Frosty Loc: Minnesota

I am new to this digital stuff. My camera takes RAW and/or JEPG, but I didn't know what RAW was until I joined this discussion group in November.

I took two sets of pictures, one using JEPG and the other RAW and cannot see much difference. Attached are one of the sets. Of course, I had to convert the RAW to JEPEG to display here. The conversion did not seem to change anything. I have done no other PP. What is the advantage to using RAW? They look the same to me. Could someone explain why one should use RAW and then have to convert it to something else?

This was taken using JEPEG


This was taken using RAW and converted to JEPG on my computer in order to display it here.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

This topic is re-discussed about once a week. You can find pages of previous posts by using the 'SEARCH' feature above.

Here is a synopsis of the technical comparison of raw & JPG.
FAQ: What is the Difference Between Raw and JPG?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26507-1.html

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Please use the search tab above as has been said this is an old chestnut done to death in discussions

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search.jsp?q=raw+or+jpeg&u=&s=0

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Looking at example photos you attached, if you adjusted the raw file in a good program ( I use Adobe Camera Raw or Nikon Capture NX2), you would probably be able to get detail from the overexposed areas of the house and more detail out of the shadow areas. It would be easier to color correct, which it needs, though that can be done with a jpeg as well.
With the jpeg file, the overexposed areas are beyond recovery and the shadow detail can be lightened, but not as well as with a raw file.

If you don't do any post-processing to the raw files and just convert it, you lose the benefit and might as well shoot jpeg only. It's kind of like cooking from scratch vs cooking a TV dinner.
I don't shoot raw with everything. For me, family photos, things I just need a record of get a jpeg only. With the important stuff that I know I will be working on, I shoot raw.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

Click on the link and you can see what it's all about. If you don't like to process your images, then forget raw.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

It may be discussed regularly, but it is still confusing to many. On an Adobe forum there was the following paragraph. I'd not seen it so well explained in so few words. So, I quote:

"When your camera takes a photo, it's not really a picture. It's three separate groups of data, one for each of the red, blue, and green color channels. That information (the raw data) needs to be processed into something that you can recognize as an image. Jpeg is a very popular format for saving the processed data. When you take a jpeg photo with your camera, the camera's own little computer has made a lot of decisions about how to make that image look best, and it discards the additional data not needed for the final file. When you shoot raw files (.cr2, .nef, etc.) you get the raw data from the camera and then you use some kind of conversion software, like Adobe's raw converter or Lightroom, to process the image yourself, making your own decisions about what settings look best. The advantage to shooting raw is that you can keep going back and reprocessing the file different ways if you want, and often you can pull more detail from your photos than is left in the jpg your camera creates."

In other words, one is not better than the other. They are different.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Maybe upload a 'raw' file (it won't show the pic, just the download link), and let one of the 'raw' experts show what can be done, or maybe one of them will PM you with an email address to send it to so they can show you what can be done.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Besides what others had said and the need to look at other threads here on the subject, there is a distinct difference between the RAW and JPEG shots you appended, as expected. The JPEG straight out of the camera has additional sharpness and saturation since the in-camera settings are applied to jpegs. RAW images do not have the in-camera settings applied and tend to look a bit pale and washed out by comparison straight out of the camera. RAW files are a much better choice if you will be doing a lot of post processing. If you rarely do any post processing, than jpegs may be the best option for you.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

The following analogy best describes the relationship between raw & JPG:

Often, raw images are described as being similar to film negative. A better analogy is to compare a raw digital image to an undeveloped "latent" image on negative film, completely un-viewable.

Once raw film is developed (processed), an image can be viewed, projected, tweaked (dodging & burning, color correction, etc.) and printed.
A raw digital file is similar, as once processed, it can be viewed (initial JPG), tweaked (PP), and saved to final JPG or TIFF.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Thank you Nikonian72, JR1, Goofy Newbie, Jeep Daddy, bspraque, Wahawk andMwsilvers for taking the time to respond and explain this to me. You have given me some excellent advice.

I know this subject has been discussed to death but I asked the question because, from previous discussions, I expected the RAW image to be lacking color and depth. However, it looks almost identical to the JPEG image. The in-camera processing to make a JPEG doesn't seem to have done anything.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What camera were you using? What were the JPEG settings for things like sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

What software are you using to view the raw file?

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

The camera is a Canon G 12. It was set on P, the ISO was 320, the shutter was 1150 and the f stop was 3.5. The setting for sharpness was on fine. WB and Ci, or DR correction for correcting over exposed areas (never heard of this before), was auto and the exposure comp was +2/3.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

I was afraid someone would ask this question, I use the Canon software that came with the camera which is a Canon G 12. However, I did not do any PP, except to convert the RAW file to JPEG in order to send it. I think the software is called "Digital Photo Professional".

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

With that software and others, all the "picture settings" you chose for the in-camera jpeg file are applied by default when the raw file was converted.
That's why the images look identical.

What's in a name?
GoofyNewbie?
I may be Goofy but hardly a Newbie.
Newfie.... born in Newfoundland, on the right coast of Canada.