usaellie101 Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

I have a Nikon D5100. I have the camera set to take shots in both Raw and JPEG.
I honestly cannot see a difference in the shots .
Can someone explain - in non technical English what the difference is?

Thank you

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

If you work you pictures in Photoshop, RAW/NEF has more data available for you to manipulate. The files are larger too.

Allen Hirsch Loc: Oakland, CA

The RAW file gives you LOTS more ability to edit in post processing (fix white balance, fix over- or under-exposure, etc).

In the camera, you won't see a difference, because your camera turns that RAW file into a jpeg for viewing on the LCD screen - so both a jpeg and RAW file, in camera, will look the same.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

You won't see much difference. You will just have an unprocessed, uncompressed image to work with on the RAW file.

amehta Loc: Boston

When you look at the nef file, you might be looking at the embedded jpeg which is the camera jpeg, though lower quality and/or resolution. Check that your software is explicitly showing you the raw data. When it shows you the raw data, it will first do post processing to produce an image. If you do not tell it what to do, it will apply some default settings for things like color saturation, noise reduction, and sharpness. It will also probably use the white balance settings saved in the nef file, just like the camera jpeg did. At this point, the difference between the raw and the camera jpeg data is that choosing different values for things like white balance will be applied to the original data in the most precise way possible. If you change the white balance on a jpeg it is applied to data which has already been processed one way and then compressed, so the additional edits are not as precise.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Use the Search feature above and lookup RAW vs JPG and JPG vs RAW and you will find a wealth of information. If you look at the JPG and RAW side by side on a computer, the JPG will many times look much better, the RAW might look flat. This is because the camera has made some post processing decisions for you and you are looking at the finished product. The RAW file is every bit of info the sensor captured, without any editing and with no compression. You can make far more drastic adjustments to it since there is more info to work with. You can even adjust white balance after the fact. Again, look it up with the Search, you won't believe how much you will learn about this and you will run across several schools of thought. If you like to do post processing, it has to be RAW. If you are happy with the results your camera produces, just shoot JPG. I shoot both most of the time except for when doing continuous shooting to catch high speed subjects like birds in flight. RAW slows that down way too much.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

...................

Hi, usaellie;

To keep it simple let's envision a B&W image.

You are to replicate that image with maximum accurate detail using one of three available collections of square tiles. Those collections differ only in the number of shades of gray between black and white.

these are the three unlimited supplies of square tiles; we'll call those three sets:
8-bit JPEG image file data
12-bit RAW image data, and
16-bit RAW image data

8-bit JPEG image file: black, white, and 254 shades of gray between B&W

12-bit RAW data: black, white, and 4096 shades of gray in between B&W

14-bit RAW data: black, white, and 16,384 shades of gray in between B&W


Which selection of image tiles would you choose to use to render maximum accurate detail?

That's the bottom line basis upon which decisions are made regarding use of 8-bit JPEG, 12-bit RAW, and 14-bit RAW image data.

(the differences based on numbers of available colors are even more impressive!)

Dave in SD

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

The questions "which format should I shoot in" and "which format is better," which people will endlessly debate. The camera does not "shoot in"a format. You cannot "see" raw files and compare to JPG to determine which is "better."

You can have the camera process the data, create JPGs and write them to the card, and/or have the camera write the raw file to the card.

If you know how to and want to process your own images and create your own JPGs, have the camera write the raw file to the card. If not, don't.

The JPGs the cameras produce are high quality and many people go that route. Nothing wrong with that. Others want to spend time processing the images from the raw files and create their own JPGs when and as needed. Nothing wrong with that.

Mike

MarkD Loc: NYC

When you shoot JPEG's the camera automatically makes adjustments to things like color, sharpness, contrast, and saturation. When you shoot RAW the camera does not make any of these adjustments. You make whatever adjustments you want in Photoshop (or whichever editing program you use).

The advantage of shooting RAW is that you have more control over the final image. A JPEG can be edited in postprocessing also, but not to the same degree.

If you shoot JPEG's you can set up the camera to make the adjustments more in line with the way you like them. If you shoot RAW the quality of the final image depends to a large degree on your postprocessing skill, so while you are learning to PP it may be a good idea to shoot RAW+JPEG.

Personally, I hate doing PP so I shoot JPEG's and tweak them in Photoshop Elements. I've been shooting for 45+ years so I'm used to getting it right in camera. That allows me to need only minor adjustments.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Raw is the raw data which is used to produce a jpg file. You probably have seen there are different types of jpegs that your camera can produce such as vibrant or portrait or black & white or even line drawing.
when you save a jpeg a preset is applied and the image can have 1 of several looks to the image.

lets say you pick a black & white preset for the jpeg (and your camera will have a range of presets for black & white at the least digital filters).

you now have a black & white image but suppose you think that could look better in colour, well just having the jpeg file you can't produce a colour image now because the colour information has been lost.

Or perhaps you shot an indoor photo under artificial light peoples faces might appear red or even worse have a green cast to them because the white balance was wrong. Our eyes are quite strange they adjust the image automatically to see things the right colour, but the camera faithfully records the colours it see's.

However the Raw file has all the information that was recorded when you took the photograph. So this information can be processed differently so instead of a black & white jpeg you can have a colour one or you can select a white balance to correct for the type of light that it recorded. A sunset setting for instance will show the vivid colours you saw.

I think canon photo professional for example can adjust the raw file to any of your camera's settings and more. The more bit is where it gets complicated.

Some adjustments can be attempted from a jpeg file for example converting colour to black & white (but not the reverse) or trying to fix a colour cast from artificial lighting, however given the option from starting from raw or starting from a jpeg file the raw file will always be the better starting point.

With presets such as in canon photo professional your jpegs will be the equal of any in camera jpeg your camera can produce, with programs such as lightroom or photoshop they can be better, or worse much worse :) but if you persist and learn how to control these programs you can produce excellent results.

While it is always best to get it right in camera, some things can't be fixed without some post processing, E.g lens corrections are a brilliant advance which can remove lens distortions and colour fringing, for example.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

If you are shooting it all in camera jpg and you are fine with it, then you don't need to have raw files. There will be a time when raw files will be a thing of the past because jpg or a new file format will be so good you will not tell the difference. :)

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

If you are happy throwing away two-thirds of the data your camera is designed to capture stick with your JPEG image. If not shoot and process RAW. ;)

brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

The difference is that RAW allows you more flexibility with editing your photos. If you can't see the difference, stick with jpeg. The images are much smaller.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Don't forget that you always have to save the RAW as is, which is a larger file on your computer. You could also save the SOOC colour JPG instead, which is a smaller file. In the same PP app that you will use to edit your RAW (which you have to do) you can edit your SOOC JPG (which you do if you so choose) so you can convert it to B&W if you wish and save it as, eg, B&W.JPG, then, if you don't like it, so what - you still have your SOOC JPG. And in-camera processing is now so good. It is more important to learn to set up your camera properly than to learn to PP. Shoot RAW+JPG, then if you don't like the JPG your options are all there. I am learning to PP RAW, but so far I have only equalled my SOOC + PPd JPGs - but my cameras are properly set up for my tastes in Colour, WB etc. But it's all good fun - important to keep it that way! :-) Del
P.S. Remember that when your camera processes according to your wishes, it starts off with the same raw data as your Raw file, in fact "More Raw" - because when you view your Raw file in PS etc it is no longer Raw - it has had some adjustment or you could not see it.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Smaller file size is not such a big issue as it used to be in ireland storage on hard drive or sdcard is around 35 - 40 cents a GB assuming a file size of 20 MB thats about 50 images in the highest quality your camera can produce. At the moment the sweet spot for hard drives 3TB drives (smaller or larger costs more per TB) around 150,000 images.

Personally I like to take jpeg images in black & white as I feel it reveals the composition better than colour does. For me the jpeg image is a useful tool like the histogram and the highlight and lowlight 'blinkies' are.

The way we see is a little odd we see only a fraction of what enters our eyes and our brain fills in the rest once we have an image as a print or on the back of the LCD screen we start to see what is there and not what we thought was there.

Being able to see the image allows you to recompose and take a better photograph, if I was a master of photography I might not need this but as a student it helps me make better images.

Raw really is an input format its the ingredients, jpeg is pretty much the final product. working with a jpeg is like trying to turn an apple pie into an apple crumble the ingredients are about the same but you will find it a lot easier to make an apple crumble from scratch.