RAW vs JPG Question
Feb 28, 2015 10:26:50 #
Question: One photo is taken in JPG, another in RAW. They both are modified in Photoshop. The RAW photo is saved as a JPG. Both JPGs are sent to a professional photographer for judging. Can he or she determine one was originally in RAW and the other in JPG?
Feb 28, 2015 10:43:42 #
LPigott wrote:
Question: One photo is taken in JPG, another in RAW. They both are modified in Photoshop. The RAW photo is saved as a JPG. Both JPGs are sent to a professional photographer for judging. Can he or she determine one was originally in RAW and the other in JPG?
In many cases the info is in the EXIF, so yes.... but I am sure you meant by looking at the print....:)
Even though a raw is exported to JPG it can have more detail then the JPG, especially in the shadows, since the JPG had that detail thrown away by the camera. So I would say yes, it may be seen, BUT depending on the image of course.
Feb 28, 2015 10:53:39 #
[quote=Dngallagher]In many cases the info is in the EXIF, so yes.... but I am sure you meant by looking at the print.
Not necessarily. I meant in any way. How can I find the EXIF?
Not necessarily. I meant in any way. How can I find the EXIF?
Feb 28, 2015 12:52:15 #
[quote=LPigott]
EXIF data is embedded by the camera in every image, and also has data that is populated by post processing software.
It can be looked at in many different viewers and/or applications.
I use Lightroom, Preview (on a Mac), EXIFTool, Adobe BRIDGE
EXIFTOOL is a free & good exif viewer/editor for Mac & Windows. I would also get the PYEXIFTOOLGUI as well so it has a windows front end.
Opanda is also a popular EXIF viewer.
You can also get exif data on many image sharing sites like flickr.
Dngallagher wrote:
In many cases the info is in the EXIF, so yes.... but I am sure you meant by looking at the print.
Not necessarily. I meant in any way. How can I find the EXIF?
Not necessarily. I meant in any way. How can I find the EXIF?
EXIF data is embedded by the camera in every image, and also has data that is populated by post processing software.
It can be looked at in many different viewers and/or applications.
I use Lightroom, Preview (on a Mac), EXIFTool, Adobe BRIDGE
EXIFTOOL is a free & good exif viewer/editor for Mac & Windows. I would also get the PYEXIFTOOLGUI as well so it has a windows front end.
Opanda is also a popular EXIF viewer.
You can also get exif data on many image sharing sites like flickr.
Feb 28, 2015 12:54:15 #
Feb 28, 2015 12:56:56 #
LPigott wrote:
Thank you very much, Gallagher ...
You are quite welcome.
Feb 28, 2015 14:15:27 #
Depending on what was done to the RAW file, you may or may not be able to tell the difference. The reason for shooting RAW is that the picture could have been modified in ways that are not always possible starting with a .jpg file.
Feb 28, 2015 16:54:09 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Yes, the EXIF data would tell you...
But if you are asking which would be "better", the answer is more complicated:
If the camera were set up perfectly and the shot was well exposed, correctly color balanced and all, there would be little difference in the end result.
However, if any adjustment to exposure were needed... or change in color balance/tint... or perspective correction, cropping, retouching, etc.... all these things are much better done with a RAW file at 16 bit level, then reduced in size as needed and saved as an 8 bit JPEG. RAW files are much more flexible and tolerate more tweaking, if any of many common adjustments are needed to optimize the file.
But if you are asking which would be "better", the answer is more complicated:
If the camera were set up perfectly and the shot was well exposed, correctly color balanced and all, there would be little difference in the end result.
However, if any adjustment to exposure were needed... or change in color balance/tint... or perspective correction, cropping, retouching, etc.... all these things are much better done with a RAW file at 16 bit level, then reduced in size as needed and saved as an 8 bit JPEG. RAW files are much more flexible and tolerate more tweaking, if any of many common adjustments are needed to optimize the file.
Feb 28, 2015 19:31:42 #
amfoto1 wrote:
Yes, the EXIF data would tell you... br br But i... (show quote)
Thank you very much. I've been hesitant to switch from JPG to RAW due to the JPG image being more to my liking. However, when I entered the image in an online photo contest, I was wondering if the judge was able to detect the original JPG and give it a lesser score ...
Feb 28, 2015 19:47:14 #
One other item, if I understand it correctly, is that every time you "tweak" a jpg image and save it, the image looses quality. But when working with raw, you never mess with the original image data, and so each time you export it as a jpg with more "tweaks" (e.g. white balance, sharpness, exposure, contrast, etc.) it still has the same image quality.
Someone please chime in if I don't have that right...
Someone please chime in if I don't have that right...
Feb 28, 2015 19:47:17 #
Mar 1, 2015 07:22:03 #
Two main differences.
First, unless you are able to turn "enhancements" off in the camera, the image stored in JPEG will have been modified by your camera settings. A RAW image is not subject to in-camera saturation, sharpening and other settings (except in some instances for the LCD JPEG display on the back). Since JPEG images are manipulated by the camera, they often look "better" before editing because of increased saturation and contrast lacking in unedited RAW images.
Second, JPEG is crunched into 8-bits by the in-camera software and is subject to the efficiency of the algorithm used by the camera, which may or may not be optimal for any given image depending on what you are shooting. All JPEG images are 8-bit only.
First, unless you are able to turn "enhancements" off in the camera, the image stored in JPEG will have been modified by your camera settings. A RAW image is not subject to in-camera saturation, sharpening and other settings (except in some instances for the LCD JPEG display on the back). Since JPEG images are manipulated by the camera, they often look "better" before editing because of increased saturation and contrast lacking in unedited RAW images.
Second, JPEG is crunched into 8-bits by the in-camera software and is subject to the efficiency of the algorithm used by the camera, which may or may not be optimal for any given image depending on what you are shooting. All JPEG images are 8-bit only.
Mar 1, 2015 07:28:04 #
tomglass wrote:
One other item, if I understand it correctly, is that every time you "tweak" a jpg image and save it, the image looses quality. But when working with raw, you never mess with the original image data, and so each time you export it as a jpg with more "tweaks" (e.g. white balance, sharpness, exposure, contrast, etc.) it still has the same image quality.
Someone please chime in if I don't have that right...
Someone please chime in if I don't have that right...
Yes. But if you always go back to the original jpg, tweak (differently) and save under a different name, you only reduce the image quality once. If you sequentially retweak and save you would reduce quality each time, because eaach time you save the image is compressed again.
Mar 1, 2015 08:19:54 #
LPigott wrote:
However, when I entered the image in an online photo contest, I was wondering if the judge was able to detect the original JPG
Were you able to see the difference ? Same answer goes for the judge.
Mar 1, 2015 09:25:34 #
LPigott wrote:
Question: One photo is taken in JPG, another in RAW. They both are modified in Photoshop. The RAW photo is saved as a JPG. Both JPGs are sent to a professional photographer for judging. Can he or she determine one was originally in RAW and the other in JPG?
Shooting in RAW improves the possibilities for subsequent editing. Whether or not the person doing the editing can take advantage of those increased possibilities depends on the particular image and on the skill of the editor.
The professional at the end might judge one image to be better than the other but probably not whether that difference is due to the history of the image as a RAW image - other than perhaps by looking at the EXIF data.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.