JohnR Loc: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

A 1st time poster on UHH although I have been subscribed for nearly a year now. I started photography with my first job in 1963 where I received training using a Linhoff Technica 5” x 4”, developing and printing Ilford FP4 & HP4 etc etc. (some Kodak varieties but can’t remember their names … ! ) Although not exactly a “Professional” photographer, photography has been part of my work with every job I’ve ever had. I have taken probably the best part of 500K shots in nearly 50 years of work. I moved over to digital in the early 2000’s with Fujifilm & Pentax progressing to Olympus and lately Nikon & Sony cameras. Digital cameras coupled with the internet were wonderful for me enabling me to embed photos directly into my reports for me to email to clients often on the same day the work was completed. Reports in the days of film sometimes took a month or more before the client saw them ! Anyway that’s my background …

I have been reading with interest recent posts “discussing” JPEGS versus RAW and noted many stating that JPEGS discard data that is retained in RAW files. I felt from day 1 this is wrong ! JPEGS are compressed RAW files – nothing is discarded.

To prove this I have taken exactly the same shot for each file size setting on a Nikon D5300. Set on a tripod with manual settings :– ISO 900, ¼ sec, F7.1, focal length 18mm. Shots taken = JPEG Fine, RAW, RAW + JPEG Basic & JPEG Normal & JPEG Fine.

I then did a little basic editing in Faststone – exactly the same for each shot both NEF and JPEG. I levelled each and adjusted each for colour then saved at best 100% quality. Resulting file sizes are tabulated below.

File sizes

File Camera setting Jpg Raw Edited Jpg Edited Raw
353 Jpg Fine 11849 19455
354 Raw 21900 17815
355 Raw +Jpg Basic 2978 21999 17769 17706
356 Raw + Jpg Normal 6329 21801 19003 17753
357 Raw + Jpg Fine 11786 21792 19439 17801

Hmmm !! Who would have thought !!! Even the JPEG Basic file when edited comes out as large as the edited RAW files. Where did all that data come from I wonder – data obviously is not discarded when the camera saves the JPEG to the SD card. This confirms for me that I can get the same results editing a JPEG as I could editing a RAW file – all the shadow and highlight details etc. must be still in the JPEG given the resulting file sizes after editing. Editing can alter the data, can delete (crop) the data but I cannot see anyway it could add data.

Maybe some super high tech wizard can explain all this but I still think using RAW gives no benefit whatsoever. I certainly cannot see any difference between any of the shots whether RAW or JPEG whatever. For interest I view on a 5K Retina iMac

Cheers JohnR

chaman

Laugh Out Loud.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, welcome to UHH. You touched on a frequently discussed topic. I'd suggest using the Search feature at the top of the page. It's not the greatest search engine, but it does come up with a few hits. Along with this being discussed, again ad nauseum, here, it's been a topic just recently. That along with jpg degradation by saving, even without editing.

Again, welcome and have fun.
--Bob

Kuzano

So ,,, Now we are up to two postings a day on JPEG vs RAW. Almost as many as the Nikon vs Canon discussions. The search function button clearly needs to be much larger than it is, or some think that RAW vs JPEG changes develop or change as fast as new models of camera's come out. Please go away!!!

chaman

Could the OP be a second account of an already known member here? One that failed on this very point just recently? Interesting. Anyways...laugh out loud, again.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

There is no directive saying one must use RAW or JPEG or TIFF or whatever. If you don't want to shoot RAW, don't. If you believe you can get the same results from editing a JPEG file as you can from a RAW file, that is your prerogative.
Personally, I will continue to shoot RAW.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Well, John, to put it bluntly, jpg compression loses data. It may not be visually evident at first, but just the act of opening and saving, to the same file name, will cause changes. The entire photographic world knows this. So, trying to prove otherwise is simply an exercise is beating a dead equine. And if you need a picture of a dead equine, let me know.
--Bob

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Welcome to the forum. Today, is your very first day as a member on this forum. First, you wouldn't know if this topic has been discussed over and over again, because this is your very first day. Yes, there is a UHH Search. If you can't find what you're looking for, create a topic and ask a question. There are endless repeat topics such as Canon vs Nikon. And repeats of, should I buy from 42nd Street Photo Shop. I'll tell you up front. Do not buy from 42nd Street Photo Shop. They are Scammers.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have been reading with interest recent posts “discussing” JPEGS versus RAW and noted many stating that JPEGS discard data that is retained in RAW files. I felt from day 1 this is wrong ! JPEGS are compressed RAW files – nothing is discarded.

This is 100% wrong. If this is your level of technical understanding, you need to do some more education and drop whatever faulty sources you've been using to-date.

Here's a source that's reasonably conversational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG . Be sure to read down as far as the subject "Downsampling" under the main topic "JPEG Compression".

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The more you read about the subject the clearer it will become. It's like peeling an onion - lots of layers to the subject.

The first thing you will learn is that a raw file is the source data for you image. It is never edited. It has to be converted into something that you can see like a JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.

Next you will find that your camera or your software might discard some of the data at the bright or dark end of the dynamic range (DR) if the scene has too much difference between the brightest and darkest areas. This may not happen if the DR is not too wide and if you have not over or underexposed the image.

If you convert from raw to 16-bit TIFF, the resulting file size will always be about the same. But if you convert to 8-bit JPEG the file size will depend on the amount of compression you decide to apply and the amount of fine detail there is in the image as opposed to the amount of area that is more evenly toned like a clear blue sky.

This is only the beginning of your education on the question. It may take you quite a while to absorb all of the information you might want.

You might soon experience the controversy regarding whether raw is better than JPEG. It is and it isn't - it depends. The more you learn the better the choices you can make.

The most unfortunate part of your experience will be the unwarranted input you are going to receive from some of the trolls on UHH who can't refrain from making fools of themselves by posting negative comments about your questions or some of the responses you will see. Please ignore them.

chaman

As i said before, its ridiculous the lengths some will go to keep pushing this silly agenda against RAW. All that just because of the inability to properly process a RAW file. Why not invest all that effort into actually LEARNING to properly and effectively PP? Then they have the nerve to say they are open to learn something everyday, yada, yada.... All BS.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not 100%. It is only wrong some of the time - when the scene's DR is wide or your exposure is too close to the upper or lower end of the DR.

One of the steps you can take to mitigate this loss is to use Nikon's Active-D Lighting or its equivalent for other camera manufacturers. It will reduce the amount of lost highlight and shadow information.

To be safe I recommend that you learn as much as you can about using raw and then decide later whether you can skip all of that editing and just take your JPEG images straight from the camera with minimal editing. It's going to depend on your subject matter, how many images you capture and whether you want to spend a lot of time on your computer or just using your camera.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Assuming the formatted table below is how your table was suppose to display, there's a few questions about the data.

For file 354, what is the value 21900 in the JPG column?
For file 353, what is the value in the RAW column?

Explain your thoughts on the source of new data now being included into the larger edited versions of the jpg files? If it wasn't in the JPEG file from the camera, where did it come from? Or, do you mean it was "compressed" by the camera and your edit actions on the JPEG decompressed this data causing the larger file? Is this what you mean by the increased sizes of your files after your edits?

What do you mean by 'edited raw'? Is that a file that can be viewed / shared without a RAW editor? Did you save the edits from your RAW file into a JPEG? Which column represents the resulting JPEG from the processed RAW?

Why are your edited RAW files changing in file size? The RAW data cannot be changed. Rather, your edits are saved into XML 'side cars' or are appended to the end of the file. I don't use Faststone, but how can your RAW files are shrinking? Or, is this column the JPEG edited from the RAW and incorrected titled?

You also haven't provided the actual images to demonstrate the complexity of the original images nor the quality of the results, particularly the basic JPEG results compared to the edits against the corresponding RAW. Your presentation of your data, your method, your results, and your conclusions are all lacking.

In addition to setting out to show the internet experts at UHH they're all wrong, you also set out to prove the camera manufacturers and the software companies they're all wrong too? Even too the Joint Photographic Experts Group aka JPEG? Is it all a hoax or conspiracy you've now exposed?

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Welcome to the hog John and Nice try. But no cigar. If you read the description of jpeg it is a lossy compression, meaning it looses data! If you do a search you will find this out. At the top of the list is this;
"The compression method is usually lossy, meaning that some original image information is lost and cannot be restored, possibly affecting image quality. There is an optional lossless mode defined in the JPEG standard. However, this mode is not widely supported in products."

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

First off, you really cannot judge editing comparisons with an application like Fastone, which isn't.

If you are content with a simple photograph right out of the camera with no or minimal edits, go right ahead and use JPEG. But you cannot do this with a JPEG image.

(Download)