Shooting RAW + Jpeg: Last week I made a mistake when I though RAW looked better than Jpeg when they are initially downloaded. I was corrected quickly. I was wrong. I had been looking...

michaelmc Loc: Boise,Idaho

Last week I made a mistake when I though RAW looked better than Jpeg when they are initially downloaded. I was corrected quickly.

I was wrong. I had been looking at the wrong photo. The Jped most of the time looked better pre any photo correcting.

I forgot who corrected me but I wanted to thank him Mike

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

michaelmc wrote:

Last week I made a mistake when I though RAW looked better than Jpeg when they are initially downloaded. I was corrected quickly.

I was wrong. I had been looking at the wrong photo. The Jped most of the time looked better pre any photo correcting.

I forgot who corrected me but I wanted to thank him Mike

I believe that might have been me. No thanks are necessary. I was just trying to share my understanding of why jpegs might look better then their RAW counterparts straight out of the camera.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

You do realize that you cannot directly view a raw image, don't you? Raw is an image capture format, whereas a JPG is a viewing format.

FAQ: What is the Difference Between Raw and JPG?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26507-1.html

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

You do realise for all intents and purposes that this technical splitting of hairs matters not one iota, and is totally irrelevant, don't you?
Image capture format/viewing format ... there is no difference. Both need software to make them, both need software and a monitor to view them.
I cannot directly view a JPG and neither can you.

Nikonian72 wrote:

You do realize that you cannot directly view a raw image, don't you? Raw is an image capture format, whereas a JPG is a viewing format.

FAQ: What is the Difference Between Raw and JPG?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26507-1.html

hikercheryl Loc: Madison, NC

Do you routinely shoot both? I did for a while when I was trying to change from jpeg to raw. Now I shoot raw. I shoot raw in addition to jpegs only when I am making snap shots of something that I will need to share immediately.

Is that the way you use it?

dame_wolf Loc: Oregon

That's the way I use it. I usually run my jpeg through a quick clean up and then they go on to Facebook for friends and family. But then I take any raw images I really like and work on them to post later to my website.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

That's quite a statement considering that all digital image files are simply files composed of "1"s and "0"s. None of them (jpeg, tif, png, RAW, etc) may be viewed directly without the proper processing software. However, RAW files may also be viewed on your camera's display right after you click the shutter. The camera does all the work for you.

Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada

Julian wrote:

That's quite a statement considering that all digital image files are simply files composed of "1"s and "0"s. None of them (jpeg, tif, png, RAW, etc) may be viewed directly without the proper processing software. However, RAW files may also be viewed on your camera's display right after you click the shutter. The camera does all the work for you.

Hi Julian,

The RAW file has a format specific to the camera - even with the same make, different models have different RAW file formats and need a custom conversion before they can be viewed of edited. On the other hand, jpeg, tif, png etc. are standard formats. In many cases, the camera includes a low-res jpeg picture in the RAW file to show in the camera monitor. Some viewing ( not editing) programs can display this jpeg but do not decode the RAW.

Having said this, if the camera is saving both RAW and JPEG, the saved JPEG is stored in whatever resolution has been chosen in the camera preferences.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Julian wrote:

That's quite a statement considering that all digital image files are simply files composed of "1"s and "0"s. None of them (jpeg, tif, png, RAW, etc) may be viewed directly without the proper processing software. However, RAW files may also be viewed on your camera's display right after you click the shutter. The camera does all the work for you.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Radioman wrote:

Hi Julian, br br The RAW file has a format specif... (show quote)

Your explanation is correct but you are missing the point: Contrary to the statement that "...only jpeg files may be viewed directly.." as indicated by one of our members, I was simply highlighting the fact that none of the digital image formats (tiff, jpeg, RAW, png, etc.) may be viewed DIRECTLY. Only through the proper software, whether embedded in the camera, display or printer, this can be accomplished. Even the lo-res jpeg picture in the camera requires processing.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Julian wrote:

Your explanation is correct but you are missing the point: Contrary to the statement that "...only jpeg files may be viewed directly.." as indicated by one of our members, I was simply highlighting the fact that none of the digital image formats (tiff, jpeg, RAW, png, etc.) may be viewed DIRECTLY. Only through the proper software, whether embedded in the camera, display or printer, this can be accomplished. Even the lo-res jpeg picture in the camera requires processing.

Since the thread has already been reduced to complete ridiculousness, perhaps you could define "viewed directly." Last time I looked I could see 1's and 0's quite well. There's no value in trying to rip up the reputation of one of the most knowledgeable and helpful members of this forum over something none of us have any control over in the end. Move on please!

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

gessman wrote:

Since the thread has already been reduced to complete ridiculousness, perhaps you could define "viewed directly." Last time I looked I could see 1's and 0's quite well. There's no value in trying to rip up the reputation of one of the most knowledgeable and helpful members of this forum over something none of us have any control over in the end. Move on please!

Reputation does not make one infallible. To err is human... I'll move on.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

gessman wrote:

Since the thread has already been reduced to complete ridiculousness, perhaps you could define "viewed directly." Last time I looked I could see 1's and 0's quite well. There's no value in trying to rip up the reputation of one of the most knowledgeable and helpful members of this forum over something none of us have any control over in the end. Move on please!

Reputation does not make one infallible. To err is human... I'll move on.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

gessman wrote:

Since the thread has already been reduced to complete ridiculousness, perhaps you could define "viewed directly." Last time I looked I could see 1's and 0's quite well. There's no value in trying to rip up the reputation of one of the most knowledgeable and helpful members of this forum over something none of us have any control over in the end. Move on please!

Reputation does not make one infallible. To err is human... I'll move on.

bogeyeliot Loc: Signal Hill, CA

gessman wrote:

Since the thread has already been reduced to complete ridiculousness, perhaps you could define "viewed directly." Last time I looked I could see 1's and 0's quite well. There's no value in trying to rip up the reputation of one of the most knowledgeable and helpful members of this forum over something none of us have any control over in the end. Move on please!

Motion Seconded!