Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
JPEG vs RAW
Page <<first <prev 7 of 18 next> last>>
Sep 27, 2020 16:31:04   #
Gallopingphotog
 
Which I use depends a lot on what I'm shooting. Landscapes, sunsets, full moon, etc -- of course I'll use RAW. But if I'm taking photos of the kids' soccer game or some other variation of a "snapshot," where speed is of more essence, I often use JPG. It isn't like I'll be tinkering with subtle detail fixes, and there is definitely a tiny but discernible pause between RAW shots.

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 16:34:42   #
maranatha
 
Thanks so much luminar gave lot of information on link gave all cameras it is combatible with and computers where else would I get such information thanks again Seamus

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 18:02:53   #
bleirer
 
RichKenn wrote:
Ysarex, I loved your discourse. It was clear and understandable. My only question is, how do I print a RAW file? I don't think my PSE RAW processor has a 'Print' button.


File/print

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/using/printing-photos.html#print_photos

Reply
 
 
Sep 27, 2020 18:58:50   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
Ysarex wrote:
But let's get this straightened out: Yes, the JPEG compression rate is variable and user adjustable. But it doesn't ever produce anything like 2% or even 10% or even 30% or even 40%. Those tiny amounts of compression aren't an option with JPEG.

I took the original of the image you see below and saved it as an 8 bit uncompressed TIFF file in Photoshop. The result saved to disk was a 74.2 megabyte file. I then saved it as a JPEG adjusting the compression rate to the least amount (highest quality) that Photoshop permits. The JPEG file on disk is 20.2 megabytes. Photoshop won't permit me to compress it any less and that's over 70%. So my 80% figure would be a good average stab for JPEGs in general. There's no 2% option in there.

P.S. (Not directed at DirtFarmer) As an aside that image below is an example of a photo that can't be created as a SOOC JPEG using any camera and the camera's image processing software.
But let's get this straightened out: Yes, the JPEG... (show quote)

Looks a little overcooked?

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 19:00:59   #
nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
RAW vs JPEG: Explaining the Difference with a Box of Cereal
https://petapixel.com/2020/07/25/raw-vs-jpeg-explaining-the-difference-with-a-box-of-cereal/

Digital Photography 1 on 1: Episode 39: RAW vs JPEG: Adorama Photography TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xqkkWB4zk4


Thank you for sharing , this is the best simplest video on explaining raw to a novice . Beats anything on this feed today . I even shared with my Meetup Photo group we teach with .

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 19:02:03   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
Gallopingphotog wrote:
Which I use depends a lot on what I'm shooting. Landscapes, sunsets, full moon, etc -- of course I'll use RAW. But if I'm taking photos of the kids' soccer game or some other variation of a "snapshot," where speed is of more essence, I often use JPG. It isn't like I'll be tinkering with subtle detail fixes, and there is definitely a tiny but discernible pause between RAW shots.

I’m telling you’re kids you shoot just jpegs at them! Shameful

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 19:05:02   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Shooting in JPEG is nothing to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.

Reply
 
 
Sep 27, 2020 19:22:40   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
RAW vs JPEG: Explaining the Difference with a Box of Cereal
https://petapixel.com/2020/07/25/raw-vs-jpeg-explaining-the-difference-with-a-box-of-cereal/

Digital Photography 1 on 1: Episode 39: RAW vs JPEG: Adorama Photography TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xqkkWB4zk4


The Petapixel video has some problems with the facts -- he perpetuates some myths like raw files aren't image files. And he's wrong to claim that if you shoot raw + JPEG you get the best of both worlds -- you don't.

The Adorama video is better.

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 20:14:25   #
Gallopingphotog
 
davyboy wrote:
I’m telling you’re kids you shoot just jpegs at them! Shameful


They already think I’m hopeless, I don’t shoot with my phone

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 21:53:28   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
oregonfrank wrote:
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?



All digital images are RAW when first taken. If you set the camera to save the RAW file, it simply saves everything that was originally captured. But a RAW file is not an image. It's just data that was gathered by the sensor. You can't "print a RAW file". If first much be processed or "developed" into an image.

If you have set the camera to save JPEGs, then it quickly processes the image, according to the various settings of the camera, converting the RAW into a JPEG... And then "throws away" a lot of data that it deemed as "unnecessary".

You can see the difference for yourself. Many cameras can take RAW + JPEG... take a few shots that way with yours, then download them and look at the sizes of the two versions of any given image. The RAW file will always be a good deal larger than the JPEG.

The other option is to "shoot RAW" (actually just save it unprocessed), download the RAW to a computer and convert it into a usable image file under more controlled conditions. That's called post-processing. There are several file types you can make, depending upon how you'll be using the image. A JPEG is fine for most purposes, including many printing processes. JPEGs are even required by some printing services. They also are the standard for online display.

Yes, because the RAW file contains so much more info, generally speaking it offers more latitude. For example, if you set the white balance wrong when you took the shot, it's easily changed in a RAW with no loss of image quality. The same may not be true of a JPEG that's "already been developed". Another example, if you under or over-expose an image, RAW files may be recoverable as much as a stop more "out of whack" than a JPEG. Maybe more, depending upon the particular image and the camera that was being used. There are other things that you have more control over with a RAW, than you do with a JPEG.

Reply
Sep 27, 2020 22:52:17   #
Bruce M Loc: Northern Utah
 
Excellent answer

Reply
 
 
Sep 27, 2020 23:41:18   #
oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon
 
Alan, thank you for your post. You and others have added a lot more to my knowledge of JPEG and RAW which I appreciate much. Frank

Reply
Sep 28, 2020 00:08:34   #
doclrb
 
quixdraw wrote:
Here we go again!



Reply
Sep 28, 2020 00:39:57   #
gwilliams6
 
nikonbrain wrote:
Thank you for sharing , this is the best simplest video on explaining raw to a novice . Beats anything on this feed today . I even shared with my Meetup Photo group we teach with .


My pleasure to share. In addition to my long career as a pro (over 40 years in the business) I am also a longtime university professor of photography and I have to explain this to hundreds of students.

Cheers

Reply
Sep 28, 2020 00:42:33   #
gwilliams6
 
Ysarex wrote:
The Petapixel video has some problems with the facts -- he perpetuates some myths like raw files aren't image files. And he's wrong to claim that if you shoot raw + JPEG you get the best of both worlds -- you don't.

The Adorama video is better.


I always shoot raw+jpeg and it is the best of both worlds IMHO as a pro of over 40 years in the business. I do love Mark Wallace of Adorama, he does a great job explaining things in a way most can understand. Cheers

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 18 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.