raw files vs. high pixel count jpg images

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Barry, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. Barry

    Barry Guest

    Hello All:

    I assumed raw image files would render a better image - but - actually they
    do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. -
    And you need a special
    RAW image editor - which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW
    files - to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

    Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

    thanks,
    Barry


    --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
     
    Barry, Apr 7, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Barry

    Kele Guest

    A RAW image is what was seen by your camera's sensor with nothing further
    done to the image. A jpeg is a raw image compressed; this is one
    explanation: http://www.prepressure.com/library/compression_algorithms/jpeg

    Assuming the RAW and jpeg are the same size, a jpeg will not look better
    than RAW unless the camera performs "corrections" to the jpeg (as they often
    do), ie: white balance, sharpening, etc. Compared to what's built into a
    camera, more powerful off-camera tools for photo correction exist.

    Additionally, every copy/save of a jpeg to a jpeg further compresses the
    image. If you import a jpeg from the camera to a software photo editor and
    save changes, you then have a second generation jpeg. It's possible to get
    a smoother end result when working on a non-compressed image. If you
    zoom/crop into a photo, you will see the jpeg become blocky before the
    converted RAW image. UFO Hunters hate jpegs. If you select on camera the
    superfine (least compression applied) jpeg setting and use your camera's max
    resolution, you are achieving the most pixel information in the jpeg format.
    When reduced in size, and not extremely cropped, jpegs are good enough for
    video display. If you are printing for a sizable image, or significantly
    cropping, RAW will make for smoother gradients and show more subtleties.

    I'm guessing






    -----------

    Hello All:

    I assumed raw image files would render a better image - but - actually they
    do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. -
    And you need a special
    RAW image editor - which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW
    files - to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

    Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

    thanks,
    Barry
     
    Kele, Apr 8, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not necessarily. The dirty secret is that each manufacturer does some
    in-camera processing before it writes the RAW data.

    Nope. Each manufacturer twiddles the image before writing the JPEG.
    It's damned near impossible for a RAW image to be the same size as a
    JPEG. RAW is much larger because it is DATA and not pixels.
    Generally, that is true but not always. If you like we can drag out the
    serious research and outcomes of your assertion.
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 8, 2011
    #3
  4. Barry

    Kele Guest

    Or you can address Barry's original post




    ------------------

    Not necessarily. The dirty secret is that each manufacturer does some
    in-camera processing before it writes the RAW data.

    Nope. Each manufacturer twiddles the image before writing the JPEG.

    It's damned near impossible for a RAW image to be the same size as a
    JPEG. RAW is much larger because it is DATA and not pixels.

    Generally, that is true but not always. If you like we can drag out the
    serious research and outcomes of your assertion.
     
    Kele, Apr 8, 2011
    #4
  5. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    It very much depends on how much compression is applied to the JPG file
    as to Wether or not it is as editable as a RAW file. Certainly P&S and
    entry level DSLRs are unlikely to capture JPG files without compression.

    Olympus DSLR's apply very little compression to their highest quality
    JPGs and as such, make it highly practical to shoot in JPG mode. I don't
    know of too many other brands you can do this with. I've shot E300
    beside Canon 5D and can confirm the Olympus JPG is far superior to the
    Canon JPG in saving editable data.

    My own Nikon cameras can use a function called "dynamic lighting" when
    shooting in JPG capture mode. I've shot several weddings using RAW +JPG
    and can confirm that a D90, D700 or D7000 set up specifically to save
    highlights, can very successfully shoot JPG mode and produce files every
    bit as editable as RAW files.

    I have never been able to achieve this with the Canon cameras I owned
    before changing to Nikon. If you want to find out for yourself, just
    shoot RAW +JPG and check the difference. Memory is pretty cheap so the
    extra card space you'll use is no big deal breaker, I'd imagine.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 9, 2011
    #5
  6. Barry

    Joel Guest

    You need not to assume anything. RAW is/are just another graphic
    format(s) like most other graphics formats each has some good point.

    Same like RAW Converters, there are many different RAW formats as well as
    many different RAW Converters some may work little/lot differently than
    other. So you may need to spend time to study which one works best for what
    you need then go for it.

    Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic
    color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all
    you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then
    spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for
    example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW
    Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may
    not need RAW Converter.
     
    Joel, Apr 9, 2011
    #6
  7. Barry

    Barry Guest

    Thnks to all for your replies.

    Glad to see this group is alive and well.

    Using a newly purchased Sony DSC-R1 - first camera I have used with the RAW
    capability. Have been shooting RAW at finest quality which results in a
    20/25 MB file containing RAW and JPG files. Guess trial and error will
    guide which raw converter offers most capability. Perhaps too much reliance
    on 1 click correction - leaves one ill prepared or
    reluctant to engage in such comprehensive adjustments (to bring all aspects
    of the raw file to appear as pleasing as the JPG - corrected in camera file)
    on each shot.

    Anyway, thanks again.
    Barry

    "Joel" wrote in message
    You need not to assume anything. RAW is/are just another graphic
    format(s) like most other graphics formats each has some good point.

    Same like RAW Converters, there are many different RAW formats as well as
    many different RAW Converters some may work little/lot differently than
    other. So you may need to spend time to study which one works best for what
    you need then go for it.

    Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic
    color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all
    you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then
    spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for
    example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW
    Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may
    not need RAW Converter.


    --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
     
    Barry, Apr 9, 2011
    #7
  8. Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the
    image to Photoshop.
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 11, 2011
    #8
  9. Barry

    Joel Guest

    Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn't need to start with
    any RAW format.

    Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation
    with you.
     
    Joel, Apr 12, 2011
    #9
  10. With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do),
    then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then
    you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop - or not.

    Two separate programs that talk to each other.

    Got it?
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 12, 2011
    #10
  11. To open a RAW file, you *always* need a RAW converter. Many graphic
    retoucing programs contain a RAW converter, though, so what you probably
    mean is that you do not need a *separate* RAW converter.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 12, 2011
    #11
  12. Barry

    Joel Guest

    As I said you don't have my respect for me to enjoy the conversation. Why
    don't you just GO BACK to my original reponse to the OP without your dirty
    quote see if you GOT IT.
     
    Joel, Apr 12, 2011
    #12
  13. Barry

    Joel Guest

    You too! read what you quote and what you response.
     
    Joel, Apr 12, 2011
    #13
  14. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a
    technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional
    photographer for 30 years, I've seen a lot of arguments for a lot of
    practices.

    The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:

    If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if
    the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both
    shadow and highlight... Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of
    development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.

    If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more
    secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all
    means use RAW capture.

    There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can
    make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users
    think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW
    developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it
    off and see how bad your images really are.

    Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost
    never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a
    contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point
    of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news
    groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if
    anything has changed.

    It hasn't... All that has changed is the names of those claiming
    knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge.
    To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give
    some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person
    doing the intimidation.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 13, 2011
    #14
  15. Hey, you! Perhaps you should take a bit of your own medicine? The part I
    quoted clearly sates 'you may not need (a) RAW Converter'. The truth is
    that *IF* you shoot in RAW (of course you don't HAVE TO shoot in RAW, but
    that is not mentioned) you *have to* use a RAW converter. It's impossible
    to open a RAW file in a graphic retouching application without converting
    it to RGB! Photoshop, the application mentioned in the quote, includes such
    a RAW converter. It's the plugin called 'CameraRAW' and it opens
    automatically as soon as you try to open a RAW file in Photoshop. In other
    words: even if 'you are good with (a) graphic retouching program', you
    still will use a RAW converter to convert the RAW files to RGB files before
    you can work on them in that graphic retouching program of yours.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 13, 2011
    #15
  16. Barry

    Joel Guest

    You get the point and I agree with you. But the STUPID I already stick on
    the forheads of the stupids so it will stay there.

    Unless you didn't read the whole message (before they quoted) you may see
    why I call them STUPID.

    P.S. I often don't quote the whole message, but yours is fair so I break
    the rule.
     
    Joel, Apr 13, 2011
    #16
  17. Barry

    Joel Guest

    Hey STUPID! you are still too stupid for normal conversation. And that
    is why I give you some of my medicine.

    It's just STUPID!
     
    Joel, Apr 13, 2011
    #17
  18. H'm, I'm sure your psychiatrist can explain your aggressive posture and
    tell us it's just an innocent compensation for your small dick, but I'm
    going to ignore you nevertheless.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 13, 2011
    #18
  19. Barry

    Kele Guest

    There's some new info here... Increased dynamic range (luminance between
    the lightest and darkest areas of an image) is what really makes RAW a
    useful shooting option. RAW over jpeg is not so much about the finer
    resolution - if I understand you correctly, Helmut.

    I'm addicted to "popping" photos with HDR tools so the info about RAW having
    inherently higher dynamic range compared to jpeg interests me. Does
    shooting RAW also maximize the gamut range captured? I presume that if my
    camera has no choice, the jpeg gamut is sRGB and I can't increase the color
    range after the image is recorded.





    -----------
    The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a
    technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional
    photographer for 30 years, I've seen a lot of arguments for a lot of
    practices.

    The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:

    If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if
    the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both
    shadow and highlight... Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of
    development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.

    If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more
    secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all
    means use RAW capture.

    There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can
    make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users
    think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW
    developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it
    off and see how bad your images really are.

    Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost
    never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a
    contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point
    of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news
    groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if
    anything has changed.

    It hasn't... All that has changed is the names of those claiming
    knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge.
    To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give
    some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person
    doing the intimidation.

    HH
     
    Kele, Apr 13, 2011
    #19
  20. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    I'd like to clear up the notion that RAW files are sensor data. They are
    not any more than they are image files. They contain image information
    derived from the calculation on-board computers make. This is based on
    what some development engineer considers the parameters of a "good"
    image need to be.

    I once thought I saw green differently than the rest of us because I
    liked the green foliage as portrayed by Agfa film whilst the rest of us
    seemed to adore the over saturated, yellow intense greens from Fuji
    film. In truth what I saw was over use of yellow in the green channel to
    overcome the effect of transmitting black information in the green
    channel (TV here).

    The only reason a RAW image is thought by many to be superior to a JPG
    image for the purpose of editing more detail is because of 2 variables.

    One is compression. The further you compress an image file, the more
    data is lost from it. The second variable is the point of clipping. All
    digital images have to clip the white point and black point. Look at
    this as being at some point the ability to produce usable imagery has to
    stop.

    Film or analogue data just disappears to nothing or total black but
    digital has to at one fixed point, switch off or stop... Clip.

    OK so look at the structure of a JPG file. They firstly obtain a smaller
    file size by discarding unwanted or "unseeable" information from the
    image. This is roughly 5% of the file size.

    You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and
    immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost
    recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in
    the RAW file.

    Cameras compress JPG files. Most compress RAW files too. Some will even
    allow you to select the amount of compression in a RAW file just like
    they offer the same choice with JPG files. Except none of them will
    allow you to save a JPG file at 100%.

    HDR as opposed to tone mapping is one area I think RAW files are a
    perfect choice to start with. Faced with not having taken a bracket of
    shots... Developing a number of JPG files from a single RAW file, using
    the extremes of each end of the tone scale can provide a base series of
    images that will yield exceptional results.

    I frequently use this technique when trying to make a wedding dress shot
    in bright sun, display all it's detail. There is a good reason for
    shooting in both RAW and JPG mode. Being able to use the JPG files
    virtually straight from the camera is a big plus. Having RAW files to
    work with in creating exceptional portraits is too.

    Those who believe shooting only in RAW mode because that's what makes
    them a "Pro" probably need to recognise that photographers in the 50's
    and 60's often used home made cameras and other improvisation to produce
    the amazing pictures users of Photoshop strive so hard today to imitate.

    Mid range DSLRs have dual cards. How much trouble is it then, to shoot
    RAW + HQ JPG and get the best of both file types?

    HH.
     
    Helmut, Apr 14, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.