The pros and cons of shooting RAW versus JPEG
Jul 13, 2021 12:07:04 #
Ysarex wrote:
Sharpening always does damage. Most editing is double edged. In the case of sharpening we're weighing benefit against harm. Haze filters likewise can uncover prior degradation in a JPEG by accentuating JPEG artifacts. In the case of a JPEG sharpening can accentuate prior damage from JPEG artifacts. But most degradation that results from editing JPEGs occurs when tone and color are altered.
Thanks
Jul 13, 2021 15:28:13 #
Delderby wrote:
Not at all well balanced - biased, untruthful and yes - smug.
Almost every smug comparison of JPG and RAW shows three visual examples - RAW, JPG and a RAW edit - very rarely would a JPG edit be included. Therefore the comparisons are not worth our time in reading them, and do not show the truth. I attach the smugmug comparisons and the JPG now edited - taken from the above - which doesn't make it easier!
Almost every smug comparison of JPG and RAW shows three visual examples - RAW, JPG and a RAW edit - very rarely would a JPG edit be included. Therefore the comparisons are not worth our time in reading them, and do not show the truth. I attach the smugmug comparisons and the JPG now edited - taken from the above - which doesn't make it easier!
Jul 13, 2021 15:39:04 #
Every time someone posts a picture of a "RAW" image here it looks like a JPEG to me.
Jul 13, 2021 15:56:15 #
Longshadow wrote:
Every time someone posts a picture of a "RAW" image here it looks like a JPEG to me.
Jul 13, 2021 16:15:47 #
Longshadow wrote:
Every time someone posts a picture of a "RAW" image here it looks like a JPEG to me.
My JPEG and RAW images are identical at first until I want to change the raw file and make new jpeg.
Jul 13, 2021 16:25:01 #
BebuLamar wrote:
My JPEG and RAW images are identical at first until I want to change the raw file and make new jpeg.
What you see in an editor is not a RAW image per se, it's an image rendition (display created for viewing) by the editor. Just like a browser creates a displayable image from the information in JPEG and TIFF files.
The reason they look the same is the way the display driver in the displaying program (editor, browser, Word, ...) creates the image you view.
The reason some viewers and editors cannot display some RAW files is because they lack the programming information to create a displayable image from the data that is in the file.
JPEG, TIFF, RAW, etc., they are ALL just DATA files.
Jul 13, 2021 16:44:26 #
Longshadow wrote:
What you see in an i editor /i is not a RAW imag... (show quote)
Yah I know because raw is not yet an image
Jul 13, 2021 16:47:42 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Yah I know because raw is not yet an image
None of the files are "images" until some program renders the data viewable.
The data format is commonly called an image file (TIFF, JPEG, ...).
The files are all simply data, that's all, just data.
(Not necessarily stated for your benefit as much as others.)
Jul 13, 2021 18:58:33 #
Longshadow wrote:
None of the files are "images" until some program renders the data viewable.
The data format is commonly called an image file (TIFF, JPEG, ...).
The files are all simply data, that's all, just data.
(Not necessarily stated for your benefit as much as others.)
None of the files are "images" until some program renders the data viewable.
The data format is commonly called an image file (TIFF, JPEG, ...).
The files are all simply data, that's all, just data.
(Not necessarily stated for your benefit as much as others.)
Although all files are just 0 and 1 but a raw files must be processed in order to display an image. A TIFF for example doesn't need to be processed. All the data is in the files. The raw file does not contain all the data needed to display the image. It must be processed or rather going thru an algorithm that makes up the missing data.
Jul 13, 2021 19:11:20 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Although all files are just 0 and 1 but a raw files must be processed in order to display an image. A TIFF for example doesn't need to be processed. All the data is in the files. The raw file does not contain all the data needed to display the image. It must be processed or rather going thru an algorithm that makes up the missing data.
Processing in a computer sense is converting the bits to a viewable image;
Processing in a photographic sense is totally different.
Are you calling them the same "process" or cross-calling them.
I'm referring to the computer processing the data bits into a viewable image.........
That's the job of the micro-processor, to process data, not to "process" an image. You process the image in an editor.
Same word, two totally different concepts.
As for a TIFF not needing to be processed, it sure does in order to be presented for viewer display, there's a program that does that. Or, doesn't need the other processing because it was already done to it in order to create it.
You really don't think it looks like a picture on the disk, do you.
The word "processing" needs to be understood in context.
But some people only think of photographic processing.
Then there could be a third, a meat processing plant.....
Jul 13, 2021 19:59:59 #
[quote=Longshadow]Processing in a computer sense is converting the bits to a viewable image;
Processing in a photographic sense is totally different.
Are you calling them the same "process" or cross-calling them.
I'm referring to the computer processing the data bits into a viewable image.........
That's the job of the micro-processor, to process data, not to "process" an image. You process the image in an editor.
Same word, two totally different concepts.
As for a TIFF not needing to be processed, it sure does in order to be presented for viewer display, there's a program that does that. Or, doesn't need the other processing because it was already done to it in order to create it.
You really don't think it looks like a picture on the disk, do you.
The word "processing" needs to be understood in context.
But some people only think of photographic processing.
Then there could be a third, a meat processing plant.....[/quote
Example the 16 bit TIFF file. For every pixels of the image there are 3 16bit number represent the value or R, G and B. For the 14 bit raw file. For ever pixel( or should you call it photo site whatever, don't be picky on the term) there is only 1 14 bit number represent either R,G or B depending what kind of filter is in front. The raw converter then will have to apply the Bayer algorithm (or something similar to it) to do the demosaic which is then assign the R,G and B values to each of these. It's kind of making up the color values by examining the neighbor pixels. This the main different between raw and any other image file format.
Processing in a photographic sense is totally different.
Are you calling them the same "process" or cross-calling them.
I'm referring to the computer processing the data bits into a viewable image.........
That's the job of the micro-processor, to process data, not to "process" an image. You process the image in an editor.
Same word, two totally different concepts.
As for a TIFF not needing to be processed, it sure does in order to be presented for viewer display, there's a program that does that. Or, doesn't need the other processing because it was already done to it in order to create it.
You really don't think it looks like a picture on the disk, do you.
The word "processing" needs to be understood in context.
But some people only think of photographic processing.
Then there could be a third, a meat processing plant.....
[/quoteExample the 16 bit TIFF file. For every pixels of the image there are 3 16bit number represent the value or R, G and B. For the 14 bit raw file. For ever pixel( or should you call it photo site whatever, don't be picky on the term) there is only 1 14 bit number represent either R,G or B depending what kind of filter is in front. The raw converter then will have to apply the Bayer algorithm (or something similar to it) to do the demosaic which is then assign the R,G and B values to each of these. It's kind of making up the color values by examining the neighbor pixels. This the main different between raw and any other image file format.
Jul 13, 2021 20:26:20 #
BebuLamar wrote:
br br Example the 16 bit TIFF file. For every pi... (show quote)
Not sure of the purpose of your response, but all that data has to be processed, doesn't it.
The RAW converter, applying the Bayer algorithm, all computer processes.
Then to display it somewhere is another process.
Look at your Windows task manager (if you use Windows) and see how many "processes" are running.
One of them might be an editor with which you are processing an image.
Jul 13, 2021 20:57:30 #
Longshadow wrote:
Not sure of the purpose of your response, but all that data has to be processed, doesn't it.
The RAW converter, applying the Bayer algorithm, all computer processes.
Then to display it somewhere is another process.
Look at your Windows task manager (if you use Windows) and see how many "processes" are running.
One of them might be an editor with which you are processing an image.
The RAW converter, applying the Bayer algorithm, all computer processes.
Then to display it somewhere is another process.
Look at your Windows task manager (if you use Windows) and see how many "processes" are running.
One of them might be an editor with which you are processing an image.
I tried to say that the raw file has less data than for an image.
Jul 13, 2021 21:02:17 #
Longshadow wrote:
Interesting how different pros and cons are important to different people in different ways.
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."
That’s a good assessment!
Remember on UHH you get:
(1) Expert opinions
(2) Strong conflicting opinions
(3) Completely wrong answers.
It’s up to the reader to sort them all out.
Jul 13, 2021 21:17:41 #
BebuLamar wrote:
I tried to say that the raw file has less data than for an image.
Less than? (my bolding)
JPEG?
Before compression?
My RAW files are much larger than my JPEGS for a given image.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.