Home Forums Gear Photography raw vs jpeg

What is the difference between raw and jpeg in quality ? Is there a reason for the two, any advantages?

I would say RAW is the highest quality but the files are much, much larger. As I understand it, with RAW, you never actually make changes to the original, but rather store information about each change you've made. This means that image quality can be maintained no matter how much image manipulation is done.

Once you've got the image looking the way you want it, you will probably have to convert it to Jpeg, (or perhaps TIFF) to enable to be printed ect.

With Jpeg, the image quality is slightly worse, and the further degrades every time the image is altered and re saved. In a lot of situations, this is only slight and not really of any consequence for many applications.

That said, Jpeg's are easier to transmit, print ect.

These days some camera's allow you to take a photo simultaneously in both RAW and Jpeg which gives you the best of both worlds but uses a lot of memory..

Years back there was an advantage to shooting RAW for the average guy because in camera JPEG engines were so bad. Nowadays, with new cameras, the advantages to shooting a RAW are much fewer because cameras are more advanced in how they process files.

I shoot nothing but JPEGs now in my cameras that are less than a few years old. I only shoot RAW in my old Nikons, or where I know I am going to be doing heavy post processing involving several adjustment layers in a Photoshop.

You'll have to become very proficient at Photoshop or Lightroom to produce better JPEG conversions than what most recent cameras produce.

What kind of camera do you have? To what use will you be putting your pictures?

For me, a hobbiest heavily invested in canon gear...

I use both.

Raw - gives you the most data to manipulate on the cameras firmware, canon digital professional or Lightroom. The raw file must have a copy saved as a JPEG for most people who don't own a camera to use.

JPEG - gives a file that can be saved to any computer right out of the camera, but some limitations on what can be done in post processing. And, degrading of the image with each manipulation (I haven't been able to appreciate the degradation, but many experts agree that it does).

So, say your out at some Navhda event, and your shooting some dogs in the field. Your buddies brought their laptop and want some of your awesome pics for Facebook or whatever. If you shoot JPEG, you can fill their hard rive with your pics and they can make the images smaller with default computer programs for Facebook. If you are shooting raw, they need you to process the files and upload them to flickr, or save to thumb drive or a disk or something for them to get the pics.

Regardless of method, no post processing can save an out of focus pic...

Oh, also, the cameras buffer will be faster with smaller files...so your camera could take faster frames per second with smaller jpegs vs large jpegs/raws if you were doing some very long action shot. But, with most prosumer cameras, you can get really fast bursts with raw.

also...

With RAW you have some leniency to "fix" things in post. With JPEGS you need to get things, more often than not, right "in the camera". There are advantages to shooting wildlife in RAW and you may not always have the time to get it right "in the camera" before firing away.

Oregon 45 , I have a Nikon 3100. I am not doing a whole lot with my pictures except putting my kids and nephews on the computer. Nothing much . I hear a lot about Raw and Jpeg but have no idea the difference and there is an option in the camera. As for now I will stick to Jpeg cause it seems easier. Picture quality seems close according to most here, or not enough to have it matter for a guy like me. Thanks everyone. Other comments are still appreciated.

If I'm the conditions are bad or changing rapidly, or if the shots matter, I'll shoot RAW because I have more to work with in post.

I bet that if you start shooting RAW and then have a more advance post program.. you'll shoot RAW more than JPEG... ;-)

RAW is an uncompressed file which is filled with lots more information where as JPEG is a processed and compressed file with a lot of information but not as much as a RAW. You still have to get the exposure right as you make the photo but with RAW, if you have some highlights that are too bright, you can pull detail out of an area that seems to be void of detail up to about 3 stops. Same with shadows but only about 2 stops. I like to have the control over the image and the processing vs. the folks that just write the software that processes in camera. Either one is fine but you will notice substantially more "punch" in a photo that is processed from RAW.

Hands down RAW is a better way to go, but there's a learning curve and an extra expense involved in investing in a good post-processing program such as Adobe Lightroom.

Once you master RAW there's really no need to waste file space by having your DSLR make identical copies at the same time in both jpg and RAW.

Basically jpg assembles a shot automatically and makes all sorts of compromises to try to get you an acceptable image. RAW, on the other hand, records just computer data about the image and one assembles that image later without all the compromises.

Of course, one must be willing to learn post processing in RAW to enjoy all the benefits of a superior image, and many only want to point and shoot. For that market, the jpg will probably never go away.

Here's a jpg image of an unaltered, original shot, followed by what one can do to make it really "pop" using the RAW file of the same image in Lightroom after post processing . . .

Well said Tom.... spot on!

Well said, great example.

That certainly does "pop"!

One can always go from RAW to any other format. He can not reverse the process. RAW always for originals. The sole purpose of any compression format is smaller files. That will always result in a loss of data. With today's huge and cheap hard drives, it's not much of an issue.

Tom,

I agree with what you say to a large degree, but in fairness, a JPEG photo can similarly be enhanced using Photoshop or similar.

For a serious photography enthusiast, I think RAW is probably the way to go, but for the average guy, and for certain specialist applications, JPEG's do a very decent job..

And with regards the pics you posted, while one may have started as RAW, I noticed they both ended up as JPEG's to be posted on here which high lights one of the many applications of JPEG..

Regards,

Peter

I would agree to a very limited extent Peter. For the average person, especially someone who will just post and share with friends, JPEG can be done similarly but with no where near the detail from a RAW saved as a JPEG. If someone is going to make a print, especially anything larger then 11x14, working off of a RAW and saving as a TIFF is the way to go. Opening a JPEG as a pseudo RAW file in Photoshop in order to save it as a TIFF is pretty different. With the price of a hard drive I would still shoot in RAW even if you do a JPEG copy or simple auto conversion to save as a JPEG. One day someone may decide to get more involved in photography and wish they had the ability to do more with an image than they could with the JPEG.
But again, I do agree, for the most part a simple JPEG can be great quality with the processing done in camera. I prefer to have the control as to how the photo turns out though in the end.

If you plan on much digital manipulation of the image in Photoshop, then shoot RAW. For just sharing images, with minor adjustments, shoot jpeg.

I thought this would be illustrative of how much you can pull out of a RAW image...(like when you miss the settings like I do more than I like to admit).

This all very hilarious.

Thanks!...............