oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

Not sure my understanding of the difference is accurate. Is it true that an image in both JPEG and RAW consists of the same number of pixels in either format and can be printed equally as large with equal sharpness? And, that the major difference is RAW offers greater latitude for PP?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

They both have the same number of pixels. The JPEG is created from the raw file which comes first. They can both be printed equally large with nearly equal sharpness -- raw can handle sharpness a little better.

That raw offers greater latitude for PP is correct and that is a big difference. Why that's the case needs to be understood. The JPEG by definition must be compressed and is limited to an 8 bit image. The compression used with JPEGs is what we call lossy as in loss. Data is lost in the compression method and unrecoverable. The 8 bit limit applied to the JPEG likewise fixes the amount of data the file can contain and compared with the raw file it's less.

The JPEG is a finished image with the processing work completed. In the specification for the JPEG algorithm the term archive is used to define the format -- JPEG is an archive format. What they mean is that JPEG was intended to save the final form of the image in a compressed state.

The JPEG algorithm is brilliant plain and simple. It can take an RGB image and successfully compress it by 80% such that viewing the image we can't see any difference. It's a technological triumph and has enabled our current sharing of data and images. Imagine if all the images on the internet (still and video) instantly increased in size by 85% -- the increased bandwidth demand would strangle the internet to death instantly.

Because JPEG saves/archives a processed image you can face problems if you don't like the processing that was applied to get the image to it's final form. Many people will further edit JPEG images. This can be more difficult and require more skill and time than processing raw data because it can be hard to "unbake a cake" as it were. It's easier and more direct to effect a processing result with raw data than to start with a different result applied and saved in a JPEG and then try and get the desired result with the JPEG that was already created differently.

I personally prefer to work from the raw data because not only can I achieve the results I want, I can do that so much easier and so much faster. I also prefer to limit my effort behind the camera to just capturing the subject I want. If shooting only JPEG and you want to avoid the increased difficulty that comes from editing a JPEG then you really need to devote attention at the time you're behind the camera to adjust the various JPEG parameters available in the camera software. I need only compose and nail exposure. The JPEG shooter needs to compose, nail exposure, consider WB, consider the camera's DR (lighting contrast) adjustments, and potentially tone, color and sharpness adjustments, etc. as they will all be baked into the camera JPEG.

Two final considerations: 1. The camera engineers must pay attention to how fast your camera can create and save a JPEG and then take the next photo. They must address the expectation that the user could want to take several photos in quick secession. If they devote more effort to creating the JPEG it will take time. They have the option to increase the power and memory of the camera but that increases cost. So there's always a trade off made in the design of every camera to cut a few corners and/or use a faster but not quite as good algorithm than what's available in a computer workstation. No free lunch.

2. The camera software has no idea what you photographed and what you want it to look like. Therefore it has no alternative but to process your image to the bell curve. The camera software must apply averaging methodologies to the processing it does and treat your photo with the expectation that it meets the standard average parameters. This process of applying averages is something we do to manage many aspects of our lives. It allows us to automate processes. The corn is an average height and the machine can harvest it etc. Applying the rule of a mean makes automation possible. The software in your camera is automated and although you can influence how it behaves you ultimately don't fully control it's automatic behavior. The mean will rule. Another word with the same root as mean is mediocre.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Here we go again!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, when the 'high quality' or 'large' JPEG is used, the JPEG has the same pixel resolution as the largest RAW file your camera can create. Check your camera manual for information about the file quality settings.

Yes, the files can be printed to the same sizes. A 24MP image is 6000x4000 pixels, whether a TIF, or JPEG, or RAW, or any other type of digital image that is expressed in pixels.

The primary difference in the JPEG from the camera is the bit-depth of the color information. Depending on the camera brand, the RAW files are 12- to 16-bit where a JPEG is 8-bit. This link explains the impact of data (color data) stored, based on the bit-depth of the file: https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

Yes, more bit-depth gives more freedom for making edits to an image, making RAW the preferred start-point for digital editing vs JPEG.

Most printing is based on 8-bit JPEG files. So, your edit freedom of RAW still is translated to a JPEG format for printing, just like the JPEG created by the camera.

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

The several replies to my question have very helpful. Thank you. Frank

Quixdraw Loc: x

Only you can name your "poison" - personally, I sampled RAW for a good few months and spit it out (to be fair, I have a one button switch to RAW set up on each camera in case I run across a live Unicorn or Genuine Flying saucer, but over several years have yet to use it). It is whatever works for you, the photos that satisfy you and the way you care to work!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Paul (chgcanon) and Joe (ysarex) sum it up perfectly. Both use raw, both are comfortable with the process and both understand the benefits of shooting raw.

Personally, I have been shooting raw exclusively since 2006. The benefits were clear back then, and even more so today with the improvements in cameras and raw converters. For 98%of the photographers out there jpeg offers no advantage at all from an image quality point of view.

Quixdraw Loc: x

98% - where did you pull that statistic from - I can guess. If the OP likes a lot of computer screen time, without a great a great deal of demonstrable change in outcome, they should go for it. Only the OP can choose! At least worth a try to see if it works for them.

10MPlayer Loc: California

Yep. I hate to be "that guy" but the search function is full of goodies.

I used both jpeg and raw at first but after I got comfortable with RAW I used it exclusively and only export files to JPEG if I'm going to post them or send them to someone via email. As far as size goes, I saw you got your answer above.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I use the JPEG for perusing, but only edit the RAW (then save the edit as JPEG).

User ID

Amazing what tomes have been published here when the complete and total answer is: “Yes. You’ve 100% got it.”

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Elaboration not good form?

Quixdraw Loc: x

You can decide to spend time with your camera or your computer. I made my choice. Quix out.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Psst, don't tell anybody - raw editing is WAY faster than fussing with jpegs . . . that horse is long dead and buried.