Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

For those unaware of a few of the O.P.’s first image postings to UHH, have a look at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-514040-1.html.
Her image #3 is a lovely, arresting, yet placid late-in-day sea-skyscape that I wish were in my portfolio.
Worth a look at the work of a new hogger!

Dave

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Shooting in RAW and learning editing (still doing so) has saved a lot of images for me.

Don

Jim Bob

That doesn’t make it less idiotic. You could make the same statement about anyone who has never asked that same question.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

This is sort of an aside commentary. It was prompted by a PM I just received from Travel Canon here on UHH. He was interested in hearing what I thought about cameras that save TIFF files in lieu of raw.

Even if the camera saves 16-bit TIFF files, they are still incomplete representations of what the sensor saw. Raw files are like undeveloped, exposed film. Development controls brightness and contrast and color range. So given a choice, if raw capture is available, skip TIFF.

MOST manufacturers who make cameras that save raw files also have software available that can adjust raw images and save them as 16-bit TIFFs or 8-bit JPEGs. Most of that software comes in a free, downloadable version. Examples include Canon's Digital Photo Professional, and Panasonic's bundled SilkyPix Developer Studio SE. These are generally great raw file converters, but lousy workflow tools. Still, they are worth trying on marginal images you're having trouble processing in something else.

A TIFF is like a digital file of a print. If it is an 8-bit file, it contains the uncompressed version of what is in a JPEG. It is very difficult to see the difference between a print from an 8-bit TIFF and a print from an 8-bit unaltered JPEG, provided the JPEG was saved in the camera with the least compression (highest quality setting) and the largest pixel dimensions.

However, 16-bit files have finer shading, so they respond better to editing software. If your camera saves 16-bit (or 14- or 12-bit) files, that is of some advantage. 8-bit TIFFs have already lost much of the information that the sensor captured. But when you have 16-bits, you can bend curves and play with brightness and gamma and shadows and highlights a bit more. The results are smoother.

A minor advantage of the virgin TIFF coming from the camera is that it has not been compressed in a way that loses gradation. JPEGs always throw away some detail. You can't get that back, but you may not need it IF the scene "allows", and you are very careful with menu settings, white balance, and exposure.

If you must edit a JPEG saved at the camera, first convert it to a 16-bit TIFF in Photoshop (etc.). Then, edit until it looks better. Before saving, convert it back to 8-bits, and save it as a JPEG. But keep the TIFF for any future editing needs. This process does not magically create any new information or details, but it can smooth gradation a bit, through various stages of interpolation. We occasionally used this method on problem images in the lab where I worked, and it helped A LOT.

It's been a long time since I saw a camera that saved TIFFs. I remember that my old Nikon D100 did that. Some Pentax and Hasselblad cameras save files in Adobe DNG format, which most editing software can read without the latest camera profiles. DNG is like the next best thing to proprietary raw files. TIFF comes next in the order of desirable edit-ables.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

This is not an “idiotic question” to someone who is new to photography and wants to know the answer in order to learn and grow. I’ve only been at this for a few years myself and had the same questions when I started out. I read the threads about this with great interest when I was learning. Now if we simply ban this question from ever being asked again, and a newbie photographer joins the forum and doesn’t know about the search function, how is that newbie ever to learn about the differences in raw and jpeg? You do have the option of not responding and not reading any topic you deem to be repetitive or “idiotic”.

Walt

avman Loc: Normal IL

I have found it easier to explain in this manner: Camera RAW is equivalent to film. It requires processing and printing to view. JPEG is equivalent to a Polaroid Instant print. What you see is what you get.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Jpeg is quick, about the most you want to do to a jpeg is crop. It is limited in the dynamic range it can show about 5 stops. Raw captures more detail than jpeg in the very dark tones and the very light. The purpose a jpeg is a finished image usually with the midtones looking like midtones.

People talk about getting it right in camera for a jpeg mostly that tends to be about exposing the midtones correctly and letting the shadows and highlights fall where they fall. With raw you are looking to capture detail in all the tones you are interested in capturing, this doesn't always mean all of them (if only it did) capturing detail in the highlights can push midtones in to the shadows while that would make for a poor jpeg. It is fine for raw as you can move the midtone back to where it should be in post processing.

A very common problem with jpeg is the sky detail being blown out the detail was never recorded in the jpeg capture but its there in the raw capture and can be processed so it is there in the final image.

So raw gives you the possibility of a better photograph with detail that is unable to be captured with a camera processed jpeg.
You still need to get it right in camera , it's just what is right for a jpeg is not necessarily right for a raw capture. The image you see on the back of the camera is a jpeg version processed with standard jpeg processing so the raw capture on the back of the camera can look worse than one captured for the purpose of a straight out of a camera jpeg.

I think that is why people who don't understand whats needed for the raw file tend to think of raw shooters as fixing mistakes, where in reality these can be deliberate choices with the final image in mind. Of course anyone can shoot in raw and they don't always know what they are doing.

The fundamental thing about photography is composition, a subject, a story maybe, thats probably about 95-99% of a good photograph. If that is working, then it's a good photograph regardless of Raw or jpeg. The Raw can be crafted to give a better result than the jpeg. However a bad composition is still a bad composition no matter how you tweak it.

There is a bit of a gender bias, men are usually better at the technical so processing raw files shifting tones that comes readily so they are comfortable in that last 5% Women tend to be far more intuitive when it comes to emotion and thats probably the more important side to good photography how they make you feel when you look at them. Maybe we are closer in vision when we photograph something awesome.

Anyway raw can help some good photographs become great photographs when skilfully used, but good photographs can be made in jpeg only without even getting out of auto. Men need to go with their gut more and not be filling their minds with what f-stop shutter speed and iso to use. Sure it helps to know these things but being able to express how something makes you feel wins every time. Movie makers know how to do this and you can learn a lot from some of them. They get it easy though there is a lot more to support an image in a movie and you need to do it in a frame or two.
Post Processing isn't for everybody, its baffling and confusing and it doesn't matter. Concentrate on the other 95% and if you do that well nobody will care about that last 5%.

Jim Bob

I never said ban it. My solution would be require use of the search function rather than opening up a new thread on a tired subject. And thanks for the paternal advice. You guys just can't help it. Must be a cultural thing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As I remarked in a separate thread, UHH may not be the right place to come for a comprehensive answer to this question.

There are a whole bunch of members who thoroughly understand the trade-offs but there are so many opinions, facets and ways to view the issue that it is impossible to respond succinctly and not get criticized for leaving out something important. That's why I suggested looking elsewhere.

You can Google 'raw vs jpeg pros and cons' and get lots of useful information such as the RAW vs JPEG article in Photography Life. In his article Nasim Mansurov has thoughtfully listed the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

While Mansurov's article may not be the ultimate answer, if he had posted it on UHH it would have been too long. And on his own forum he was able to filter the responses and keep the discussion civil.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This is a misleading answer at best. Before digital, I shot Kodachrome. JPEG is like that - my job is finished when I press the shutter .... professional and reliable development takes over from there and I go on to my next thing while others are laboring in the Dark/Light Room.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Not true you can edit the jpeg

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

To be honest I never noticed

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

This is why I said, "it is impossible to respond succinctly and not get criticized for leaving out something important."

blackest Loc: Ireland

It's not a bad article but he seems to emphasise recovering from mistakes rather than optimising the exposure for the scene.

Live view is a wonderful thing and its worth having a look at the scene as your eyes see it and as the camera is seeing it as thats pretty much the final image. On a bright sunny day if you adjust the exposure to capture the blue of the sky you may find that the midtones are all in shadow on the screen adjust the exposure to expose the midtones and the sky is white. Thats because the scenes dynamic range is exceeding the capability for jpeg to capture it. Raw will have a better chance of capturing more detail. I must admit i barely noticed until i was using my iPads camera and found I wasn't able to capture the detail in those type of scenes. I was also able to find scenes that better matched my iPads capability to capture them.

I think if you can see the limitations of jpeg it's easier to get an appreciation of what raw can do for you. Depends what you want from your photo's to be fair.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

See my previous post.

It's also difficult to respond at length without leaving something out.