RAW vs JPG?

Who knows? All that counts is whether the one you use
in the camera gives *exactly* what you want the first
time, or not. If it does, great. But if you shoot JPEG
the raw data is immediately deleted, and you cannot try
again with different parameters.

If you shoot RAW, you can re-do the conversion 1001
times if that is what it takes to get it "perfect". Not
only can you try different conversion programs, but each
and every one of them will probably have more possible
configurations than the camera does. Plus you don't
have to guess at the right configuration before hand,
and you are not forced to accept the results. With RAW,
you can re-do again and again, all based on what you see
and what you do or don't like.

I don't understand what you mean. If you shoot JPEG,
the camera converts the raw data to one each JPEG
formatted image, and then *deletes* the original data.
It is *gone*. If you shoot RAW, the original data is
provided in the RAW file. You can convert it to JPEG
with any program you like, or to as many variations
using any one program. And then tomorrow you can try it
again with a different program because you still have
the original data.

If you shoot JPEG, you never get the original data out
of the camera. And no the original JPEG supplied by the
camera does NOT have anything like the amount of data in
a RAW file. There is a reason the RAW files are so large!

You have repeatedly said that you shoot JPG from the
camera. That *is* a "one shot deal".

You simply *cannot* post process an original JPEG image
from the camera to the same extent that you can post
process an original RAW data file. The JPEG is one image,
and you can do relatively little to it. The RAW data is
just data, and it can be converted to *many* very different
images.

Well, knock me down Joel, you are a babe in the woods!

PPM, TIFF, and PNG are some very commonly used lossless
formats. JPEG is a very commonly used lossy format. A
lossless format is superior for editing (because
repeated edits/save cycles do not lose data), and lossy
formats are preferred for distribution of a final product
because the file size is smaller.

Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source, but they
do have an overview of image file formats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_file_format

Please trust that it *is* something to worry about.
Sometimes the effects are indeed minimal and not easily
seen, other times it is from daylight to dark.

That misses the point though. Again, you are going
through a one-way process that you cannot back out of if
you don't save the edited file. To print it again, you
have to once again go through whatever post processing
was done previously. If it was simple, that is not a
problem, but the point is that sometimes it is not
simple. Saving the intermediate file, and working on it
again tomorrow, next week, or next year... is possible.

That is not true. See the above reference URLl

Whatever.

 

No it's not. thre JPG is not the origional

The RAW camera sends all the data to the sensor with no processing.

Yes the camera uses an automatic RAW convertor to produce a JPG using
most of the data available.

The JPG is a copy (not original ) using a RAW processor on "automatic"

Yes. OR you can use the RAW convertor on automatic (just like in the
camera) to produce a JPG or TIF or whatever.

Which RAW converter is buggy... the on my MAC or the one in the camera.
If it is the one in the camera I am really stuffed. If it is the one on
my MAC I can change the settings or indeed the convertor

Yes. So I can get round that by doing the RAW processing on the MAC.

Moving the RAW image to my MAC gives me the ORIGINAL file where I can
choose the RAW convertor, convert on automatic or fully manual. Then put
the TIFF into photoshop finally saving it in a JPG format of my choice.

Your arguments don't stand up.

Either process the picture with an automatic RAW convertorin the camera
and get a JPG

OR take the original picture RAW file and have a choice of RAW
processors and process on auto or manual to any format I choose.

 

If you don't understand the benefits of shooting RAW by now then I guess you
never will. There is no sense in arguing or debating the fact. Many have
explained it to you in many different ways and you are still stuck.

But then again you get your prints at Wal-Mart or Walgreen's or whatever and
argue about using third party inks with those who make prints on a regular
basis...

 

And that's exactly what I said. And here we go again.

1. The camera calculate and process either RAW or JPG. Now you pick your
choice either

- Original RAW and original JPG

- or recyled RAW and recycled JPG

Hahahah how can you get the RAW format without processing. Just like how

Exactly same to RAW, TIFF, JPG the camera is nothing but another form of
computer with built-in software to convert whatever it sees through the lens
to whatever format it supports. And just like computer software, different
format requires different calculating and different setting.

Hahaha I am talking about the JPG & RAW process by the camera *not* the
JPG process by RAW converter.

No, you can use whatever default setting of the RAW converter *but* you
may not get the same with Camera's processing.

No, I am not talking about letting the camera or RAW converter do all the
processing, but I am talking about the value/quality/process difference.

Of course everyone can change or adjust to whatever they like, but like I
said if you make a wrong adjustment, wrong setting, or buggy RAW converter
then you may end up with something may not so good.

So, far, I only use ARC and LightRoom ... but still not 100% happy with
neither one.. or some how I kinda like the older ARC a little. And may be
because I used it much longer than newer ARC and LightRoom?

Very interesting thought! Hmmm what happens if the camera has bug that
draw a HUGE line across the image, you can use your MAC RAW converter to

Very interesting thought <bg>

 

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

What I meant that RAW format just available few years ago. so if you have
been working with graphic (or digital photography) before RAW format was
born then what did you do with non-RAW format?

 

No it doesn't RAW is the UNPROCESSED output

WRONG The ORIGINAL RAW is converted to JPG using a RAW converter and
then the ORIGINAL RAW is discarded. The JPG is NOT the original.

RAW is not recycled.

Easily. The RAW is the output from the sensors. JPG is the output from
the sensors converted by a RAW processor into a JPG using an automated
converter. Thus in my camera 55 Mb is reduced to about 5mb

WRONG the Camera produces a very large RAW file from the sensor. This
can be converted by an automatic RAW convertor to a MUCH SMALL JPG file
loosing much of the information on the way.
This is why a RAW file is about 10 time larger than a JPG.

Sorry, perhaps I should have mentioned that my profession is embedded
system engineering,. Some 30 years of it, I know about embedded
electronics and software. We provide consultancy for it.

IDIOT the camera produces a JPG from the RAW input from the sensor using
a RAW convertor in the camera.

This is true. The RAW convertor in the camera is automatic and instant.
The one on my MAC uses the same RAW file but can make many changes and I
can take my time to decide what I want to do.

When you say "the camera" you mean the RAW converter in the camera.

In which case there is no argument the JPG is inferior to the RAW. This
is not even open for discussion. There is over 10 times the information
in a RAW file to a JPG.

SO you then re do the setting and re run the process. You still have the
original RAW file.

If you use the RAW convertor in the camera and there is a problem you
have lost the picture.

Try www.dxo.com

No. But photohsop can. I produce TIFF from the RAW fiel and then retouch
in photoshop

However if there is a line across the image in the RAW file it will also
be in the JPG the camera produced. You have the same problem but a far
lower quality image to work with.

 

That is not what you are saying though...

There is no such thing as "recycled RAW". You can
"recycle" a JPG though. (If by "recycle" you mean do
something to it, save it, then do something else and
save it again.)

....

That is an accurate description. In the camera there
are two things that raw data is used for, one is to
create a JPG file and the other is to create a RAW file.
Same raw data. No "processing" as such. But creating a
JPG file is significant processing, because it does not
retain much of the raw data. If you shoot RAW, you get
that data in a file. If you shoot JPG, it is deleted
forever. The JPG file does not have that data.

You still aren't catching the significance. The raw
data is what the sensor generates. All other formats
are generated by processing that raw data. The only
file format where the data is not processed is the RAW
format. You do *not* get RGB data from the sensor.
That has to generated for each pixel in the image for
every format except RAW. For raw you just get the
sensor data, not RGB pixel image data. Each pixel in
the TIFF or JPG formatted file is generated from *nine*
pixel locations on the sensor!

There is no difference. The RAW to JPG in the camera is
the same as a RAW to JPG external to the camera...
except of course most cameras have only a few relatively
limited parameter options, while most external
converters have not just a larger range, but are
continuously variable across the range for each option.
Contrast, hue, white balance, sharpening, are all cases
where the camera might have only 4-6 steps that you can
choose from.

So? The camera can't get the same as the external
program is a better way to describe it. You can get
virtually anything possible with most external programs,
but each camera is never going to have more options than
it had the day you bought it. And those are few.

What does that mean?

True, either with in camera or external conversion. But
with in camera conversion you are the stuck. You can't
do it again differently when the results are not quite
right. With external processing you can check it, do it
again, and repeat until you get it right.

Well, if you haven't yet learned how to do that right, I
just don't see where you have the qualifications to tell
others how it works.

That *is* an original JPG that he is talking about.

The fact is that if you shoot JPG and don't get the
white balance exactly right, then *you* can never use the
"original JPG", but instead will necessarily have to
mangle your image by editing and saving a JPG, which is a
very poor substitute for having a correct original JPG.

But, at least so far, it seems the significance of doing
that has escaped you.

 

RAW formats have been in use for a *long* time. Kodak's
DC40 in 1995 for example, Nikon's D1 in 1999. Those
were their first professional digital cameras, so it
isn't like anyone was doing something different before
that.

Incidentally, /dcraw/ will convert RAW files from a
DC40 if you can find one.

My Nikon D1 was introduced in 1999, and uses essentially
the same basic format that the D3 does today.

That sentence makes no logical sense. All digital
cameras generate raw sensor data. Whether any given
camera model writes it to a file or only converts it to
TIFF (as one of the early common examples), is of no
significance.

 

Getting away from the beating of the dead horse, After I tweak my RAW image
in Adobe's Camera Raw and send it to Photoshop, it now resides in RAM in
what format? PSD?

The title bar still refers to it as a .CR2 but is it?

 

You may be right! but I didn't know that RAW comes from thin air .. or

If I am wrong then you must be right! but I still wait for something I
can agree <bg>

*But* I am not talking about the JPG converted by RAW, and I am not
talking about the none existing RAW (before the camera processes it), but I
am talking about the JPG processes by camera.

Hahahaha you must be living inside the camera to think the camera has to
wave a magic wand to (I don't know what to say .. to something .. cuz I may
come up with processing, making, creating, saving and those are same
meaning) or I just say waving the magic wand to RAW <bg>. Well, then RAW
really mean processing too...

.. and exactly what is the meaning of "OUTPUT"? and why camera has to
output to RAW before it processes into JPG? what what did the camera do to
make JPG before RAW was born?

Now no more "output" but "produce" but what is the meaning of "produce"?
is it same with "making", "creating"? and I always thought it's same meaning
as "processing", not?

Really? mine is less than 10 times, and does this mean TIFF even better
than RAW because I read TIFF is much larger than RAW?

Well, thirty some years ago when I first toying with computer I was
younger and healthier, and before my health went downhill I wasn't as dull
as what I am these days. I don't know much about electrnoics and
programming these days, but I studied electronics and was able to program my
own program for personal use (but it was way back then).

Now I can only know the general but not small detail, and just enough to
be able to tell the difference.

You must be STUPID to be right but can't fool me <bg>. You just come up
with one stupid word after other. See, I have no problem to call you STUPID

 

Creating Processing what thwe difference?

1. The camera using its built-in software to "calculate" whatever data go
through the lens to its main processor (or you cal sensor), convert the data
to graphic format (pixel if you want to call it) then create either RAW or
JPG.

2. JPG it does full process base on the default setting of camera and user
setting.

3. RAW it does minimum process base on whatever default setting for RAW
format, then same as JPG it converts the data to graphic format then save to
memory card.

True or not I don't know, but some mentioned that with RAW the camera will
ignore some settings. And this could be true because RAW doesn't need any
special setting but just the default setting would do. Then some mentioned
on some model setting sharpness level's or some option enabled/disabled
could give a different result (like sharper, less noise etc..)

Same true about RAW as most know that different camera, model, manufacture
etc.. (even same censor as I read some manufacture license from other) don't
give the same RAW even it's RAW. Or NY RAW stake may not taste the same as

No I don't think I do, and I still don't agree with you (I didn't say you
are wrong or call you IDIOT like the stupid one calls me, do I?).

Well, when I see no RAW format then I will agree with you that RAW is
something very magical or something like God (whatever s/he is?) seen and
unseen, popped out from thin air (probably not because air is her creation).

Right now I don't see any difference between "RAW is created by sensor" or
"RAW is procesed by sensor", they just being made by something.

May I say I disagree about "no difference"? I just think of them as
PROGRAMS with different default setting, calculating, coding so they must
give some difference. And I am not talking about the OPTIONS you can do
with the software, because different software may give more/less option and
some may does better/worse than other.

So? I thought some of you guys don't settle for anything but RAW is RAW or
God is God they (or it or s/he whatever God is) are the same and only God
(hmmm using THEM for only one isn't the right word in English right?) it's
something from nothing ... created but not processed.

I may not wanna go further but if you want more option then you may know
that Photoshop has hundreds of times more option than any current RAW

And that's the reason why many of us depend on Post Processing skill, or
depend on Photoshop (or similar) to get what we want. And many have been
doing years before RAW was born.

And later we have been hearing lot about RAW converter because it's much
less options/features to remember, so it's much easier to use comparing to
Photoshop that many people can just stare at it for some years and still
don't know what to do with it. And it's my own experience with Photoshop,
and it took me many years to be able to realize how powerful it's, and how
hard and frustrate for many to master few simple techniques.

That's what I thought. I am not qualify to give advice to other because I
still can't see the same result from different RAW conveter. And pretty

I don't know about you guys, but every time talking about RAW then 99 out
of 100 you guy will talk about screwing up and recovery. How about just
forget about the recovery, but good post processing.

"original JPG"? just kidding cuz my idiot says that there is no "original

I guess so.

 

Wow!

What will it take for you to understand that your .jpg is a child of the
same RAW data that you would use had you recorded the image in RAW in the
first place?

Can you grasp the fact that the advantage is you, with your eyes and brain,
can now tailor the image how you would prefer rather than counting on some
pre-programmed algorithm to do it for you?

What act-of-God will it take for you to understand that the photographer has
a better idea of what the image should look like than any snippet of
computer code stored within your camera?

Shooting RAW Vs jpg is similar to shooting Manual Vs. Automatic, the camera
doesn't always know best.

It's like buying a cake Vs. buying all the ingredients and baking a cake...

 

It is clearly not in .CR2 format, how close it is to PSD is kind of
hard to tell, no reason that the data structure would have to be
anything close to the PSD format.

Scott

 

It is the unprocessed out put from the sensors.

The RAW output from the sensors was always there. IT is what the camera
used to make the JPG. However on more modern camera the RAW was made
availible to the use where it hadn't been before.

You don't seem to understand how a digital camera works.

No you don't.

I can say that having been professionally involved in embedded systems
for about 30 years (BTW we supply at least one digital camera maker).
You don't really understand how the Digital cameras work.

 

And where is the sensor (part of the camera or camera is part of the
sensors?) and how the sensor know what to do without the camera?

Just like is your mouth part of you body or your body is part of your
mouth, and can your mouth making noise without your brain?

Or what is the camera (hardware, bunch of metal and plastic), what can the
camera do without the program (software in ROM or RAM as it can be
upgarded?)?

Does it have to go through the whole LONG PROCESS to *unprocess* the
unprocessed out put <bg>

Do you know what I think about processing the unprocessed out put? I am
thinking of going to badroom suppose to process the POOP (some data) but

And how the sensors knows what to do with all the datas go through the
lens? how the sensors know how much of this or that to make that or this?
Can the sensors of Kinon D300 be glued to Pentax camera to turn the Pentax
into Nikon D300?

I guess I don't because it seems like you are either living in either
mystery/magical world, or reading too much fairy tale of the digital world.

Me? even if you tell me that you are the author of somebook about how the
sensors processes the unprocssed out put, I still won't by if it's
non-sense.

Just like some people read, believe, then write different thing about RAW
(some sounds like yours and I guess you guys read, believe and spray the
info around as your own?), some has some good info, some trying to fool or
impress reader by using lot of technical terms.

 

I give up.

You can't convince the insane.

 

Joel is either a complete nut, or he is having fun with us, either way
there is no use trying to explain raw to him.

Scott

 

Just try to make some sense then most people would believe you. Or I may
not be able to survive this long base on the make-believe-world <bg>

 

No, Joel is just too old to believe fairy tale. <bg>

 

snip

Joel now live in my kill file. <bg>