RAW vs JPEG
|
-
#1. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Thu 04-Dec-14 11:44 PMThe big advantage to raw files is the large amount of room available for editing. JPG files have only a small amount of room for editing.
If you get the shots "right" in the camera, and if the camera Picture Controls do close to what you want, many times you can get great results in post processing while starting from JPG files.
While repeated trips through the open-save-close loop will eventually introduce visible degrading in the JPG files, it does take a while to get there if you pick good save settings to start with.
The amount of time spent on post processing does not really change with the file format. The catch is knowing that only Nikon's software will use the camera's Picture Control settings for the initial display of the NEF files. All other software uses their own default settings (or your saved presets).
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#2. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
professorune Registered since 08th Jun 2013Fri 05-Dec-14 12:30 AMDepends how much time you have or are willing to commit to post processing.
I’ve recently started taking shots using RAW setting & in one instance saved a few underexposed shot (used wrong shutter speed in my haste!!). Meanwhile color range in others are markedly sharper than a JPEG file.
-
#3. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 2
quenton8 Registered since 11th Apr 2010Fri 05-Dec-14 10:04 AMJPEG files are compressed, with loss of data. The lost data is mostly stuff what won't affect what you can see, so as noted by others, if you like what you get out of the camera, its not a problem.
However, if you want/need to do lots of post processing, or even more if you need to do some recovery (underexposed, overexposed), then the RAW has more data (more bits) to use in doing that.
That said, if you shoot JPEG, and if your editing is 99% in Lightroom, then each edit you do does not in fact save anything, but just continues to work on the original JPEG, so not bad. If however you pass something to Photoshop and edit and save, then each time will reduce the quality. You could reduce cumulative loss by first converting to say TIFF or PSD and then continue multiple edits.
Given all of that though, its certainly safer to shoot RAW even if there is slightly more work post-shooting! My own preference is to shoot RAW and be safe.
----
Dennis Smith.-
#4. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 3
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 05-Dec-14 11:33 AMWhat you say is quite correct, but it may be worth adding that it's not just the lossy compression that is a downside of JPEG's. The bit depth is also important - JPEG's are 8-bit files, whereas NEF's are 12- or 14-bit. Working with NEF's gives you significantly greater latitude for recording the gradation of tones (from light to dark) in the image.Brian
Welsh Nikonian
-
-
#5. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
So if you want to do work in post, what would you rather start with, the RAW file or the already-RAW-processed-to-JPG file?
Just try it — take an image both ways (or set your camera to capture RAW+JPG) and play with both files. You’ll see the benefit of RAW almost immediately. The biggest advantage with RAW files is the ability to change the color balance — which is far superior to opening up a JPG file and trying to adjust the overall color.
Regarding loss of quality by reserving JPGs. Yes, it happens. But if you save at the maximum quality setting, you would have to save a few dozen times to seriously degrade the file.
Shooting RAW does not mean you have to process every image. In most PP software you can set up a setting to initially process all incoming RAW files. You can batch output JPGS for other purposes (email, web, commercial print) if need be.
You only tweak the files you want.
Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!
#6. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
>I am trying to decide whether it is worth the time and effort
>to learn a RAW processing program and all the subsequent PP
>work needed to create images. I realize this depends on what
>I am trying to achieve with my photography, but for now I’m
>just trying to understand the range and magnitude of the
>difference.
>
>TomNJ
>
An option in the D7100, and other Nikon cameras, is to shoot RAW+JPEG. As a test perhaps set your camera to the RAW+JPEG setting and shoot a few test shots of your favorite subjects or a variety of subjects. Then review the RAW files and associated JPEGs.
Select a RAW/JPEG pair and, using View NX since you're already familiar with that application, play around with the RAW file to see how you can alter the image. Manipulate the sliders and see the results. Can you make the RAW image better than the JPEG?
Then open the JPEG and see what processing options you have with the JPEG as compared to the RAW. Note that you at least lose the exposure and white balance controls for instance.
Granted, this is a fairly simple intro to PP but I think it shows some of the basic differences between a JPEG and the possibilities of RAW. Then going to the next level by using the "big" Photoshop or perhaps Lightroom (try the 30-day free trial) where there is so much more potential for improving an image.
I have my D7100 and D300s set up for RAW+JPEG with the RAWs recorded to slot 1 and the JPEGs to slot 2.That way I can control which goes to what folder or not download one or the other at all.
Just a thought.
(Edited: What JonK said. We must have been typing at somewhat the same time.)
Ken
Seattle, WA
My Gallery
#7. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
1. Depending on the camera, RAW files will have up to 6 stops more dynamic range than a JPG file (assuming 14-bit RAW capture versus 8-bit JPG compression). This means that a proper exposure at the high end will still leave you significant detail in shadows. Why by a camera with 14 stops of dynamic range and then throw 6 stops away?
2. A RAW file has not committed a color space or white balance. This means that these options remain open until PP. In fact, it means that you can make very different choices in PP at any subsequent time you wish, even years later. For difficult shots, say tungsten lighting interior together with an outdoor view through a window, you can correct the individual parts of an image independently with an optimum overall color result.
3. As RAW processors become more powerful (think of the evolution of Adobe Camera Raw as embodied in Lightroom over the years) you can revisit your best RAW captures and re-do them with the latest in color, exposure, noise, lens distortion/correction, and so on. In contrast, since JPG "bakes in" all of those choices and throws away 6 stops of dynamic range, your ability to improve the gems in your catalog dramatically is severely limited.
4. As you point out, every time you open, process, and save a JPG file, it is uncompressed, worked on, and recompressed. Since those 6-stops of dynamic range that were in the original capture have been tossed, the relative impact of the resulting digital artifacts become increasingly significant. In contrast, PP on a RAW image is inherently non-destructive. That is, RAW PP involves maintaining the original RAW file intact and recording the PP sequence as an independent set of instructions. These instructions may be kept either in the RAW file itself (as Capture NX2 does it) or in a "side-car" file (as Lightroom and Capture One do it). In this way, produces multiple different versions of an image (for example a color variant and a B&W variant) never touch the original RAW data; they are simply two different lists of processing instructions that are performed only when you want to send the image to print, to the web, to email, or whatever.
To summarize, shooting RAW gives you the best dynamic range from your camera, gives you the best flexibility in post processing, allows you to capture future technological gains, and makes your post processing non-destructive.
In short, if you're a photographer who's serious about photography, why do anything else but shoot RAW?
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#8. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 7
jbk224 Nikonian since 19th Nov 2006Fri 05-Dec-14 10:36 PMAlan and Jon echo my opinion as well. The fact that you are even asking this question and that you already PP your pics means that you should be shooting in Raw. I also understand that unless you need to 'produce' a file immediately for distribution, there is no reason to set Raw + jpg. Nikon's Raw file includes a full size jpg that can be 'pulled out' with certain PP software. If you do use Raw + jpg, you will find how quickly your memory cards are used up as well as your hard drive. Try it...you will like it.Now known as Poppyrazzi for our family---sweet!
-
#9. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 7
TomNJ Nikonian since 23rd Nov 2006Sat 06-Dec-14 11:24 AMThank you all for your very helpful information and advice! I thought the main concern with JPEGs was the loss of quality with each save, which hasn't been noticeable to me, but now I see that the type, degree and flexibility of adjustments are much more important. I can especially see the value of six stops of dynamic range and being able to control white balance and exposure in PP!
I try to limit the time I spend in PP (Photoshop Elements) as I already spend too much time on the computer, and my images, mostly portraits and landscapes, are mostly used in small prints (up to 8x10), emails, and computer viewing. That said I have printed some up to poster size and hope to do more. I store a couple presets in the camera using U1 and U2 and my PP work is mostly just cropping with small adjustments if needed to sharpness, brightness, contrast, red eye, saturation and/or temperature. In most cases if my presets were carefully done I only need to crop with maybe a touch of sharpening. Now that I better understand the power and versatility of RAW I'll try NEF+JPEG Fine and play in View NX2 to see how I can improve upon the JPEG.
You folks make a compelling case for shooting in RAW. I sense an addiction in the making!
Are there significant differences between Capture NX2 and View NX2 for my shooting style? I have View NX2 but have barely used it, so I am not stuck on it and willing to learn another. I kinda like the fact than Nikon software provides a thumbnail with the camera settings intact.
TomNJ
-
#10. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 9
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Sat 06-Dec-14 12:19 PM
>Are there significant differences between Capture NX2 and View
>NX2 for my shooting style? I have View NX2 but have barely
>used it, so I am not stuck on it and willing to learn another.
> I kinda like the fact than Nikon software provides a
>thumbnail with the camera settings intact.
Capture NX2 has been desupported, and is being replaced by Nikon with something else called NX-D (I think the beta is out of the new product, I haven't tried it). I would not start to learn Capture NX2 now.
If you are looking for a new tool I always encourage looking at Lightroom, it's a really comprehensive raw workflow tool, plus it will non-destructively edit JPG.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#12. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 10
I agree with Linwood that Lightroom should be seriously considered. Besides being a great workflow tool it is also a great library tool. I, and many others, use LR almost exclusively. Note though there are some things LR won't do such a layering and certain output formatting and such.
That being said, a look at Capture NX-D would be worthwhile as well. Currently it is a free download so there's no charge, as opposed to Capture NX2 @ $179.95. Some Capture NX2 users are not very happy with NX-D but since you are in the "Lookie Lou" stage for PP application, and at the beginning of the PP learning curve, NX-D is worth a look.
There is a "significant" difference between View NX2 and Capture NX-D. Simply put, VNX2 is a file/image management tool as opposed to a comprehensive image enhancement tool such as CNX-D (or CNX2), Lightroom, Photoshop and others. My use of VNX2, for example, is strictly as an image viewer once the images have been uploaded from the camera. Here I can determine the keepers which are then imported into LR to add to the library and further processing. (Note: my image workflow works for me. Others have their own workflows which they like so no workflow is "the" workflow.)
Hope this helps a little.
Ken
Seattle, WA
My Gallery
-
-
-
#14. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 9
adangus Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2009Sun 07-Dec-14 11:37 AMI used Capture NX2 for several years. I preferred the quality of the results, especially for any work involving lens correction. However, LR at v5 has conquered many of its early issues. These days I prefer it and Phase One's Capture One Pro as RAW processors and DAMs.
The biggest value of either of these programs to, I think, someone like you, is the ability to easily apply batch changes to a large set of images. To minimize the amount of time that you spend in PP with a program like LR5, you can come up with a preset or two or three that expresses your broad vision of how you'd treat, say, studio portraits, wedding shots, landscapes, or whatever you're doing. Then simply apply the appropriate preset as you bring images into your catalog. No work involved at all.
Later, if you want to start from scratch to create, say, a B&W version, simply create a new "virtual copy" of the RAW file and have at it. Similar comments apply to getting factors like white balance, camera calibration, lens correction, sensor dust removal, and etc. dealt with for any large batch of images. Just correct one image and synchronize those corrections to the entire batch. Done in seconds.
Unfortunately, doing batch processing like this in NX2 is not nearly as easy because of the way in which NX2 has to open each file in the batch, write the modifications in, and then save the result. With LR or Capture One, the side-car file with the list of changes is simply copied for every image in the batch of files at great speed.Visit my Nikonians gallery
#11. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
I would like to add two points.
When I use Lightroom to manage and edit RAW files, the default processing made by LR (and not by the camera) most often seems to be very close to my liking, especially in sunny, outside pictures when the sun is behind my back. Although the files are called "raw", they do not always need extensive editing and adjustments before they can be called pictures. It could be very little that you need to do to make the picture perfect. Remember that cropping and such needs to be done anyway.
The second point is that before you can deliver the image over the net, you need to convert it to JPEG. This is an extra step you have to make. But even then, you probably seldom send your 24 Mpx Fine Quality JPEG images with full resolution anyway.
Kari
-
#13. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 11
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Sat 06-Dec-14 04:01 PM | edited Sat 06-Dec-14 04:02 PM by Ferguson>When I use Lightroom to manage and edit RAW files, the default
>processing made by LR (and not by the camera) most often seems
>to be very close to my liking, especially in sunny, outside
>pictures when the sun is behind my back. Although the files
>are called "raw", they do not always need extensive
>editing and adjustments before they can be called pictures. It
>could be very little that you need to do to make the picture
>perfect. Remember that cropping and such needs to be done
>anyway.
For those who have not used lightroom, it is worth commenting slightly on the above.
There are many "default" processings available, from ones that are more flat, to those more vivid, to ones more closely paralleling what the camera might output by default (and then again most Nikons have many types of processing there).
It is very easy in Lightroom (probably as in other products) to adjust these defaults to your liking, even tying them to specific situations or camera serial numbers. This means that with a bit of one time preparation you can do essentially "no" editing and still have quite complex and subtle post processing applied to your shots.
People I see (including myself) who do repetitive shoots of similar conditions get to the point where they are primarily cropping and straightening, if that; their preferences have long ago become incorporated into their "default" settings.
But should you look at any new tool that includes presets and customization defaults, please do not choose it (or choose not to use it) because of the out-of-the-box defaults. It's kind of like returning a new sound system because the volume was too loud when you turned it on (and then saying "I don't want to have to turn it down, it should be right when I get it"). I've read many a rant on lightroom and other raw conversion tools that, frankly, were exactly that complaint.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#15. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 13
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Sun 07-Dec-14 11:46 AMWell said. The. Internet is full of silly reviews from people who simply applied default settings and never spent five minutes educating themselves. It's rampant.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
#16. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 15
TomNJ Nikonian since 23rd Nov 2006Sun 07-Dec-14 07:45 PMI have been using Photoshop Elements v6 for several years and feel quite comfortable with it, but it would not open NEF files from my D7100. I just found that if I upgrade to the latest version of Elements (v13) with the appropriate Camera Raw Plug-in it will open and allow adjustments to NEF files.
I realize that Elements is probably not as powerful as Lightroom v6, but would Elements v13 let me manipulate exposure and white balance, and retain the full dynamic range with NEF images? In other words, can I reap all the benefits of shooting RAW with Photoshop v13, a program I am already familiar with?
TomNJ-
#17. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 16
I have v12 of Elements and it does open NEFs from my D7100 just fine. I don't use Elements that much but you shouldn't have any problems. Other than Elements will convert the image to 8-bit.
Ken
Seattle, WA
My Gallery-
#18. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 17
Tom,
You might also like DXO Optics 10. You can download a free trial of the program from their site. The new to this version "Clearview" slider and the "Prime" function does a great job on Raw files. I use this program much more than LR and find it very simple to use.
Yerv
www.photographybyyervant.com>.
-
-
-
-
#19. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 13
>
>But should you look at any new tool that includes presets and
>customization defaults, please do not choose it (or choose not
>to use it) because of the out-of-the-box defaults. It's kind
>of like returning a new sound system because the volume was
>too loud when you turned it on (and then saying "I don't
>want to have to turn it down, it should be right when I get
>it"). I've read many a rant on lightroom and other raw
>conversion tools that, frankly, were exactly that complaint.
>
Brilliant analogy! This really hits the nail on the head!!!
Barry
http://art2printimages.com
bwesthead@art2printimages.com
#20. "RE: RAW vs JPEG" | In response to Reply # 0
I like to think about it this way - JPEG is like brownies you get already baked - not much you can do with them - they are "done" in your camera. Raw is the recipe that you can do almost anything with. Control of exposure - lighting - shadows - its the closest thing in digital we have to working with a wet darkroom negative or slide. You have a lot more latitude in sharpening and what ever else with out JPEG artifacts. Not to mention a greater color space.
If you want to shoot files out online as fast as you can JPEG is the way to go. If you want to work with your images as pieces of art RAW for me, is the best option.
I hope this helps,
Warm Well Wishes,
Ken
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyco_g/
Visit my Nikonians gallery
G
Where I am confused is that I can also manipulate JPEGs in PP for the same variables. Is the main difference that an adjusted JPEG loses quality each time it is re-saved, or that the adjustments lack the quality or range available in RAW? Is there really a lot of difference between a RAW created image and a JPEG that has been adjusted and re-saved just once?
I am trying to decide whether it is worth the time and effort to learn a RAW processing program and all the subsequent PP work needed to create images. I realize this depends on what I am trying to achieve with my photography, but for now I’m just trying to understand the range and magnitude of the difference.
TomNJ