amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

RAW images have more latitude for changes and adjustments after the fact. But they also require finishing, are not directly usable.

JPEGs are "fully baked" in the camera. There's some adjustment later possible, but it's more limited because much of the originally captured data is gone.

First thing to understand is that every digital camera initially captures a RAW file... every image, every time... regardless how you have it set. If you've set it to save RAW, the camera simply files away the date without any "processing". If you have the camera set to save JPEG, then it immediately processes the file before saving it, according to the various settings of the camera (things like noise reduction, contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) Once the JPEG has been processed, the camera "throws away" any remaining data that it deems is unnecessary. You can easily see the difference for yourself. Shoot a few RAW + JPEG, download them and then compare the file sizes side by side. The RAW file version of any given image will always be much larger.

One reason for that is the RAW file cameras capture is in "14-bit" or "12-bit" color (Nikon lets you choose smaller 12-bit if you want to save memory card space and, in some cases, allow faster shooting... Canon simply takes all RAW as 14-bit. Others, I dunno. A few camera, mostly medium format digital, shoot in full 16-bit or higher color bit depth). JPEGs are "8-bit".

When you import a RAW file into your computer's post-processing software, most will interpolate it as a 16-bit file. To put this in perspective, across the Red-Green-Blue spectrum an 8-bit JPEG has approx. 17 million different colors and tonalities (this is plenty for many things, the human eye can only distinguish about 16 million distinct colors, at best). In comparison, a 16-bit file has around 25 trillion RGB colors and tonalities. That's a much larger "palette" of colors to work with when making adjustments to images, which allows for smoother transitions, reduces chance of "banding" and makes for more exact adjustments. But it also makes for a larger file. A 16-bit file (such as a TIFF or PSD, etc.) isn't practical to use for a lot of things, such as online display or even many printing processes. This because many downstream users don't have means of properly "reading" a 16-bit file. So once the adjustments have been completed, for most intended purposes it's best to save the finished file as an 8-bit JPEG. This also can leave your original RAW alone, safely archived so long as you don't delete it. It's called "non-destructive workflow". If you ever wish to do so, you can go back and re-process the RAW file differently... perhaps using new, better software or freshly learned techniques... to improve your results.

Most cameras come with software for RAW conversion that will include an "as shot" option, which will process the RAW file exactly the same way the camera would have processed it if you had set the camera to instead save JPEGs. But with the RAW you also can choose to make adjustments before completing the processing. For example, if you had the wrong white balance set, you can easily change it with no loss of image quality. And/or you might choose to apply noise reduction or sharpening to the image differently than you had the camera set, say if you change your mind about how the image will be used or decide to use it for a 2nd or 3rd purpose. Another example would be if you set a camera to shoot black & white or some other special rendering, doing so with a RAW doesn't actually make that change until later when you post-process the image, so you can change your mind or choose to process the image both as a B&W and a color image.

If you need to use your images immediately and are certain of your camera settings, you might choose to shoot JPEGs.

If you'd like to have more latitude for adjustments later and have time to do so, you might opt to shoot RAW files.

Or, you can cover your bases by shooting both, so long as you have plenty of memory card and hard disk storage space.

It also can be useful to shoot RAW + JPEG while learning to do post-processing. Once you're more confident and able to do a better job of it yourself... than the camera does when doing automatic, immediate conversions into JPEGs... you might choose to stop shooting RAW + JPEG.

When you have a RAW file, you can always create a JPEG from it. You can never create a RAW file from a JPEG.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Too many people subscribe to advanced software to edit RAW files to impress people they don't like.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I use it sometimes (in addition to RAW+RAW(backup)) .... To use a film analogy - Shooting in JPG mode only is like getting a Polaroid print - not too much you can do with it....having the RAW file output is like having an undeveloped negative you can go back to every time the film is processed....so you have much more latitude with the RAW/NEF output (12-14 bits + all metadata) than with just a JPG (8 bits). It largely depends on your workflow...if you need an image pronto to upload/publish JPG is the way to go, but if you are not pressed for time it's a good idea to include RAW to tweak changes later on. Most DSLRs will have larger buffer capacity for JPG vs. RAW so shooting in RAW (either RAW + JPG or RAW+RAW) will fill your buffer faster...if you are shooting with a camera such as a D5 or D500 really doesn't matter they have "bottomless" buffers in a practical sense even with RAW.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

JPEG and RAW are very different. JPEG is 8-bit and RAW is 16-bit. RAW contains more "information," generally in color (which also refers to BW) tones. You can achieve richer colors with a RAW file and have more opportunity to recover what might be considered "blown out" areas, especially in a sky. If you are going to use the JPEG file as an edit reference you might as well simply shoot in JPEG fine and leave it at that. RAW gives you the ability to go beyond what the camera might decide for processing.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

It’s good if you want the JPEG as well as the raw. What is different is you get two images one raw the other a large JPEG. If you are just learning to develop raw then it can be good to have the camera JPEG as a reference.

It is bad because it takes up more memory space, slows the frame rate, the buffer fills up faster, etc. These days, I usually shoot JPEG or raw, depending on the occasion, but usually not both.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Wait.. you mean I could not do so much with a JPEG with the old software? I didn’t get that memo.

The limitation is the JPEG is 8 bits and raw is typically 12. So you have more latitude to retouch using raw. Additionally every time you save A JPEG you lose about 3db in signal to noise ratio. So if you are planning on doing a lot of retouching and saving, as in graphics work, raw is the better choice.

However JPEGs can be just fine for printing and sharing, and light retouching. The trick for a good jpeg is to get the exposure right. This is why i think it’s better for beginners to shoot jpeg. It demands good exposure skills. If you can nail a jpeg then you can easily nail a raw.

Poor exposure skills is no excuse to shoot raw.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have gone to just saving Raw. Them look at the ones that I want to PP, do it then save them as JPEGs in a different folder.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

One of your best one liners!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

16 million colors is way too high for an estimate on the capacity of human color vision. The scientists who look at the physical biological capability of the human eye estimate at best 10 million colors. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/how-humans-see-in-color The rest of us who work with color in pragmatic disciplines know that even 1/2 of that is well beyond what humans possess as a capacity for conscious discriminatory awareness. In other words we can create the physical conditions that allow us to measure different colors and know that humans can see them but that doesn't mean they see them as different. In the illustration below there are three different colors that we know humans can see. We also know they can't tell them apart.

As artists working with color our primary standard reference is the CIE color space that is meant to pragmatically represent the color capacity of human vision. With the CIE color space we're talking 2.4 million colors under standard daylight illumination.

Joe

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

JPEG is a compression algorithm. It is a final step, and it is widely supported- and it does a pretty good job for what it was intended to do, why is is so common. JPEG = "Joint Photographic Experts Group" It is lossful algorithm in that it compresses the code by grouping similarly colored pixels and making them all the same, cuts down on code, makes a smaller memory file. Memory USED to be expensive!

The more compression you choose (Low ) the more range or gamut of colors it grabs & averages... FINE just averages much less of a gamut, but nuances between pixels are lost for future enhancement if you want to do PP on the photo.

JEPG in camera also applies some automatic adjustments to the photo- drops the image from 12 or 14 bit to 8bits ( millions of colors to thousands.- see here : https://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/) . Thing is, every time you re save a jpeg, it applies the algorithm all over again and averages the next round of pixels- after awhile, there is noticeable loss of details. Image will get "patchy"

Think of a JPEG as a final Print.


A raw file is a digital negative, every pixel recorded as shot and remains 12 or 14 bit, You may look at a jpeg preview of the raw file as someone stated, but it represents an unadjusted post exposure image. Raw files don't look all that great- after all they are a negative- No adjustment has been applied. I RAW is for people who want to make the adjustments themselves - control this step and not lt some guy in Japan or wherever decide how the image will be adjusted. You can retouch a jpeg... but nowhere near how much you can adjust a raw image.

Think of a raw file as a negative.

Thus JPEG vs RAW is a workflow choice. Comparing apples to apple pie.

dyximan

I often shoot raw with Jpeg I go with normal Or the lowest resolution,no sense in wasting memory for photos that are going to be on Facebook. Unless of course you primarily send and use the jpeg and don't manipulate photos much then raw isn't even necessary.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A JPEG is an image that is based on a specific compression algorithm.

montephoto

Go watch Steve Perry on YouTube. He explains this all very well with examples. Then YOU decide.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Isn’t baking wonderful!