Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

RAW vs. JPEG

Sep 8, 2004 8:32AM PDT

Sorry in advance if this discussion has already taken place ad nauseum, but I'm new to this board.

I am an experienced film photographer, and am just starting to go digital. I have a point and shoot, but will soon be buying a higher resolution camera (DSLR or Prosumer, haven't decided). I want to take high quality 8x10 photos, the kind of photos that have exceptionally sharp detail. Is it necessary to go RAW? I'm certainly not a computer techie, and I'm wondering if all the bother is worth it. Can an 8 megapixel camera, taking JPEG photos at the highest resolution setting give high quality results? How much better will the picture look if going RAW? And here's something I don't really understand: at some point, if using RAW photos, don't you have to convert it to JPEG eventually to actually use/print/email the photos? And if so, what is the point of this argument? As I understand it, the minute you leave the RAW format you lose information due to the compression, but if you need to eventually convert back to JPEG, why not simply use JPEG end-to-end, especially if I will not be doing any really fancy editing? thanks for your advice.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 8, 2004 8:48AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 8, 2004 8:48AM PDT

This is best answered by you taking a few pictures. JPEG compression can annoy perfectionists and you can look on the web for examples.

As to losing information, JPEG is, by definition a lossy compression scheme. That should answer your question about data loss. If you really are picky, stay in RAW or TIFF or experiment with various compressions.

NO ONE can tell how picky you may be.

In closing, emailing 8 MB RAW files is unlikely. To do that, we have a FTP server for people to drop off and pick up the larger files.

Bob

- Collapse -
Addendum. Enough JPEG information to fill two noggins.
Sep 10, 2004 5:07AM PDT
- Collapse -
I suggest a bit more education before you make the plunge.
Sep 8, 2004 11:40AM PDT

As was noted, you lose picture data in a jpg format. If you're a pro who doesn't mind losing quality, then go for it. I don't use jpg unless I'm running out of storage space. One thing you never want to do is edit a jpg and resave it as a jpg. You will lose data every time you save it, and the loss is cumulative. I think jpg is mainly used these days for web images.

If you don't plan to edit the picture to any significant degree, why do you want a high end digital camera? It looks like the only benefit you'll get over film is the opportunity to see the picture after you take it. Even then however, the LCD usually doesn't have enough resolution to show small but significant problems.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 9, 2004 9:06PM PDT

due to compression jpegs lose information every time you perform a manipulation and save - each save causes compression. To avoid this TIFF is a better option. It is possible to convert both RAW files and Jpegs to TIFF. It is equally possible to print from either jpeg or TIFF - but jpeg is the more universally acceptable. Lots of programmes can open jpegs - some cannot open TIFFs so for web use jpeg is the standard - in photographic terms what you see on your screen is c**p so file quality is unimportant. Similarly my regular photo lab prints from 300dpi jpegs with excellent results and I've had glossy mags use jpegs from a sample disc rather than ask for the RAW original (RAW and TIFFs are bigger files - hence the popularity of jpeg) and the jpegs reproduced just fine. Why shoot RAW at all - for extra control and for file size when you need it. I use it for social group photos - PR - anything where egg is on the face if it ain't perfect - but I rarely need to resort to the RAW file because the jpeg is nearly always good enough - my camera records RAW and Jpeg simultaneously - jpeg for quick viewing/processing and RAW if /when it's really needed. I shoot a lot of sport and would never dream of using other than jpeg - I also shoot travel for magazine and library use and RAW is on all the time for that so I can offer bigger files when/if required - might as well have the top quality as all it costs is extra storage space on cards and discs - travel means dumping to a laptop regularly. Best thing would be to try the camera you have in mind before buying - in both modes and have a couple of real prints made - only you know what you want to achieve - some "purists" insist on the highest numbers and the biggest this and thats and a lot of it is bunkum - some purists take c**p pictures - never lose sight of the picture.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 9, 2004 9:11PM PDT

I am certainly no expert in this subject, however I do take a lot of digital photos. I have a Canon EOS 10D. The pictures that are RAW are truly awesome and if I print directly from my camera these pictures have the truest color and clarity.
However you ARE right when you say that you do have to convert them to send via email or store....otherwise they take up way too much space.
jeanne

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 1:23AM PDT

Regarding RAW vs JPEG Formats...
There seems to be a general growing consensus...

RAW takes up entirely too much memory which severely limits the number of shots you can take.

RAW is too slow to load into camera memory which means no action shots can be taken.

Many camera functions such as Bracketing, Multi-shot, etc are not available when shooting RAW which again means no action shots can be made.

Using noise removal software such as Noise Ninja 2 works better on JPEG files as RAW has to be processed before you get an image...
- Noise removal software works best on images that have not been processed in any way as the processing makes changes to the pixels that distorts the noise removal process.
- Generally speaking, noise removal is usually not as successful with RAW files as it is with JPEG.
- As there are no standards for RAW (each camera company does it slightly differently) noise removal software does not work on RAW files.
- The RAW file has to be converted to a TIFF (or JPEG) before the noise removal software will work and then the file has to be converted back to RAW.
- Why go through all that for some slight, very small, hard to detect improvement that RAW is supposed to give?

Yes, RAW does allow you to make all changes to the image with RAW editing software but why spend a lot of time doing that when the camera will automatically do it for you with JPEG?

Most people are hard-pressed to tell any real difference between RAW & JPEG images after they are processed.

Other Thoughts About JPEG...

The general feeling is that if you always shoot in the Fine (highest quality) JPEG mode, that a few saves after editing the JPEG file will do no real noticeable harm.

After Noise Ninja 2 becomes available as a Photoshop plug-in, I will be able to do all editing to the image with just one save after all the editing is done. This will not effect the image in any noticeable way.

Another thought is to never edit the original JPEG image... work on a copy only. This way you will always have the original to go back to if you somehow mess up the copy. Good advice for any format.

General Comments...
RAW does have its place and some very advanced users may find it very rewarding to spend a lot of time manipulating a RAW image to get that very last ounce of detail out of it; however as they say... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

RAW is not so much about the format as it is about the kind of person that uses it.

There are certain users that may indeed find the advanced features of RAW to be very rewarding.

However, for someone like myself (advanced amateur) who wants all of my cameras features to function most of the time, takes hundreds of photos at a day outing, does not want to forgo action or spontaneous shots, does not want to have to keep changing back and forth between RAW and JPEG to get ALL my shots, does not want to carry 5 to 6 times the amount of memory, does not want to wait most of the afternoon to download hundreds of 17MB RAW images, does not have endless amounts of time to take and process hundreds of images, does not like constantly transferring from one image form to another (RAW to TIFF to JPEG) and is not an aspiring Ansel Adams, then RAW is simply not my cup of tea.

Most amateurs do not have PhotoShop CS, but like myself simply use as many of the automated features in a simpler (and cheaper) program like PhotoShop Elements II.

My camera is a Sony 828 8 mega pixel. At the Fine quality and 8 mega pixel settings this is the first thing I run into with RAW...

The time to store mages on my MicroDrive... 2 seconds (JPEG) vs. 15 seconds (RAW).

The size of file... 3 Mb (JPEG) vs. 17Mb (RAW).

I view all of my images with ACDSee image management software but, all of the RAW files in SRF format (that is what Sony uses) are not nearly as clear as any of the JPEG's, in fact, most are downright blurry; this I believe is due to the RAW interrupter that ACDSee uses (as there are no standards for RAW) and most likely is not the fault of RAW itself. This does however put one more roadblock into the use of RAW (for me) as I am not giving up ACDSee as it is one lovely program.

I also see a lot of hype about the RAW format...
Case in point...

One of my friends just bought a new Olympus 770 digital 4 mega pixel pocket camera. For last Christmas I gave him a one year subscription to a wonderful magazine called PC Photo which he loves to read. The other day he said he was thinking about shooting all his images in RAW. I was shocked! Now here is a guy that is still using the 16 MB memory card that came with his camera as memory is too expensive. He has absolutely no imaging processing software on his computer as he does not have any time to use it. He is a total novice, never makes prints, all shots are only for viewing on the computer or for e-mail yet he wants to shoot RAW. Now that is industry hype working at its best.

If, and when RAW conversion technology improves in the future, I hope that one area of improvement will be a standardization of the RAW format; maybe then there will be some real advances in the format as all developers will be working on improving only one version of RAW. When that day comes I will take another look at RAW.

Until that day arrives, I will stick with JPEG.

But, that is just me.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 9, 2004 10:10PM PDT

Like most of the rest, I won't claim to be an expert. Good things have already been mentioned, but here are a few thoughts that I found important and missing:
1- RAW gives you some processing options that aren't really available with jpg. Photoshop and some other packages give you the ability to alter your exposure if you don't like what you shot, in addition to several other very powerful adjustments to the image. Yes, if you're good enough and patient enough you can probably do the same things with whatever image-editing application you have, but you can't beat it for a very quick, very easy, very high-quality fix for exposure, white balance, etc.

2- I'm a packrat. I stored my negatives forever. Now I do the same with my RAW files. I shoot them RAW unless I'm just doing junk snapshots of a family picnic or something, and I put those RAW files on CDs or DVDs and never ever under any circumstances do anything with them. To work with them, I suck them into Photoshop, process them in any way I like, and if necessary for the intended use or for printers who won't use .psd (Photoshop format) files, my final edit before printing is to convert to the max quality jpg -- only once for reasons mentioned in previous posts. In some photos it's hard to see the compression loss from going to jpg, but in many it's very easy -- especially if you're printing large, high-quality prints.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 12:10AM PDT

Since you are experienced with film shooting, it might be easier to think about digital like this: A RAW image file is your original transparency. It is the file you will keep as your "original" image just as you would file away your original slides. You will always have that first generation original to revert back to whenever you need it. JPG is for web use. I don't know any industry that accepts JPG format accept the web. Yes, there are portrait photogs out there who shoot JPG, but I wouldn't go to the expense of learning digital with a DSLR if I was going to shoot JPG. You can get the 8mp compact camera and get the same quality JPG that you get from a 6mp DSLR. I have been shooting stock for two years, this past year being exclusively with Nikon D100 and D70 DSLRs. I always shoot RAW, even for my personal photos. You never know what you might want to do with an image in the future. If you shoot JPG, you are limiting your ability to use these files again later. www.pipershots.com

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 2:05AM PDT

All of the comments here have been excellent. RAW files do allow you to have exquisite control over various image parameters as you are importing the file into the computer. For example, you can adjust the white balance or the exposure. When you shoot JPEGs, the camera typically makes these adjustments for you. While the camera's protocols usually produce excellent results, some people prefer to control these parameters themselves. As was mentioned earlier, a RAW file is much larger than a JPEG file of the same image. This means that you will need more in-camera storage for RAW files and file storage will take longer, after you have snapped the picture.

If you prefer to shoot JPEG files, you can minimize any loss of information by simply converting the files to a lossless format before you do any manipulations in the computer. Any photo software package will let you save a file as a TIFF. Photoshop and Photoshop Elements can also use the .psd format, etc. By converting the JPEG to a lossless format, you will use up more hard drive space and you can edit to your heart's content withouth losing any information from the file, unless you choose to remove the information. Be sure to convert your file to a lossless file format before making any changes. Even rotating a JPEG photo to make it appear right side up on your monitor may cause losses.

I believe that a four or five megapixel camera is capable of producing excellent 8X10 prints.

Have fun with digital photography!

Dave

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 2:48AM PDT

Hi Pathos- I'm a professional photographer who used to stick with film but now I find I prefer digital. I'm using the Nikon D100, would recommend you buy DSLR rather than fixed-lens. Now to your question: first you must understand that digital cameras do NOT see color. Each pixel only sees brightness, and has a red, green or blue filter over it. A RAW file has only the density information from each pixel. By shooting RAW, you do the conversion to RGB in your computer later, rather than having the camera do it on the fly. If you shoot JPEG, then pixels deemed to be irrelevant are discarded, hopefully recreated in a reasonable fashion. So, shoot RAW, get Adobe's "Camera Raw" plug-in for Photoshop, then you have incredible control over the creation of your RGB file. Then, rather than save as a JPEG, you are better off saving as a TIFF file- no compression. My camera is only 6 megapixels, and high-quality 8x10s are no problem. Another great piece of software is Genuine Fractals, which allows you to "res-up" your files if need be, and does a much better job than if you just added pixels to a file in Photoshop. Hope that helps!
Brad Milliken, Palo Alto, CA
fotobrad@pacbell.net

- Collapse -
RAW/JPEG - What are your priorities?
Sep 10, 2004 3:27AM PDT

There are several scenarios - where do you fit in?

1. If your primary object in photography is to produce High Quality Photo Prints, you cannot beat 'quality' film, camera/lens, and processing Lab. Unless you are well equiped and experienced enough, you have no post-exposure editing capability though. On the other hand, a good/professional photographer can plan to take a large variety of 'variations on a theme' to hopefully ensure the group contains at least one 'desireable' result.

2. If you cant resist digital photography and still want to produce the best quality available for printing, then get the best quality camera/lens combo you can afford and ensure you have several large camera memory cards (500 MB to 2 GB) and shoot RAW. Preview the results of a session and download all potentially good images to CD or DVD as 'originals' and use copies to manipulate and edit as required (using RAW editing capable software). Send edited images to print processing houses on CD after transforming them to acceptable formats. Please do not try and send any RAW image files over the web to friends or businesses.

3. I guess this doesn't apply to you, but for those of us who want digital images primarily to display on our CRTs, I don't see any point in keeping an image file in other than compressed form (JPEG) at a resolution greater than our screen resolution. In this case I set my camera (Canon Power Shot A50) to a medium resolution, and then edit/crop/reduce the ones I want to keep to approx 1024 x 768 pixels (my screen resolution). With this end in mind, it is actually counter productive to take the original picture at a higher resolution as the greater end reduction will actually produce less clarity in the end result than an original requiring less reduction.

- Collapse -
RAW vs. JPEG or Lossless vs. Lossy
Sep 10, 2004 3:49AM PDT

To preface this response, I only have a small amount of experience with digital still photography (I work a lot with digital video and audio).

From my understanding, RAW is a lossless file format representing the uncompressed information as recieved from the CCD(s). In my experience this format CAN be proprietary (depending on the manufacturer) and thus difficult to import into photo manipulation software with out the appropriate plugins or software specific to the camera (although this may not always be the case).

In my experience editing and dynamically processing AUDIO provides the best end results if I wait to apply any form of compression until the end (much like converting to the lossy format JPEG in digital photography) .

In a lossless world I can take a value 5 and apply some process whereby I divide by 2 and end up with 2.5. If I apply the same process again in this lossless world, 2.5 then becomes 1.25. If I end by translating this to a lossy world where non-integer information is thrown out this manipulated value becomes 1 (a pretty close representation of the true value 1.25).

On the other hand, in the integer-based lossy world described above, following the same process the value 5 after the first manipulation becomes 3 (since 2.5 would round up to the nearest integer 3). After the second manipulation (on the value 3 NOT 2.5 since we're operating in a lossy world), our value now becomes 2 (not as accurate).

As you can see applying all manipulation to digital information while maintaining a lossless environment throughout the process yields the most accurate representation for the end result.

If you will be manipulating your photos perhaps converting from the RAW format to a more universal .TIF, .TIFF lossless file first before applying any manipulation and saving in this same lossless format throughout your manipulations might be the best choice. Think of these post-processed files in the TIF format as your negatives to be archived. If a client or colleague needs to have the files emailed you can then open these uncompressed files and save as JPEG for easy uploading/downloading and more versatility for viewing across different platforms. By doing this you can always send the higher quality TIF files by snail mail on a CD-R.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 4:34AM PDT

I was SLR for 50 years and did my own Ektachrome. I've been digital for 4 years ( 2 Mpixel Kodak ) which makes very good 8x10s with an HP882C printer, which is adequate. No, it's not an 8x10 Kodachrome - don't get picky. I've used PaintShopPro for 6 years, versions 5 through 8 ( I've got the 9 beta ) which allows variable compression, all the way from " can't tell the difference " to " who'd want that ". Take a tough pic, vary the compression - it tells you how many kb you're ending up with, and see how you like it. I find generally, a compression ratio of 7 seems to do it. That won't work on a field of grass or a Persian rug but landscapes and people survive. Set it for what looks good to you. I've never been below a 3:1 which still saves a lot of hard-drive. But there's no way around getting to know your graphics program. That's where you make or break the pic. I've recovered " impossible " pictures.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 4:38AM PDT

Hi Pathos,

You have quite a few important questions. I'll do my best to answer them one by one.

You say you want a camera that can give you high quality, sharp 8x10 prints. If that's the case, you will want to buy a camera with at least 6.9 megapixel capabilities. Here's how it works: Your 8x10" print needs 300 pixels (tiny squares of color) per inch to look great in print. That computes to 20.6 megabytes (MB) of data. To know if a camera can produce that much data per photo, multiply the megapixel capability (6.9 for example) times three. 6.9x3=20.7MB, so you will be safe for your 8x10" prints. An 8 megapixel camera will certainly do the job well for you.

You ask if it is necessary to go RAW. No, you can use the JPEG format for saving your images in your camera. The advantage to RAW is that you would have the ability to tweak your exposure and color balance for each image individually before "setting" the final image in digital form. That's a huge advantage for people who aren't right on target with their exposures. Digital photography has far less latitude for exposures than traditional print film photography. Digital images have approximately the same latitude as traditional slide film. If your exposure isn't right on target, you're in trouble. RAW gives you the chance to correct exposures in better ways than Photoshop can do for non-RAW images.

JPEG format is exceptional for compressing image files. It's also problematic after a while. Depending on what you want to do with your photos, JPEG may work. You can open and close JPEG files forever without problems IF you don't change anything within that file. However, if you do retouching, cropping, or other photo manipulation and then re-save the file as JPEG, you're actually throwing away a bit of color information. I've heard that it's safe to open, change and re-save JPEGs 5 or 6 times, but after that you may start seeing image degradation. Therefore it's safest to save JPEGs in another format (say tiff or Photoshop) while you're working on the image. When you're satisfied with your results, re-save the image to JPEG format. So whether you keep images in JPEG or not will depend on how many times you expect to open, change, and re-save your images.

Hope this information helps.

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 10, 2004 5:14AM PDT

Well, you bring up two questions for me.

(1) Raw vs high-res jpeg.
(2) Type of Camera to buy.

(1) has been pretty well addressed- except to note that generally RAW has to be post processed to be printed.

(2) Having had both a prosumer camera (Fujipix S602Z) and a dslr (Canon D300), I would say follow your lenses. If you have a SLR now with autofocus lenses, I would seriously look at the compatable dslr - and prepare to cough up at least $1000 US (body, lens, and battery) to do it.

If you currently don't have a SLR I would seriously look at some of the high end prosumer cameras. My fuji was a great and highly portable unit- except in low light situations. That has supposedly been fixed. Canon, Sony, and Olympus all have well regarded prosumer models. Check out the thorough reviews at http://www.dpreview.com/ and http://www.steves-digicams.com/ before making up your mind.

Good shooting...

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 13, 2004 2:05AM PDT

I recommend that you read Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS by Bruce Fraser, ISBN 0-321-27878-X

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 14, 2004 1:44AM PDT

I went through similiar thought processes when I started into digital with a Sony F717 last year. After research and field testing I now shoot in hi-res .jpg but batch convert to .tif when I download. The .jpg format gives me a good amount of usable space at 5MP on a memory stick with excellent clarity while an immediate conversion to .tif minimizes detail loss. As I use Paint Shop Pro for all of my editing it's a very simple operation to batch convert following download, less than 10 secs for a 51 pic stick. Meets all of my needs very satisfactorily. Good luck.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 28, 2004 10:34AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 28, 2004 10:40AM PDT

I do not clearly understand what is the real advantage
of using RAW in my digital camer for shooting images
rather than using TIFF or Jpeg. Please explain

- Collapse -
Re: RAW vs. JPEG
Sep 28, 2004 1:43PM PDT

The average photographer would have no reason to use RAW.

If you are a professional or very serious photographer you could find RAW useful.

Many of the camera settings which were applied to the RAW data can be undone when using the RAW processing software. For instance, sharpening, white balance, levels and color adjustments can be undone and recalculated based on the RAW data. Also, because RAW has 12 bits of available data, you are able to extract shadow and highlight detail which would have been lost in the 8 bits/channel JPEG or TIFF format.

Example: You are dissatisfied with the color of a photo taken under florescent lights. You did not use the correct white balance setting. Instead of trying to create the correct colors with PhotoShop; with RAW software you can actually go back and change the white balance to the florescent setting.


...

- Collapse -
I think the bar is higher than that.
Sep 28, 2004 10:43PM PDT

A RAW image will also have all the sensor defects showing. Here's something behind the scenes that is done or else we'd never have digital cameras. It's too possible that a pixel or set of pixel sensors will have more or less gain than average. What's possible in the initial setup is to calibrate that out and get a nice image in spite of a few out of the norm pixels.

Another issue is that you don't get an usable photo. To see what a RAW image looks like see PHOTO 3 at http://www.lightner.net/lightner/bruce/c0800blpdf.pdf

It's rather amusing to read what happens when someone asks me for a RAW photo and I comply. 99 out of 100 times this ends up me doing a little seminar on images... What most will want is some uncompressed format such as TIF to be lossless so the JPEG blocks don't show.

RAW is needed so rarely that I think the BAR is much higher that people expect.

Bob