RAWjpgtiff?!?!?

[eddieshomate]

So I'm new to photography. I've heard there are numerous advantages to shooting RAW. Honestly though, beeing so new, I don't understand any of it. Could anyone explain, in terms a first grader would understand, the difference between RAW, jpg, tiff, etc.? Why is it better to shoot RAW to get better quality images? What exactly is a RAW file? Why do I hear that you don't lose any quality when editing a RAW image? Why do you have greater editing capability with RAW files? And remember, first grader terms. Thanks in advance!

[candleman]

Raw is like a digital version of an old film negative.. theres lots that can be done with it.
(heres a somewhat abstract explaination)
TIFF and JPEG are snapshots taken from a raw file.. (IE a printed pictire from the RAW file)
thus, photoshoping a jpeg is like using a colouring pencil to change a a printed images colour colour, as opposed to the HUGE range of variations that can be achieved by simply creating a new pring trom the original negative...

think of it like taking a freeze frame from a movieclip.. you loose a bunch of other stuff when you take your snapshot.

theres a hell of allot more to it than that, but you asked for simple
i hope thats "first grade" enough.

[B..]

Originally Posted by candleman

...TIFF and JPEG are snapshots taken from a raw file..

Does a TIFF file exactly equal a JPEG file with zero compression? Nerdy inquiring minds want to know ... ?

[eddieshomate]

Would anyone happen to have an example of two pictures side by side, one and edited jpg and the other and edited RAW image to compare the differences? Why do you have a much greater range with editing a RAW image than you do with a jpg? And how much greater is the range of editing a RAW than a jpg? Candleman, nice job with the first grader explanation.

[DogHeadGod]

RAW is the data exactly as the camera sensor recorded it. JPEG is a compressed version of this data. There is more range for editing RAW because simply there is more data to edit therefore more fine control to be had.

If I shoot RAW and then convert and save to the highest quality jpeg setting I can, the file size decreases by about half. So my 6Mb raw file is about 3MB when saved as a jpeg. Half the data has been lost.

Another important fact is that JPEG is a lossy format. This means every time you make a change and save it you lose a little more data. So for example, you edited the colours a little and saved it, you lose some data, then you open it again and sharpen the image a little more and save it, you lose more data. Each time you do this the software you use has less data to apply the changes/effects to, so they in turn become less subtle.

If you want to see it in action, if somewhat exaggerated, shoot an image in RAW and save a copy as JPEG in your editing program resizing it to say 1024x768 pixels. Then open both and zoom in to around 200%. As I said, it is exagerated because of the resizing, but you will see how much detail is lost, any maybe even notice some pixelation.

Give it a try

[carriekitley]

So, would this scenario (subsequent jpg changes) be the primary reason I tend to get more noise in my post-production? So, it would be wise to make all the changes you want in one swoop, otherwise you're basically "shrinking" your photo each time you open and edit?

[DogHeadGod]

Originally Posted by carriekitley

So, would this scenario (subsequent jpg changes) be the primary reason I tend to get more noise in my post-production? So, it would be wise to make all the changes you want in one swoop, otherwise you're basically "shrinking" your photo each time you open and edit?

Any excessive changes will create noise/artifacting regardless of the file type, but jpeg will make it worse. You can save as tiff, or photoshops own .psd format as they are not lossy, and just export jpeg as the very final step. Anytime you want to edit make the changes in the tiff/psd file and re-export.

[carriekitley]

Ok, thanks for the advice. One more question . . . so using a "noise reduction" function in editing software at the end will not necessarily help?

[DogHeadGod]

Originally Posted by carriekitley

Ok, thanks for the advice. One more question . . . so using a "noise reduction" function in editing software at the end will not necessarily help?

It will work, it will just work better the more data you have, i.e. RAW/TIFF/PSD

[eddieshomate]

So does a RAW image have more pixels? I think someone said it stores more information?