Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Raw Versus JPG
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 next> last>>
Apr 9, 2017 11:18:22   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
via the lens wrote:
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have three color channels, Red, Green, Blue, thus the RGB name. Some RGB files are compressed more or less, which affects color (JPEG). Some RGB channels are 8-bit (JPEG) or 12, 14, 16 bit (RAW). The bit depth affects the number of mixed (or added ) colors in the RGB file. For example, an RBG image (JPEG) can represent 256 x 256 x 256 levels, which is approximately 16.7 million individual colors, using a total of 24 bits per pixel (The Manual of Photography). A RAW file would have millions more tonal colors. All digital files are three colors and use the "additive" process for making other colors based on those three colors.
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have thre... (show quote)


what does this mean?🙄

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 11:25:23   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Your contributions to this thread have been very beneficial. However, I'll take a small issue with your last sentence here. Not all digital files are additive. RGB, yes. But CYMK, is a digital file, but it is subtractive.
--Bob

via the lens wrote:
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have three color channels, Red, Green, Blue, thus the RGB name. Some RGB files are compressed more or less, which affects color (JPEG). Some RGB channels are 8-bit (JPEG) or 12, 14, 16 bit (RAW). The bit depth affects the number of mixed (or added ) colors in the RGB file. For example, an RBG image (JPEG) can represent 256 x 256 x 256 levels, which is approximately 16.7 million individual colors, using a total of 24 bits per pixel (The Manual of Photography). A RAW file would have millions more tonal colors. All digital files are three colors and use the "additive" process for making other colors based on those three colors.
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have thre... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:11:32   #
AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK
 
I'm afraid to go raw . . . Largely because I know it will create extra work for me as post processing will be required. I'm generally quite pleased with my high quality jpegs. However as I get more into things, I may try raw+jpg and test the waters with the raw.

Reply
 
 
Apr 9, 2017 12:24:02   #
likephotos
 
As for memory cards - I stick to 32 GB cards myself - they will allow me plenty of storage for shooting, are not super expensive and if something happens to a 32 GB card I might only lose 32 GB of images - with a 64 GB card, costs are higher and you can possibly lose 64 GB of images with a failure - I have had a 64 GB card fail on my, luckily AFTER I had transferred the images.




Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:26:58   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
rmalarz wrote:
Your contributions to this thread have been very beneficial. However, I'll take a small issue with your last sentence here. Not all digital files are additive. RGB, yes. But CYMK, is a digital file, but it is subtractive.
--Bob


Thanks for the correction: I was only talking about digital so I forgot that part of the equation. Yes, CMYK is subtractive. I don't think most people are aware that there are two color wheels, one for RGB and one for CMYK.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:27:55   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
WessoJPEG wrote:
what does this mean?🙄


I'm not sure what you are asking as I did offer an explanation. Let me know and I will clarify.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:29:55   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
tshift wrote:
I was thinking you can't print from raw files?? I am still strugling with the whole raw to jpg, I can't figure out how to get the raw to jpg to send other places. Too old and dumb I guess. Thanks

Tom


Tom,

Your processing program should have an option to export to and then you determine what type of file you want to export as, for example, JPEG, TIF, etc. It's sort of like the old film days where you had a negative and you used the negative to create a positive in the form of a print. Just a different way of doing that same thing.

Reply
 
 
Apr 9, 2017 12:38:41   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
jenny wrote:
* * * * *
You certainly wouldn't want to make a print from a RAW file as it is simply raw, i.e. unprocessed. It contains all sorts
of junk that needs to be discarded, which is what is done for you to produce a JPEG version.
Often the "reason" for not choosing a JPEG is that the mfr. is making the decision for you. But JPEG is more than a processed picture,
it is a group of internationally known expert photographers who set the standard. If you know better, then you must be an expert.

The next common objection to JPEG then is that you will lose IQ (image quality) by improving your JPEG, but it can
actually take quite a lot before that happens. And to claim that it can not be saved from this is ridiculous because
you can make copies of the JPEG original and work on the copies, saving both the original and any # of versions without
ever degrading the original. The last "reason"for using RAW totally unprocessed exposure is that of being able to save a big
mistake such as over-exposure of white or highlights where visible detail is lost, and shooting RAW allows correction better.
However, that insurance against over-exposure is limited since if over-exposing has lost all detail it can not be recovered.
You will need more storage space if you save RAW files, and all that extra space is the junk you eliminated in processing.
You will need to convert to JPEG for most purposes anyway. 99% of the time I see RAW promoted on this forum, it is not
for doing something better but to correct mistakes, claiming everything can be saved with RAW and post processing, and
most of those "reasons" stem from not understanding one's camera, neither exposure nor the settings one can use
for the best image before pressing the shutter button.
Be prepared, however, that in asking the questions you chose, you stepped into a never-ending and very "uncivil" war of words,
opinions, and "reasoning". So look at the top of any page you are on and find the SEARCH option, press the button and find
that this subject has been argued to total exhaustion for anyone who has been here long.
* * * * * br You certainly wouldn't want to make a... (show quote)


Jenny, it's a simple matter of science. Perhaps it would be good if you were to research the scientific differences between JPEG and RAW and then comment based on fact. A RAW file holds more data and thus a larger color array, which can, in some cases make a big difference in the finished product (especially in a sky). Also, when attempting to get a photo that you want to be very bright in color RAW is the only format that can provide this effectively and will allow you to shoot one to two stops over the camera JPEG image you seen on the camera screen and still capture all highlight data, thus obtaining the most color available for that image. Color is captured on a camera sensor in linear fashion, from light (with light holding the most overall tones) to dark, and RAW can capture more of the light tones than JPEG. This is only one benefit of RAW capture, there are several other benefits as well. If you, or others, are happy with your results in JPEG that's great. It's all about what the individual photographer is happy with in meeting their goals in photography and there are many levels of photographers, from beginners to the most accomplished, and many levels of knowledge about photography.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:45:16   #
pkr
 
Thanks for all the useful comments. I will continue to experiment with editing RAW files and see where it takes me. Does anyone know the best RAW editing software out there?

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:47:57   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
BooIsMyCat wrote:
When you shoot RAW with a DSLR, in order to view said photo on the LCD screen, the camera "must" convert the RAW data to jpg. This jpg is saved inside the RAW file - FOREVER! So, saving raw AND jpg seems to be a bit redundant.
There are utilities out there that work under both Windows and Apple OS that allow you to extract the jpg from the raw file.


http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html


While that is true, there is no such thing as 'THE' JPEG that is a unique thing. JPEG is merely a standard image format that also includes lossy compression at variable compression levels. The JPEG files embedded in raw files may be more strongly compressed than the standard camera JPEGs and JPEGS produced from post processing software can be saved with minimal JPEG compression. I have experimented with this and from the same image I can produce three different file sizes, 3MB extracted from raw, 6MB from the camera, and 10MB created from the raw file, so even JPEGs from an initial capture can vary in quality.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:51:04   #
BebuLamar
 
via the lens wrote:
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have three color channels, Red, Green, Blue, thus the RGB name. Some RGB files are compressed more or less, which affects color (JPEG). Some RGB channels are 8-bit (JPEG) or 12, 14, 16 bit (RAW). The bit depth affects the number of mixed (or added ) colors in the RGB file. For example, an RBG image (JPEG) can represent 256 x 256 x 256 levels, which is approximately 16.7 million individual colors, using a total of 24 bits per pixel (The Manual of Photography). A RAW file would have millions more tonal colors. All digital files are three colors and use the "additive" process for making other colors based on those three colors.
This is completely wrong. ALL RGB files have thre... (show quote)


All image files have 3 color channel except the RAW file which is not yet an image until it's converted to another image file be it TIFF or JPEG or whatever. Most of the digital imaging sensor only capture 1 single color channel per pixel (except the Foveon). That's what get recorded in the RAW file. Either the camera or the computer would apply the Bayor algorithm to make up 3 color channel per pixel.

Reply
 
 
Apr 9, 2017 12:51:53   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
pkr wrote:
Thanks for all the useful comments. I will continue to experiment with editing RAW files and see where it takes me. Does anyone know the best RAW editing software out there?


Probably a different subject topic and it's been put out there many times.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:51:57   #
DStone Loc: Outside Winston-Salem, NC
 
With most of my cameras, I see a huge difference between raw and jpeg once I get them into Lightroom, except for a travel camera, the ZS50. Even at 100% zoom, the images appear almost identical. Interesting.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 12:56:25   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
OddJobber wrote:
In a way I have to agree that all of the RAW data cannot be used, and once done processing, all of the unused data is discarded (junk).
The important thing you're missing is that the RAW files contain more data and give you more latitude in how to process (more white balance info, more dynamic range, etc), RAW gives me the choice of what is junk instead of relying on someone else's choices.


I can't agree that the data that remains unused in a raw file is discarded or is junk unless the raw file is deleted once a single bitmap image is created whether JPEG, TIFF or other format. If a decision is made to revisit the image and create a different treatment of the same captured image, then a different subset of the raw image file will be used, which means that data isn't being discarded, or unused, and certainly not junk.

Ansel Adams Moonrise image would be a prime example where many different treatments were created from a single negative. That negative certainly wasn't junk oncew the first batch of prints were made.

Reply
Apr 9, 2017 13:01:45   #
ikaush Loc: Medford, MA
 
pkr wrote:
Thanks for all the useful comments. I will continue to experiment with editing RAW files and see where it takes me. Does anyone know the best RAW editing software out there?


For me a "good enough" raw editor is Capture NX-D from Nikon. Of course I use Nikon camera that produces .nef raw images. There is a free DNG converter from Adobe that can convert .nef to .dng, so then Adobe software can be used. The Lightroom software can edit raw images .nef without conversion.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.