Raw vs jpg: Can you spot the difference? (Page 6): I am not sure what you were trying to do. That is my point. You claim to be doing some sort of comparison, but it is not clear to me...

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

TheDman wrote:

Then please, tell us all what I actually did, because apparently I don't know what I did.

I am not sure what you were trying to do. That is my point. You claim to be doing some sort of comparison, but it is not clear to me what it is you are comparing, nor what the basis is for making this supposed comparison. The claim is yours, so the burden of proof lies with you. I am not persuaded. The flaws in your reasoning have been patiently pointed out to you.

The choice of working with raw files or not, in the context of posting images online, is dependent upon whether a person wants to generate their own JPEG files, or have the camera do that for them. Working with raw files is not, as is commonly and misleadingly stated, only for the purpose of "correcting" images that are supposedly "wrong" in some way. We have members who make a pretty solid case for intentionally "overexposing" images to capture a wider dynamic range and reduce noise. For printing and multi-media a file may never be converted to JPEG, but rather the TIFF format is used. Why would that be? Higher quality images, that is why.

JPEG was developed to reduce file size with minimal quality loss and that makes transmission over the Internet easier. Otherwise, who needs JPEGs at all? We all work with JPEGs. The question is, do you want to grille your own burger or sewing by McDonald's? Either way you get a burger and your hunger is satisfied. Many people can't tell the difference, or even prefer that mass produced burger. Others prefer to make their own. I wouldn't tell you tat you shouldn't swing by McDonald's. Why are you trying to dissuade people who want to cook their own from doing so?

Mike

TheDman Loc: USA

Blenheim Orange wrote:

No, not so. The files consist of code, be they JPEG files or any other image file format. JPEG data is not an image, any more than raw file data is.

Mike

Yes, so. JPG data is simply a grid of pixels with a set number of bits to designate each pixel's color, much like all raster image files. This is not at all what a raw file is.

TheDman Loc: USA

Blenheim Orange wrote:

I am not sure what you were trying to do. That is my point. You claim to be doing some sort of comparison, but it is not clear to me what it is you are comparing, nor what the basis is for making this supposed comparison.

Page 1, post 1: "let's export a raw file at default settings as a jpg, process the raw file in Camera Raw, then make the exact same ACR edits to the jpg and see what we get"

Blenheim Orange wrote:

The claim is yours, so the burden of proof lies with you.

I just told you what I did and you claim that is not what I did, so now the burden of proof is on you. Prove that I did not PP two files, one starting from the raw file and one starting from a jpg.

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Why are you trying to dissuade people who want to cook their own from doing so?

I have absolutely no idea why you think I was trying to dissuade people from this. That is the complete opposite of my conclusion here. It seems like you really need to re-read this thread from the beginning, paying closer attention this time.

Pixeldawg Loc: Suzhou, China

It IS what a RAW file is, too. There is really NO difference between one photo file and another with respect to this. RAW simply means that- it is a file as produced by the chip without any modifications. No color space, no compression, no sharpening, JUST the data. Because of this there are far more adjustments that can be made to the file without losing the high quality level because you don't have all of the crap embedded into it as you do with a typical JPEG file. It is not magical, just straight data.

TheDman Loc: USA

Pixeldawg wrote:

There is really NO difference between one photo file and another with respect to this... No color space, no compression, no sharpening, JUST the data.

Well that's a difference right there, eh? JPGs can have embedded color spaces, whereas raw files do not. JPGs are raster graphics - grids of pixels. This is not what raw files are. Here's more information.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

TheDman wrote:

Yes, so. JPG data is simply a grid of pixels with a set number of bits to designate each pixel's color, much like all raster image files. This is not at all what a raw file is.

No, sorry, this is not true.

While JPEG files are, as you say, raster files, so are raw files. They certainly are not vector files.

References:

https://99designs.com/blog/tips/image-file-types/#RAW
https://www.zionandzion.com/raster-vs-vector/
https://www.lynda.com/Sketch-tutorials/Vector-versus-raster-images/480956/490191-4.html
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/different-types-raster-image-file-formats

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

TheDman wrote:

I have absolutely no idea why you think I was trying to dissuade people from this. That is the complete opposite of my conclusion here. It seems like you really need to re-read this thread from the beginning, paying closer attention this time.

Yep, I know. There is no serious disagreement between us. I had forgotten how the thread started, and that is not relevant to my comments. Sorry for any confusion.

My points, for what they are worth:

- Working with raw files is best considered a method, rather than as a result.

- Raw files are no harder to "see" than JPEG files are. Software renders an image from the data coded in the file, be it a JPEG file or a raw file.

Those were not intended to be in opposition to your points necessarily.

Again, sorry for any confusion. I am considerably older now than I was when this thread was started.

Mike

TheDman Loc: USA

Blenheim Orange wrote:

No, sorry, this is not true.

While JPEG files are, as you say, raster files, so are raw files. They certainly are not vector files.

References:

https://99designs.com/blog/tips/image-file-types/#RAW
https://www.zionandzion.com/raster-vs-vector/
https://www.lynda.com/Sketch-tutorials/Vector-versus-raster-images/480956/490191-4.html
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/different-types-raster-image-file-formats

Mike

Yes, it is true. There are more types of files than just vector and raster. None of your links say raw files are raster images, they just discuss what vector and raster images are. Go here and see if they list raw or dng files as raster file types:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

Pixeldawg Loc: Suzhou, China

RAW is a raster file. The ONLY difference between a RAW file and a JPEG is that JPEG has been processed in camera. The RAW file has not and is, in its' native unprocessed state and is not printable. It is capture in pixels, just like a TIFF or JPEG, but processed by the individual in a higher level color gamut than JPEGS, which already have all of this information, compression and color space. RAW files simply allow high level of customization of the image output.

TheDman Loc: USA

Pixeldawg wrote:

RAW is a raster file.

Again, I refer you to the link I provided above. Let me know if you see raw/dng among the raster file formats.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

TheDman wrote:

Again, I refer you to the link I provided above. Let me know if you see raw/dng among the raster file formats.

Definition: RAW files; RAW format; TIFF; DNG; NEF; CR2; CRW

RAW files are raster image files compiled directly from the raw data collected at the digital image sensor of the camera. The same type of data is collected on other image creating devices like scanners.

In the RAW file the data is retained unprocessed. None of the data is discarded. The RAW files have different formats as does the identifying metadata tags.

RAW files store the raw data from the camera. That data is then used in post production to produce the image required by the photographer. Once the image is produced using an editing application another format is output as the final image file. An example of a processed image file would be a *.jpg or PNG file or one of a range of other formats. Thus, RAW files tend to be used effectively for archive type storage and post processing.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-raw-files/

Raster image (also called a bitmap image)

A picture created in a camera comes from an array of tiny sensors (photosites) on the digital image sensor. When the sensor data from all the photosites are translated into an image on your screen, each photosite becomes an individual pixel in the image.

Each of the tiny pixels in a raster image are too small to see individually. Together the pixels merge before your eyes into one coherent whole. The full raster image is the composite of all the pixels put together as the image showing on your screen.
Raster image formats for storage

A raster image, also known as a bitmap, can be stored in a variety of formats. In most cases the images are picture formats like photographs. They may be found as *.jpg, *.gif or *.PNG; or any of a wide range of other formats. These other formats include RAW formats.

http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-raster-image/

Mike

BlackRipleyDog

speters wrote:

Why would that matter in any way, I don't really understand that question, to me it makes no sense! If one shoots in raw, he/she is working to create a jpeg anyway, of course there should be a difference, The jpeg should shine above all, as that will be the finished product/image!!

Not so. A jpeg is not my aim. My goals are a master PSD file and a TIFF that I print from. I upload a TIFF to my online print shop (a 445 meg file this morning). If I need something less evolved, I dumb it down to a jpeg.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

Not so. A jpeg is not my aim. My goals are a master PSD file and a TIFF that I print from. I upload a TIFF to my online print shop (a 445 meg file this morning). If I need something less evolved, I dumb it down to a jpeg.

Beautiful work at your gallery, by the way.

Mike

BlackRipleyDog

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Beautiful work at your gallery, by the way.

Mike

Thank you Mike.
Scott

Alby144 Loc: Northern Nevada

So it looks to me that the photo on the right is the RAW version. I guess it depends on how good your eyes are and what the purpose of your photo is...

TheDman wrote:

In one of the many previous threads on this topic,... (show quote)