RAW vs Jpeg (again) (Page 8): That was my point. A jpg has been converted already, where as a raw file has not been converted; by the camera. I'm not explaining this any better than...

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

Rich1939 wrote:

for the record; A JPEG is a data file, it is not an image. It requires software that can read the data and use its instructions to create an image on a monitor screen.
The exact comment can be made for a RAW file.

That was my point. A jpg has been converted already, where as a raw file has not been converted; by the camera. I'm not explaining this any better than anyone else on here, but anyone trying to figure this out with all the different replies that are on here has not a snowballs chance in hell understanding what anyone is saying, or the difference between jpg and raw.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

catchlight.. wrote:

That may be, lol... Amazing that the posters question was so elementary. Some of the authoritative encyclopedia's being written here on the subject are quite amazing.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

catchlight.. wrote:

Perfect reply in a sea of muddy water!

... and why are over saturated examples being offered that add nothing to answer the question?

Jpeg is the product of editing RAW data. It is like comparing a negative to a photo.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

rmalarz wrote:

--Bob

Yes, a Jpeg is an IMAGE FILE...

Jpeg is a completed IMAGE FILE... RAW is RAW data.

A Jpeg IMAGE FILE comes from the RAW material.

A Jpeg is not an optional or simpler form of editing data...

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

AirWalter wrote:

That was my point. A jpg has been converted already, where as a raw file has not been converted; by the camera. I'm not explaining this any better than anyone else on here, but anyone trying to figure this out with all the different replies that are on here has not a snowballs chance in hell understanding what anyone is saying, or the difference between jpg and raw.

Maybe this can help. Every digital camera produces a RAW file in some version. A basic point and shoot camera reads the data from its raw file and then converts that data to the JPEG standard. That JPEG data is then stored in the cameras memory where it can be accessed and internally processed for viewing on the LCD and also for off loading to a computer.
Higher end cameras add to the above flow by saving the original data, before it is processed in any way, to the raw memory. The raw memory files we download from our cameras also include a identifying JPEG so a review can be made of the image (and because we need to know when we screwed the pooch) However when the RAW file is downloaded what we work with in post processing is that raw data and not the identifying JPEG.
Maybe looking at it this way can help; raw data is what comes off the sensor with out any alteration, JPEG files have that data organized to the JPEG standard and will have been altered to the camera builders ideas of what a picture should look like.
(I know that last is not precisely so but it should help to differentiate between the two.)

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

DirtFarmer wrote:

I think it is unlikely that the raw converter will... (show quote)

Hmmm, - - - This brings up a question that I have been wondering about for a long time. If I take an SD card out of my D750 that is set to record Raw in slot1 and Jpg in slot2 and look at it on my desktop with Windows 7 after opening the folder that the files are in I can see the Jpgs just fine, but all I see of the Raw files is an icon. If I take that same card and put it in my Lenovo laptop with Window 10 Pro and open the folder that contains the images I can instantly see the Jpgs files and the Raw files as images, and I cannot see any difference between them. They both look identical, and I am seeing them on the Photo Program that is installed with the MS Operating system. These photos are SOOC on both computers. How is this possible if they should look different? Evidently Windows 10 Pro is doing some kind of processing to the Raw files so that they can be seen as an image.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

NCMtnMan wrote:

There isn't any real answer to which is better since one is an image file and one is a data file. The jpg was created by your camera from what was a RAW file even though your camera didn't save the RAW file. If you don't care about having full pp control of your shot, then continue to shoot jpg. However, with RAW you can have more pp control and create the jpg that you like instead of what your camera likes.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

For all who are confused from the endless posts.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

What you are most likely seeing is the jpg thumbnail file contained within the RAW file. There is a possibility that your Win7 system hasn't got the codex to view the encapsulated jpg with the RAW files.
--Bob

AirWalter wrote:

Hmmm, - - - This brings up a question that I have ... (show quote)

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

catchlight.. wrote:

Its RAW data.

So the camera processed his RAW data into a Jpeg... then you decide to edit that same Raw data he mistakenly thought was an image, into a Jpeg to compare what, two Jpegs?

If your going to edit... use the RAW data. If your not going to edit, use the Jpeg out of the camera. Of course you can edit a Jpeg, but the question was about the two being compared as images. Apples and Oranges.

Not sure what you are even trying to say. As stated I OPENED the OP posted RAW file and processed it through my ACR 9.1.1 and Ps CS6 and came up with an OK image, different I think that what I would have shot. Not that I even would have been done with it at that point but I did my normal work flow on it and since he has is own camera and exposure it is to me a bit over exposed. I then SAVED it via Ps as a JPG as that is what we are supposed to be posting on UHH. I posted my version of the OP's image. Not totally to my liking but that might be my point of exit as I did not want to fuss with his image beyond what I normally do with my own images. Yes, I like Bob's version better.

Normally I always shoot RAW myself but I am capable of processing pretty well JPGs too I my get from my CellPhone or just JPEGs I find on the WEB. So I am not sure why you are ragging on me when I essentially said and did the same as everyone else. You that bored?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

These RAW vs JPG constant questions are bad enough, but we are really wasting time on semantics. All Digital "images," RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD, DNG, etc. are files, digital 0s and 1s. They only become a tangible image, picture or photograph or whatever when they are printed. The engineering differences at that level are not really important to an art. The main point to me is that RAW files contain all the possible data and JPGs are lossy and compressed and heck only 8-bit. I usually work with 16-bit or even 32-bit TIFF and PSD file formats.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

lamiaceae wrote:

These RAW vs JPG constant questions are bad enough... (show quote)

You understand the differences but way too many new users do not. They open the manual that came with their new camera and see references to RAW and JPEG with zero explanation. Those are who these conversations try to help.

bleirer

Rich1939 wrote:

for the record; A JPEG is a data file, it is not an image. It requires software that can read the data and use its instructions to create an image on a monitor screen.
The exact comment can be made for a RAW file.

While I get your meaning, and it is an important distinction, common parlance calls it an image. I searched my Canon RP users guide for the term 'raw image' and got 67 references. Here is one direct paste:

A RAW image is raw data output by the image sensor converted to digital
data. It is recorded to the card as is, and you can select the quality as
follows: 1 or F. F produces RAW images with smaller file sizes
than 1.

RAW images can be processed using [3: RAW image processing]
(=325) and saved as JPEG images. (Just as for 1, all JPEG size
options are available for F.) As the RAW image itself does not change,
you can process the RAW image to create any number of JPEG images
with various processing conditions.

So depending on ones point of view a JPEG also cannot be viewed without software that can read the data and use its instructions to create an image on a monitor screen.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

bleirer wrote:

While I get your meaning, and it is an important d... (show quote)

Common parlance??
We are trying to help new users understand their cameras not make debating points

srt101fan

Deleted