RAW vs. JPEG???

[In The Moment]

I would like to go ahead and aplogize in case this question is redundant, but I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between RAW vs JPEG? I'm new to this and did a little bit of googling but thought that I might get a better answer by just asking you all. Is one better to use than the other in certain situations? Just curious. Thanks in advance for any replies! Hope everyone is having a happy Memorial Day!

[Jim Poor]

There are tons and tons of threads on here that go over this topic from every which way.

[Sime]

Out of the camera RAW has all the information your sensor (the film) provides in (you guessed it) raw format... whereas, if you have your camera set to jpg, it mushes that information together, maybe adds some sharpening, maybe some contrast and a splash of its own color / white balance and gives you a jpg.. you lose some info, too, so it's a smaller file.

I shoot RAW as it offers me more flexibilty in processing my images. It takes longer, but means I have total control... jpg is quick if I need to get to press in a hurry... less / no processing time... smaller files...

Hope this helps.

S

[In The Moment]

Jim: I had only tried googling it. I figured this site had a million posts on this already so instead of searching/sifting through the different threads I figured I'd take the easy way out and start my own post. I admit it, I was being lazy. I'll search it though.

Sime: Appreciate the feedback! I've read a lot of different opinions of those who always shoot RAW and those who don't so somewhere along the line it got a little confusing. This was definitely helpful though. Thanks!

[bayberry]

Digital images have not only the image itself, but also information about that image embedded in them. The information includes what kind of camera took the image and the settings that were used to make that image.

In RAW some of that data can be changed after the image is taken because it's not permanently fused to the image, they are like two separate files. Because of this you have a lot more flexibility and control over the image after it is taken. And these changes don't decrease the image quality at all. You are basically just re-writing how the image was originally taken, but without losing anything from the image.

In jpg that data is permanently fused to the image and can't be changed, they are not separate. Any changes made to the image are done directly to the image itself, not to the data that tells the image what to do. It isn't nearly as flexible and it degrades the image quality somewhat. Every single time you open up a jpg, change something, and hit save you lose 25% of the pixels in that image and you will never ever get them back. You are letting the program basically "guess" and fill in the blanks for you on the 25% that it erases. This doesn't happen in RAW format, no pixels are erased when you save an image.

So you can fiddle around with a RAW image all day, be able to recover blown highlights and/or lost shadows much more effectively and whatever else your heart desires but with no fear of degrading the image. The other beautiful thing is that it maps everything that you have done and you can always go back and undo anything or everything you have done at any time even after those changes are saved. You can't do that with a jpg.

[LeeR]

Think of shooting RAW like getting under the hood of your car. Many people drive their whole lives whithout ever sticking their heads in there but for some the idea of tinkering with all those little widgets is enticing. Many people, some of them professionals, shoot nothing but jpeg and never look back. Others simply can't resist the temptation to tinker with the widgets. I happen to be one of those who loves to tinker, though their are times I wonder if I am just making life difficult for myself. Those of us who like to tinker will argue that we are getting all 16 bits of information in its raw state, straight from the camera, but the truth is that 99% of the time your camera's computer chip will do just as well.
So the question you may want to ask is this: "Do I like tinkering with the widgets, or do I just want to take pictures?" Neither choice is wrong. You may also want to know that there is a significant learning curve to shooting RAW. I had to read a couple of books on the subject before I felt like I knew what I was doing. You may also want to view this video where they make the case against shooting RAW. (Almost everyone on this forum is going to encourage you to shoot RAW, like it was a badge of honor, so I don't think one small video making the opposing case is unfair.)

[Jim Bryant]

Shooting RAW gives you a digital negative, packed with more information to work with than a jpeg. True, a jpeg saves space and you can cram more images on a CF card, but....
to me quality matters the most.

[kirbinster]

Here is another little twist. It used to be when you edited a jpeg file you actually changed it and lost quality each time you did something - that is not totally true anymore. If you use a program like Lightroom you can do non-destructive edits on a jpeg as well. Now you are totally confused.

I like to look at it this way. Anytime you press the shutter button you are taking a raw image. Your choice is then how do you want to process it. If you select jpeg then you have the camera do the processing based on some assumption you have dialed in and some that you have no control over. When the camera is done it presents you a finished jpeg and throws away the negative. If you are happy with what it does that is great. Your other choice is to take that raw image and do the work yourself. When you do that you can do many different things and don't loose anything as you still have the negative.

Since memory is so cheap and large these days the best option might be to just shoot jpeg+Raw, that way you leave all your options open.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Here is another little twist. It used to be when you edited a jpeg file you actually changed it and lost quality each time you did something - that is not totally true anymore. If you use a program like Lightroom you can do non-destructive edits on a jpeg as well. Now you are totally confused.

I like to look at it this way. Anytime you press the shutter button you are taking a raw image. Your choice is then how do you want to process it. If you select jpeg then you have the camera do the processing based on some assumption you have dialed in and some that you have no control over. When the camera is done it presents you a finished jpeg and throws away the negative. If you are happy with what it does that is great. Your other choice is to take that raw image and do the work yourself. When you do that you can do many different things and don't loose anything as you still have the negative.

Since memory is so cheap and large these days the best option might be to just shoot jpeg+Raw, that way you leave all your options open.

How so true!!!!!!!!

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by LeeR

You may also want to view this video where they make the case against shooting RAW.

nice video.