BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

RAW processing vs JPG processing

Can you show me an example of a shot that you took where you were able to adjust it during processing in a way that you could not have done with a JPG source?

Are there certain situations where RAW processing shines? Like with under or over exposed images? Maybe you can save them much easier with RAW processing vs adjusting a JPG from the camera.

I'm not contrary here, I just want to see it in action because so far I'm not skilled enough to use RAW processing to make any real differences that I couldn't get with JPGs.

Thanks!

To love this question, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

Consider this analogy.

The RAW file is the equivalent of the film, before being processed.

The JPG is a wallet sized print from that negative.

The JPG has already had multiple processing items done to it. And image data has been tossed out during the JPG compression.

The RAW file can be reprocessed over and over using different white balance, saturation, brightness, shadows etc.

I stopped using the file browswer that came with my camera and used the Photoshop RAW processing.

Robert

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

And I do understand the analogy, but that's all I keep finding is analogies. My own tests haven't SHOWN any difference.

I know that there can be differences by definition because of the reasons you cited, but I'm trying to see that in action.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

RAW allows you, that is, "requires" you to do ALL editing in a post editing software such as Photoshop. RAW files have NO color corrections (other than white balance) or enhancements, and are in a "raw" mode. They require your FULL attention afterwards. For many photographers, especially "fine art" photographers who want 100% control over the appearance of their images, RAW is the only way to go.
Raw files are larger in size, thus yielding larger file sizes which equal better potential quality and larger print sizes.

Jpeg allows you to "edit" in-camera. It is useful for those with no post editing software, or with no skills on how to use it, or who are in a hurry to finish an image, or who just don't want to bother with PS. It is very useful for going straight from the camera to the printer. As you can imagine, Jpeg control in-camera does not come close to the control you would have in Photoshop with a RAW file, but still, it does afford you some. Jpegs are more convenient no doubt, but your final image may suffer due to the compression involved, and your print sizing will be smaller than with a RAW.
Hope this helps.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I tried with the Canon software with no luck, and then I tried Capture One Pro 3.6. Capture One seems to have more control, but I still can't get my picture B&W until after it's processed.

Any ideas?

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I don't know much yet about just what to change in the RAW image, but would I be doing a big step up if I simply use the default settings to convert the RAW file to a 16bit TIFF. Would that be a mile ahead of using the standard JPG?

In my tests, the camera JPG turned out a 3.13M file, the RAW conversion to JPG turned out a 4.67M file, and the TIFF turned out a 36M file!

Knowing that I'm taking 6MP images, and that the largest I'm printing is 8x10, which way would you suggest for me to start with? Is the extra image information in the 36M TIFF really extra information or is it made up info?

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

What I mean is that I was looking to be able to have the RAW conversion program do the desaturation, not PS.

Keep in mind I don't have the RAW plugin for PS yet so I'm using the canon software at this point and I'm trying out some third party stuff.

My thought was that the absolute best quality B&W I could get would be shooting in RAW, then using the RAW processing program to do the desaturation.

It seems that's not possible so it's a moot point.

What I do now is shot JPGs and use PS to desat. them. I'm just looking to move up a little to make sure my 8x10s are as good as they can be while I still don't know much about RAW processing.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

Although you said you didn't see a difference between 16 and 8 bit TIFFs, if I'm gong to print 8x10s do you think I might see the difference in the print at that point?

For the B&W conversion, I've been reading a lot to see what the 'best' way to do it is. Personally I've liked the desaturate method much more than converting it to grayscale simply because you can stop your desat. at a level not quite 0 and you get a blueish grey that I like a lot more than the totally gray of grayscale.

I am moving on to playing with chanels though, I've found a great many people who swear by channel methods.

Thanks for your input, it is much appreciated!

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I took a picture in RAW mode, then the same scene as a JPG. Then processed the RAW image to JPG with default settings, and to a TIFF with default settings. The three pieces you see are those images magnified in PS.

With default settings, the only thing I really see is a little more saturation in the camera's JPG image, but that's easily matchable so maybe my test is flawed in it's execution.

(Those three images are 4M, 36M, and 3M respectively.)

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I know CorelDraw comes with some sample images like this. I don't know if PS comes with any.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I'm always testing and learning though, I'll post anything I find interesting.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

In the following 4 test images, the 4 samples are as follows:

1. Camera JPG
2. RAW Processed to JPG
3. RAW Processed to 8 bit TIFF
4. RAW Processed to 16 bit TIFF

Order is top to bottom or left to right.

The RAW processing was all done using default settings.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

RAW to JPG has a visible increase in quality from the camera's JPG. Mainly it's a contrast thing I think.

The rest though, RAW to TIFF, both 8 and 16 bit, have VERY subtle differences if any at all, at least visually to me.

There may be advantages for prints that you can't really quantify at this point like color saturation of photo paper may be affected differently.

One thing to note though is that I couln't do anything with the 16 bit TIFF in PS. I had to downsample it to 8 bit before I could even copy any of it. I don't know why that is, but that's what happened for me.

I think that for most snapshot 4x3 prints the camera JPG will do great.

For formal shots like weddings or photo shoot portraits, even if they are small, one should step up to a RAW to JPG Process.

If the picture is to be blown up to an 8x10 or larger, maybe going with the RAW to TIFF would be best to make sure the most image information is available for the print.

That's all the squinting at details I can do at the moment... Hopefully others get as much benifit from this as I did.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

I even did a custom WB and it didn't change. I could have fixed that in PS, but I didn't want to compromise the test.

I guess that's something I need to learn a little more about to get it right.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

I'm sorry Terry H, but your impression of JPG files is quite wrong and quite impossible. Files deteriating over time just by opening and closing them is quite the technical impossibility. In fact, the only deteriating that can happen would be the magnetic surface of whatever media you have them stored on, and in that case we're talking decades before even the most sensitive instrument could pick up any change and the file FORMAT wouldn't matter. Unless we're talking about floppy disks maybe... then they could die in a few minutes (haha, but they're really not very reliable). Even so, magnetic deteriation wouldn't change your file. As long as it could be read at all, this is binary data so it's reading a series of 1s and 0s. Even if it reads a poor quality 0 magnetically, it's a 0 none the less and will produce identical results.

What you suggest by your comment, is that a JPG format file is inturpreted differently each time it's opened and that the data is then re-written over the file each time you open it. That is simply crazy. JPG files are 'lossy', yes. What that means is that image data is lost when it is created. The result is a mathmatical representation of the original picture. That aproximation is written to the file and is decoded exactly the same way every time it's read. How in the world would a JPG file survive for even a day on a webpage if it got destroyed a little every time it opened? Many sites have millions of visitors every day. Under your version of how files are treated, no web server would last very long at all before all it's files were gone. WOW.

Those comments are the kind that I fear less techncally minded people might believe. Just apply a SECOND of thought to the possibiliy of a file on a hard drive being damaged just by reading it... Life as we know it on computers would be cease to function.

My point with this thread is, that like you, many people just SWEAR by RAW processing and say the same kinds of things. They say that their RAW shots are WAY different than their JPG shots. I would submit that it must be your camera making crappy JPG shots, because as I've proven above, there is little difference. But the difference does matter in some cases... don't misunderstand me.

In tests since the ones above, I have been able to make my camera JPG shots look identical to the RAW to JPG converted ones. The difference there was simply a sharpness issue and by turning down the sharpness setting on the camera, my in camera JPG shots are identical to my RAW to JPG processed ones.

There's a big point though... just because you shoot RAW, doesn't mean your to the best picture yet. Like in my case, if I shoot RAW, yet process it to a JPG, I end up with a picture that is only .2% different than my camera JPG by a mathmatical comparison of the pixels the file contains. Visually, it's so near identical is easy to miss. A PS difference analysis will barely show dark gray lines in places. Even though the file is a full MEG larger, I submit that unless you are printing it say, poster size, even a trained eye wouldn't notice.

It should be noted though, that one HUGE important point is one I haven't discussed. EVERY JPG shot I make is saved at the best quality possible. In PS, that's the 12 setting (not 10). In the RAW conversion, that's 100%. Moving this down to 90% or using PS 10 instead of 12 will make a HUGE difference. I would bet that most of you, if you've actually compared at all, have used default settings which are much lower than the best possible. You have a choice with JPG compression. If you don't pay attention to it, then sure you'll have crappy results when it uses a default of 50% quality.

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

For large prints, say 8x10, then you'd see a difference, and I'd say RAW - 8bit TIFF is your best bet. I might say 16bit, but I can't work with it in PS so I can't produce proof. Until I can, it's a moot point.

The only reason I've come to that conclusion though, is because of the final file sizes. Surely, with the TIFF being 18Megs, it's got more information and will produce a better large print. Visually, it's identical to my 2.5Meg JPG. And every time I've said visually, I mean both at 100% zoom, AND at 500% zoom.

You cannot just SAY that something is better than the other... you must PROVE it. I have given plenty of examples to support my conclusions, and I'd be happy to give more. I'm not going by some opinion that I have... I had no opinion in the beginning, merely a question. Then I did actual shots and compared them. You can see for yourself how they came out.

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

I am an IT professional. Shawn is correct in saying that jpg files can not deteriorate simply from opening and closing the file. Now a jpg will deterorate from opening and re-saving the file repeatedly. This happens because each time the file is re-saved to disk, the compression algorithym is re-run and more information is lost. However, there is no reason to re-save the file unless it has been edited and some (not all) newer photo editing programs are smart enough to not re-compress the image if you do re-save an unmodified file.

The degridation you described is the result of one of two things. One possiblity is operator error. That is, the user keeps explicitly re-saving the images when closing them even though no changes have been made. The other possiblity is a design flaw in the software you were using to edit the files. No editor whether it is a work processor, spreadsheet software or an image editor should re-save an un-changed file simply because it was closed.

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2005

That would have been a great first response to my post. *smile*

Basically, the conclusion is that the situations that call for RAW are ones where either large format printing is involved, cropping a very small part of the original picture and blowing it up, or like the experiment you linked - when a large amount of manipulation is going to happen afterwards.

I regret not having a color resolution chart to test how color saturation is effected, but my black and white tests have basically come to the same conclusion that most have come to.

Just for the record, I don't think people who only shoot RAW are wasting their time or doing anything un-neccessary. I'm just the type of person who needs to KNOW exactly why things are the way they are, and why it is 'best' to do one thing or another.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I WANT to shoot one way or another, only whether I'd have any real world benifit for doing one thing or another.

Thank you all - I think we can be done with this, at least for now. I would suggest that we drop this and move on.

And Matthew S., if you make it back here, I too am an IT professional. Going on 9 years for my own development, training, and IT support company. My jaw just dropped when it was suggested that merely opening a file caused file degredation. It was like I was looking at a real life witch hunt type situation with JPG as a target. ... if this file opens, it's a JPG witch! ... click ... yep, it's a witch!

Thanks again everyone, and good luck out there!

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

The image quality between JPEG and RAW is equal. It's just nonsense to say that an 8x10 falls apart when shot in JPEG mode. That's totally ludicrous. Even with a 3 MP camera I can pull that off. I can't understand why people keep saying this here. I am part of some other pro internet boards, and they go nuts when people talk like this because many of us are JPEG shooters and make posters from those that are immaculate.

When you process your RAW image for printing, what do you process to? Oh, that's right, a JPEG. HMMMM.

I understand the science. But, if you were really all that into the science and what gives you the BEST image, you would not be shooting digital at all.

Just something to think about.

Cheers,
Jerry

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

That made me smile.

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

I re-read my comment and thought it might come off as sarcastic or something...

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

But as a rule, I use the absolute highest jpg quality setting possible at every step.

You mentioned medium compression... use the smallest compression possible - none if possible.

I think the best thing to do though is to take a test shot, say with some shiny things, a lot of color, and a really busy frame.

Then another shot with a pretty simple frame, say a person in a creative pose with drastic dark tones and pretty light highlights.

Then take those two pictures and save them at a couple different quality settings, and print them at a couple different sizes.

We can suggest things till we're blue in the face, and all the suggestions will be valuable, but only you'll be able to see how the settings you use look when printed and decide if that's good enough for you and your purpose.

It should only take you maybe an hour of time and a couple dollars at wal-mart to get a couple 4x6 prints and a couple 8x10s. And the pictures don't have to be full pictures, they can be sections of different pictures put together in PS to make one print. (feel free to ask if you don't understand what I'm trying to say)

If you are currently seeing a 'poor' image, then step your quality up at least one step.

Lastly, if space is your concern and your reason for using lower quality in the first place, then I would suggest that you bite the bullet and solve your space issue. The hit you'll take for increasing your card size or hard drive size is a far smaller price to pay than looking at poor quality pictures for years.

To love this comment, log in above
May 01, 2005

As for me, after I got bigger CFs I shoot RAW + JPEG Basic. For most of them, I just use the JPG (although in BASIC format), and upload or print to share with friends. For a masterpiece that sometime only one out of 100 (sometimes none, oouch...), I use RAW and save it in PSD to keep all those layers. I will never go back to TIFF. The other 99 out of 100 RAW files will rest in peace in my DVDs to be used after I got retired in 20 years, hehehe...

To love this comment, log in above
October 25, 2005

To love this comment, log in above
October 25, 2005