floral43

The difference between a jpg and a raw file.
A jpg is developed in your camera by a mathamatical procedure an (algorithm) the camera has limited power regarding this process, when compared to a computer. when you load a jpg to view on your monitor you do not need a converter you are viewing the image that your camera settings established. these settings are set in stone like a films positive image.
you can make minor changes to the image with a editing program if necessary, at the cost to the image such as clipping etc.
RAW File
Light is captured by the sensor, and stored as is in the camera memory (RAW). Your camera settings EXIF data established by by you. (Metadata)in Pshop, are also stored seperetly in the camera memory to be used at a latter date. When you load a raw file into the computer to be developed, the Algorithm processing power of the computer (far exceeds that of a camera! All of you understand that). A greater amount of the raw data is processed. (Higher resolution)and converted to be viewed on the monitor.
Editing this image for any other reason than artistic expressing. I don't mean to be unpleasent but you figure it out.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I am completely puzzled by your point here. To do a save or a save as doesn't change the fact that the file structure was changed. Therefore, the mere opening and re-saving the file produces changes in the file structure.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I agree entirely with your statement, "The idea that every time you post-process a JPEG you loose some data is correct, but the data loss is minimal and only noticeable if you post-process the picture many consecutive times."

--Bob

rebride

Jpeg is the digital/film negative.
Raw is the latent image developed by inspection.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Huh? Jpeg is the digital negative? I don't think so! And while I'm a fairly literate guy, I have no idea at all what you meant by your second statement.

Capn_Dave

He has got it backwards I think
:oops:

rebride

With film when you expose or take a shot there is only a latent image on the film which needs to be developed and fixed and becomes a negative (or positive).
Development of film by inspection was a very difficult (and often destructive if not done right) process of actually viewing the film with light during the the development of the image to get what you wanted.
Raw data/file = latent image.
Jpeg = digital negative (latent image developed and fixed)

Capn_Dave

I don't think so. A RAW file is anything but latent. It's there and no developing required. Jpeg is the output from the RAW file. Just like a picture is like the output from a negative.. There is no real photographer, computer person, image processor that would agree with the statement Jpeg is the negative.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Dave,
A RAW file is not viewable directly. It is just information stored on in some medium. That is the same as an undeveloped image on a sheet of film. Until some processing is done, it is not viewable. Adobe Camera RAW interprets the RAW file and allows viewing of the captured image. Similar to development of film.

A jpg is the image. No negative about it, unless it was shot that way in the camera.
--Bob

Capn_Dave

No digital picture is viewable without a program to interpret it. It's just a bunch of 1's and 0's And the Jpeg throws out a bunch of them. Isn't that what I said? The Jpeg is not a negative. What I said was in an, abridged fashion. Jpeg is not a negative. Can anybody read anymore?

rebride

Post your RAW file.
Latent image (RAW)>negative (jpeg)>Photograph/Print

Capn_Dave

Without a program to view you cant. Just like you can't view a JPEG. Now if this forum supported a format like .png, cr2, etc. then you could view them. This forum dose support Jpeg, However I doubt if it supports Tiff as RAW,Tiff are pretty large files

rebride

Yes, many view a RAW file as the digital negative. I see it as more than that and take it one step further. It is part of the wonderment of the digital age.
I can make only one negative from a film exposure (latent image). I can make multiple and different negatives from a RAW file. It's a beautiful thing.
I believe Edward Weston, Minor White, Richard Zakia, Peter Lorenz and even Ansel Adams would agree with me.

iFocus Sam Loc: Ft. Myers, Fl.

To RAW or to JPEG is the question. I have been shooting digital going back to 2005. In the beginning I did not know the difference between an f-stop and a bus stop. I shot this way thinking I was a photographer all the while honing my composition skills and shooting in JEPG of course. Until one day I met a real photographer and he jumped up on a hickory stump and said boy let me tell you what, if you are going to get serious about this photography thing then you need to get yourself a full frame camera some good lens and start shooting in RAW. That was 2008. That was the best day of my life, I did and he was right.
Here's what I tell my students now.
I have never taken a photo in RAW that I wish had been in JPEG, but I have taken a lot of photos in JPEG I wish I had taken in RAW.
If you are going to stick with photography, then study composition. Your TV set is full of it, as you watch study what makes for a good composition check out the rule of thirds in almost every scene. A photographer has an eye RAW or JPEG does not even come into play. It only does if you want your photos to POP and look there best. Ansel Adams never ever once shot a RAW photo. He perfected his skills with film.
Learn what makes a camera tick, look into the exposure triangle. If you haven't looked at Adobe Lightroom 5 yet I highly recommend getting a copy it is a very powerful tool weather you decide to shoot JEPG or RAW.
Good Luck

Capn_Dave

Well you are using speculation. As you know none of these people or would you ask them. If you want to drop names Minor White was my uncle, I spent a summer with Ansel carrying his large format camera around because I couldn't afford the classes at the time. I really throwing names around and speculating just pick up some books on digital photography. Brian Peterson and Scott Kelby make a few. Some of them are on Kindle if you don't want to spend allot of money.
Fair Winds
Dave