Jpeg vs. Raw: Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

They would be close, but the RAW should show some better overall color and depth. JPEG (JPG) is a lossy format, but as everyone can tell from its ubiquity (it's even been used in movie theaters for motion pictures) it is a standard, but this speaks to a lessening of the overall standard.

Granddad Loc: UK

In terms of what you see with your eyes, yes. But the JPEG is processed in the camera with sharpening, and contrast and anything else that the manufacture of the camera has the camera doing. The image on the LCD screen on the back of your camera is a JPEG, whether you take a RAW image or a JPEG image. When you take a RAW image it's like the old film days you sent it away to the labs, unless you did your own processing, they processed it. The RAW image that you down load to your computer is like the film before it gets processed, ALL the pixels are still there, it's called a lossless, not like a JPEG which gets rid of pixels it doesn't need. The file you have of your image is what you work on in your PP, and you can do more with the image to make it like what you remember the scene when you took the image.
Dave.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

The JPG from the camera is processed according to the camera manufacturers settings (with a little latitude for the owner to change in camera).

If a person takes a JPG + RAW and compares the two after processing the RAW to their taste - then I don't think they would bother with the JPG again. There is so much extra information in the RAW that can be brought out during processing.

If however you just want speed and easy life - then use JPG.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

You guys are great. Wonderful info. Many Thanks, Allan

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

If your question leans toward your wanting to know which to use (jpeg vs raw), I would say to shoot everything in jpeg unless you have plans to enlarge an image to create a print to hang on a wall or any print that is 11"x14" or even larger.

Should you shoot in raw, your post processing software will permit more options and or more latitude for manipulating the image which also takes up more of your time, but if time is not an issue, learning to shoot and post process in raw are very good options to employ.

If your camera has two memory cards and the option to calibrate one card for jpeg and the other card for raw, you have the best of both worlds.

Best of luck to you and enjoy your day.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

Here is sort of an example out of my camera, not all cameras act exactly the same, I had my camera set to save in RAW and JPG at the same time. Of course the JPG is showing whatever sharpness and color settings I had in the camera at that time and I honestly don't know what they were. Anyway, the left image is RAW and the right is JPG both are straight out of the camera. The left image appears sharper than the right.

RAW vs JPG

(Download)

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

While EVERY image can be made better in post processing and raw creates the best image, JPEG images are very often beautiful.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Thanks, Allan

Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:

If your question leans toward your wanting to know... (show quote)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

RAW enables you to tweak the image more. To answer your question directly, the answer depemds upon your ability to see differences in color and the quality of your monitor.

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

PixelStan77 wrote:

RAW enables you to tweak the image more. To answer your question directly, the answer depemds upon your ability to see differences in color and the quality of your monitor.

Yes, the monitor makes all the difference.
I PP my pictures on my calibrated Retina display and take them to class. Viewed on the school's monitors, every monitor in the room would look a little different. No fun when your beautiful blond haired model has green hair on the monitors in class.
Marion

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I shoot in RAW because I will often underexpose a photo in order to get a good sky. You will be surprised as to the detail you can recover in using a good post processing program (I use PSE14). I will also photomerge the resulting images. You can do that in JPEG by taking a number of photos and merging them. I used to do that until I shot on a windy day and learned about "ghosting".

I will never go back to shooting JPEG.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Crwiwy wrote:

The JPG from the camera is processed according to the camera manufacturers settings (with a little latitude for the owner to change in camera).

If a person takes a JPG + RAW and compares the two after processing the RAW to their taste - then I don't think they would bother with the JPG again. There is so much extra information in the RAW that can be brought out during processing.

If however you just want speed and easy life - then use JPG.

Now try reading what the OP asked (difference before editing) before rushing out the stock answer. There will be a difference before editing. The JPG will almost certainly be superior. The RAW will appear flat with no "pop" as it still needs to be edited. A mistake made by many newbies is that when viewing a RAW using some manufacturers editing progs they are not really viewing the RAW at all, but a RAW with the same edits as in the JPG. :-)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

waegwan wrote:

Here is sort of an example out of my camera, not all cameras act exactly the same, I had my camera set to save in RAW and JPG at the same time. Of course the JPG is showing whatever sharpness and color settings I had in the camera at that time and I honestly don't know what they were. Anyway, the left image is RAW and the right is JPG both are straight out of the camera. The left image appears sharper than the right.

If you were using Canon's editor, then it does not show a true RAW - it shows an edited version using the settings you included in camera. :-)

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

My son informed me that he can only shoot J-peg and must include the camera EXIF as they are used in criminal cases. I felt reassured by this as I remembered the requirements we had for black and white (full frame, standard development, borders of negative showing) back when I was shooting forensic shots in the late Pleistocene.