to do some specific editing for printing. Or maybe when I'm shooting something that I can't re-shoot and the lighting is really tricky or something. Still it is very rare for me to use RAW. Most of the shots I have done in RAW over the past year are still sitting on my hard drive untouched. I just don't have the time...

same here canuck. with the large amount of images i shoot, RAW is a pain to deal with. I shoot raw on some occasions as well, but most of the time just shoot JPEG. it takes up less space and its a heck of a lot easier/faster to work with.

I have found that when shooting something important there is no other way to go than to shoot in RAW. Jpegs are fine if you're just snapshooting, but why take the risk when you are shooting someone's portrait, architecture, or a landscape scene? While it may be true that RAW takes longer to process, that's only incentive to invest in a good RAW program if you're going to take your work seriously. But then again, camera manufacturers are constantly improving their RAW software. For example, my original DRebel came with RAW software that was very slow and cumbersome. But when I bought my XTi, processing RAW files has become pretty much a breeze. If I had the money I'd invest in the program like Aperture, but for now my upgraded Canon software is doing the job. Really, there's no excuse not to shoot in RAW these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schrackman

Really, there's no excuse not to shoot in RAW these days.

---

I wish I could agree! Camera companies continue to produce flagship P&S cameras that do not support RAW recording, or have crippled RAW support. Although the DSLR market has more or less evolved, there are legions of weekend warriors who are denied the flexibility of RAW format.

For a lot of people, that isn't even a consideration and JPG is just fine, but I don't think that the cost of including a RAW option is prohibitive - maybe I am wrong. It just seems silly that there are five or six different canvas sizes and four quality sizes on my camera, and no RAW at all. I don't understand why I have such high flexibility in recording inferior images, and zero flexibility in recording superior images - in fact, not even superior - just dump the information on the card and skip the processing altogether!

Here is an archived discussion on RAW vs JPG, just for reference:

<a href="http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=21379">Raw vs Jpg</a>

Well, my comments are aimed at serious photographers and not weekend warriors. If I'm gonna do a portrait session, I'm not going to be using a P&S that only produces JPEGs. I need much more flexibility in an image file than what a JPEG can produce, and the RAW file format provides that.

For snapshooters JPEGs are just fine. And indeed, there are lots of P&S cameras out there that can produce a good to great image. I just wouldn't put my confidence in them to do my professional work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushigaijin

I wish I could agree! Camera companies continue to produce flagship P&S cameras that do not support RAW recording, or have crippled RAW support. Although the DSLR market has more or less evolved, there are legions of weekend warriors who are denied the flexibility of RAW format.

For a lot of people, that isn't even a consideration and JPG is just fine, but I don't think that the cost of including a RAW option is prohibitive - maybe I am wrong. It just seems silly that there are five or six different canvas sizes and four quality sizes on my camera, and no RAW at all. I don't understand why I have such high flexibility in recording inferior images, and zero flexibility in recording superior images - in fact, not even superior - just dump the information on the card and skip the processing altogether!

---

Somewhere by now someone must have written a definitive, factual, and bias free explanation of the various differences between raw and jpeg (advantageous or not). Please tell me someone has done this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

definitive, factual, and bias free explanation

---

We can't even get this from the news! :eek:

I know people who shoot only RAW, mostly RAW and some jpeg, and jpeg only and have pretty informed reasons for doing so. Sometimes "production" type work, like corporate events or wedding receptions just doesn't really benefit from RAW as long as the jpeg is exposed properly and has good WB. Saves time for the photographer and the results are perfectly acceptable to the person paying the photographer's invoice.

I'm strictly an amateur (have done a little of that in the past, not for me) and at this point only shoot RAW with my DSLR just to keep the options open. When I can get memory cards for about ten dollars a gig, why not?

RAW out of my camera is 12 bits per color not 8 bits like JPG. You CAN see the difference on my monitor without any problem at all. Adobe Photoshop 5LE will not load the 12 bit per color TIF files that Thumbs Plus generates from the RAW files I have not tried Elements (it also doesn't like it if I use compression with the tif). The nice thing about RAW files there is not any sharping.

I shoot almost all raw. JPEG is only for event work that has to be turned over at the end of the event. RAW is my negative and the computer is my darkroom. I do have to admit that I miss the smell of D76 and Dektol or HC110.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJS

I shoot almost all raw. JPEG is only for event work that has to be turned over at the end of the event. RAW is my negative and the computer is my darkroom. I do have to admit that I miss the smell of D76 and Dektol or HC110.

---

the frog wonders if there's a market for darkroom scents

I don't really find that RAW vs. .JPG threads really help at all it's a bit like an Orange vs. Potato thread. They are both file formats but they are entirely different and for different purposes.

Both are compressed formats but jpg is a lossy format. It's lossy because (grossly simplified) it uses an algorithm to compress that makes similar color pixels the same and to lump them together. A bit like posterising. It does this every time an image is re-saved so it gradually ruins the quality of the image as you work on it more and more.

RAW is just a dump of the sensor data at time of capture and contains more info than you need so you can tweak that data in useful ways without damaging the RAW file to output an image file that's fine tuned be that a .jpg or a .tif or a .dng. RAW isn't really an image format so it is a misnomer to compare it to .jpg its a data file to make an image from.

To answer the comment on RAW's not needing sharpening I'd have to disagree strongly DSLR's including your own D70 use a filter to remove infrared and seperate colours. this softens the image. When processing .jpg in camera the sharpening is generally done by the image processor in camera, with RAW it's not done (Though you can do it afterwards in the RAW file convertor).

I'd never advise sharpening an image until last step of any edit and never at all if it goes to an image library.

Just my tuppence h'apeny worth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEvianT

I don't really find that RAW vs. .JPG threads really help at all it's a bit like an Orange vs. Potato thread.
clip...
To answer the comment on RAW's not needing sharpening I'd have to disagree strongly DSLR's including your own D70 use a filter to remove infrared and seperate colours. this softens the image. When processing .jpg in camera the sharpening is generally done by the image processor in camera, with RAW it's not done (Though you can do it afterwards in the RAW file convertor).

I'd never advise sharpening an image until last step of any edit and never at all if it goes to an image library.

Just my tuppence h'apeny worth...

---

Yes the all digital cameras have a IR filter. The IR filter DOES NOT affect the sharpness or visible color seen by the sensor. The reason it is there is because the image sensor will see the IR light overwhelming the red channel. There is a color filter over each sensor in the sensor array. The camera uses these filters to extract the color information. On digital SLR's there is hardly any sharpening need as the sensor cella are very large compared to the PS cameras. The sharpening needs to be done on the PS because of cell to cell leakage due to the small size of the sensor cells.
Most PS have half the size of the DSLR or smaller image sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freygr

Yes the all digital cameras have an IR filter. The IR filter DOES NOT affect the sharpness or visible color seen by the sensor. The reason it is there is because the image sensor will see the IR light overwhelming the red channel.

---

Mmmm not strictly true. you can't really dismiss lots of the visible spectrum and say it has nothing to do with sharpness... Light is not seperate colour channels like Photoshop says. It is a band of frequency of which red is part. But essentially yes you are correct there is a filter for colours which softens the image the sensor perceives and a filter for infrared as CMOS and CCD is way to sensitive to IR (and UV)

All the IR filters I've seen pass red light, the coating acts as a reflector of the long wave IR light waves which we can't see. All visible light makes it through the IR filter. It's no different than a UV filter you install on your lens, and that doesn't affect the image.

As far as softening the image the sensor does that as it is a low pass filter. The smallest lines per inch the camera can see, is the space between two cells on the sensor. The more cells in the image sensor without changing the size of the sensor equals higher resolving power, but the smaller the cell the less sensitive the cell is, and the thiner the cell insulation is the more cell leakage, which causes noise.

Filters like this are used in LCD projectors along with an IR filter to split the light into Red, Green, and Blue light before the three LCD panels. The panels are mounted on a prism that looks like a cube the green light goes straight through the assembly but the red and blue light is reflected of coating in the assembly to integrate it back to white light. There are four prisms in the assemble with special coatings on two sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

Somewhere by now someone must have written a definitive, factual, and bias free explanation of the various differences between raw and jpeg (advantageous or not). Please tell me someone has done this!

---

I found it. I shoot jpeg. I've tried raw and coverting with nikons free tial version of their software but found it akward to use. Yes I'm sure i'll lean to shoot raw eventually but for now jpegs are good enough.
It's a little like asking someone who makes a living with photography if they get their film proccessed and printed at wal-mart. Though I will say that for me shooting jpeg and adjusting with my old pse2 gives me a lot more control than I had doing just that.
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...aw-files.shtml
Mark.

I'll just say this..If you really care about your images and know that you might have greater experience in the future in Post Pro technique, please shoot in RAW. You can always save the images re-touched in TIFF or PSD and for less critical applications or for sharing with friends in JPEG.:)