Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
RAW and JPEG question
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
Jun 11, 2019 12:31:05   #
BebuLamar
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
I’m an experimentalist.
Set your camera white balance to incandescent and take a shot in daylight. See how well you can adjust the jpg compared to the raw file.


Actually one good test is to shoot at base ISO and underexpose by 4 stops or so. See how well you can adjust the JPEG or the RAW to look normal.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 12:39:12   #
bleirer
 
You didn't tell what camera and what processing software you have or want to have. Some is quite easy to use, you can just use the defaults or scroll through different looks and pick one, and the only real downside to raw is more storage. But storage is so cheap now it has become a non issue.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 13:06:43   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
dino21 wrote:
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I know I am not knowledgeable as you folks are but here it goes..

I have read the advantages of shooting in RAW format and how in post processing it is then processed to your liking. My question is this....If I put a jpeg image in my software and start messing with the controls it also changes the look of the jpeg to where it seems like the jpeg can be changed to ones liking also...?? What am I missing? I shoot both RAW and jpeg and both seem to be processable in post production. Please don't throw the kitchen sink at me.....I am trying to educate myself.
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I ... (show quote)


Here, I'll make it simple.

Editing RAW you have the ability to change 100% of the parameters of an image. Working with JPEGs, you can change maybe 50% of the parameters.

Have you tried RAW processing?

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2019 13:07:02   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Typically one has more control over the image by editing the RAW file.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 14:35:52   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
GOOD GRIEF!

Seems most have missed important distinctions. There is more dynamic range (range from brightest brights to deepest shadows) recorded in RAW than can be represented in JPG. Also, there is more range of color, though they make for subtle vatiations. While you can adjust brightness and color on both RAW and JPG, RAW has more range.

If you save in a file other than the original, neither is destructive. BUT, JPG is usually lossy, meaning not all the original information is there. Not only is it lossy, but each new "Save" looses again.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 15:30:25   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
You're 100% correct, that is: you can process your JPEG to your liking, many times with less effort and time than RAW.l


- and less expense and less resources ! Yes, you can PP JPEGS to your heart's content - just like I do .....
.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 16:46:23   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
dino21 wrote:
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I know I am not knowledgeable as you folks are but here it goes..

I have read the advantages of shooting in RAW format and how in post processing it is then processed to your liking. My question is this....If I put a jpeg image in my software and start messing with the controls it also changes the look of the jpeg to where it seems like the jpeg can be changed to ones liking also...?? What am I missing? I shoot both RAW and jpeg and both seem to be processable in post production. Please don't throw the kitchen sink at me.....I am trying to educate myself.
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I ... (show quote)


Photography is about tones, tones pertain to both color and black and white. In a jpg image the camera strips away many of the tones in your image, leaving you with an 8-bit file. A RAW file, which is what every images starts out with, is a 16-bit file. A 16-bit file has many thousands more tones than an 8-bit file. Thus, a 16-bit file allows for more advanced processing of an image without comprising the file and causing artifacts, so a better quality image overall. Where this is often most apparent is in a blue sky. This is a simplified explanation of a very complex topic. If you like what you get from your jpg file and you don't mind your camera making decisions for you then continue to shoot in jpg. If you want a larger file with more tones, i.e., more information, and you want to control the end result, shoot RAW and work with it in a processing program. There is no requirement to shoot RAW just as there is no requirement to shoot jpg. I shoot RAW 99% of the time but I like to create a finished product from my RAW information and I often do other things to the image that could cause artifacts. I like to create a quality image with good tones. It's all personal choice.

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2019 16:55:20   #
BebuLamar
 
via the lens wrote:
Photography is about tones, tones pertain to both color and black and white. In a jpg image the camera strips away many of the tones in your image, leaving you with an 8-bit file. A RAW file, which is what every images starts out with, is a 16-bit file. A 16-bit file has many thousands more tones than an 8-bit file. Thus, a 16-bit file allows for more advanced processing of an image without comprising the file and causing artifacts, so a better quality image overall. Where this is often most apparent is in a blue sky. This is a simplified explanation of a very complex topic. If you like what you get from your jpg file and you don't mind your camera making decisions for you then continue to shoot in jpg. If you want a larger file with more tones, i.e., more information, and you want to control the end result, shoot RAW and work with it in a processing program. There is no requirement to shoot RAW just as there is no requirement to shoot jpg. I shoot RAW 99% of the time but I like to create a finished product from my RAW information and I often do other things to the image that could cause artifacts. I like to create a quality image with good tones. It's all personal choice.
Photography is about tones, tones pertain to both ... (show quote)


As far as I know most RAW files are only 14 bit and not 16. They also have only 1 color channel per pixel and not 3.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 17:09:03   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
imagemeister wrote:
- and less expense and less resources ! Yes, you can PP JPEGS to your heart's content - just like I do .....
.


That depends how content your heart is. Many jpegs images can modified effectively as long as you don't push the adjustments too far, but many other jpeg images simply will not result in the same quality output as the same image in raw. Whether to use raw or not, really depends on one's overall goals, post processing skills, and desire to take the time and effort to bring their images to the next level. I post processed my images only in jpeg for years until until I decided to try shooting raw. When I realized the possibilities when shooting raw and the superiority of the results over processing jpegs, I was a convert. Not expecting you to change your opinions, but for me the differences was profound and I now shoot raw only 100% of the time.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 17:09:08   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
BebuLamar wrote:
As far as I know most RAW files are only 14 bit and not 16. They also have only 1 color channel per pixel and not 3.


I'll just say this, "...Digital RAW files contain pixel values of high bit depth (often 12, 14 or 16 bits per pixel per color channel) compared to typical 8-bit per channel renderings and thus can store greater tonal latitude and finer tonal and color variations. Important image processes result in fewer artifacts when performed on high-bit-depth data, such as raw data..., than when done on already typically rendered 8-bit per channel images." The Manual of Photography, Elizabeth Allen and Sophie Triantaphillidou. A wonderful "bible" on the technical aspects of photography. I was just trying to make it easy and understandable. Aside from that, whatever you say...

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 18:41:29   #
BebuLamar
 
via the lens wrote:
I'll just say this, "...Digital RAW files contain pixel values of high bit depth (often 12, 14 or 16 bits per pixel per color channel) compared to typical 8-bit per channel renderings and thus can store greater tonal latitude and finer tonal and color variations. Important image processes result in fewer artifacts when performed on high-bit-depth data, such as raw data..., than when done on already typically rendered 8-bit per channel images." The Manual of Photography, Elizabeth Allen and Sophie Triantaphillidou. A wonderful "bible" on the technical aspects of photography. I was just trying to make it easy and understandable. Aside from that, whatever you say...
I'll just say this, "...Digital RAW files con... (show quote)


I don't know of any camera that produces 16 bit RAW. Also each pixel in the RAW file only has one color channel. Not 3.

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2019 18:56:13   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BebuLamar wrote:
I don't know of any camera that produces 16 bit RAW. Also each pixel in the RAW file only has one color channel. Not 3.


Supposedly: https://hasselblad-com.cdn.prismic.io/hasselblad-com%2F32fac964-9bc0-403a-8563-c072fad03559_x1d-50c-datasheet_en_v2.pdf

However you are correct to resist attempts to draw a comparison between 8 bit RGB images and XX bit raw files. They're both bits but they're not equivalent measures. Any comparison beyond one stores data and so does the other is most likely misleading. To suggest that the raw file holds more data because XX is bigger than 8 is most certainly misleading.

Joe

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 18:57:47   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
sorry dupe

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 20:23:04   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
dino21 wrote:
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I know I am not knowledgeable as you folks are but here it goes..

I have read the advantages of shooting in RAW format and how in post processing it is then processed to your liking. My question is this....If I put a jpeg image in my software and start messing with the controls it also changes the look of the jpeg to where it seems like the jpeg can be changed to ones liking also...?? What am I missing? I shoot both RAW and jpeg and both seem to be processable in post production. Please don't throw the kitchen sink at me.....I am trying to educate myself.
Please don't bite my head off for asking this. I ... (show quote)


The best answer is found within your own experience. With normal contrast images that have no exposure issues - you are not likely to see much a difference, if at all, between an adjusted raw->jpeg and a jpeg out of the camera.

But when you have wide dynamic range images - such as an eagle in sunlight, or an egret against a darker background, you'll be able to expose your image to capture the white plumage without loss of highlight detail (blown highlights), better if you shoot raw. You can expose for the highlights - I use the spot meter in the camera to measure white areas with detail, and expose 1-2/3 to 2 stops higher than the cameras reading. With raw this is not an issue at all, but if you tried that with jpeg, the resulting underexposed areas of the image (most of if actually) will have unrecoverable shadows, and lots of noise that is difficult to address. This is an oversimplification, but when you try it for yourself, it will all start to make sense.

Reply
Jun 11, 2019 23:32:08   #
jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
Try asking them for some better quality ground beef.


They have better quality beef than McDonald’s.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.