RAW vs JPG?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by GassMan, Sep 29, 2007.

  1. 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.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. GassMan

    Chris Hills Guest

    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.
     
    Chris Hills, Dec 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. GassMan

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    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...
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 7, 2007
  4. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    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>
     
    Joel, Dec 7, 2007
  5. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    (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?
     
    Joel, Dec 7, 2007
  6. GassMan

    Chris Hills Guest

    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.
     
    Chris Hills, Dec 7, 2007
  7. 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.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 7, 2007
  8. 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.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 7, 2007
  9. GassMan

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    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?
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 7, 2007
  10. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    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
     
    Joel, Dec 7, 2007
  11. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    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.
     
    Joel, Dec 8, 2007
  12. GassMan

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    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...
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 8, 2007
  13. GassMan

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Dec 8, 2007
  14. GassMan

    Chris Hills Guest

    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.
     
    Chris Hills, Dec 8, 2007
  15. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    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.
     
    Joel, Dec 8, 2007
  16. GassMan

    Chris Hills Guest

    I give up.

    You can't convince the insane.
     
    Chris Hills, Dec 8, 2007
  17. GassMan

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Dec 8, 2007
  18. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    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>
     
    Joel, Dec 8, 2007
  19. GassMan

    Joel Guest

    No, Joel is just too old to believe fairy tale. <bg>
     
    Joel, Dec 8, 2007
  20. GassMan

    rwalker Guest

    snip
    Joel now live in my kill file. <bg>
     
    rwalker, Dec 9, 2007
    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.