NPSlover Loc: Woodbury Minnesota

Admin, please move this post as is appropriate. I'm not really sure where it belongs.

I have read on numerous posts, both UHH and elsewhere, that I should shoot in RAW as opposed to JPEG. My Canon 7D Mark ii allows me to shoot in both simultaneously, so I decided to do just that and compare.

I have to say, I see little difference between the two. I'm not questioning the advice of those who have been kind enough to respond to previous posts... I'm just confused (and probably ignorant), so I'm looking to learn.

I've been told that RAW is meant to be post processed. I have yet to take the plunge to Lightroom, though I've read enough to be confident that is where I will ultimately go. I used the edit feature in Photos on my mac, edited the photo in RAW, then toggled back to JPEG. The edits stayed in place (I wasn't sure they would), but again, I saw minimal difference. Am I missing something here? I'll post the photo. It's nothing special. It was meant to be a test photo, so I realize the mediocrity of the image. I only post it so you see content. Is RAW better in some environments, but not a bright winter scene? I look forwad to your teachings.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

You will only see the difference between the two after you take the plunge into Lightroom if that’s your choice. You do not get the same result from the Photos editor as you would with an Adobe editor, DXO or Affinity.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Here we go again!

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

RAW is only the beginning --

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Processing is required. It can be automated. That's what your camera does when it creates a JPEG for you. It processes the raw data. You can do that too. You can learn to do a better job than your camera does and you can use better tools than your camera has available.

Absolutely.

Raw allows you to create a final image with better overall technical IQ in all environments, but it's not better to shoot raw in all environments. Notably fast action photography where you need to rely on sustained high frame rates. Shooting raw and trying to save all that data at burst rates can slow all but the $$$$ cameras. Raw is likewise a problem if the photos need to be used immediately (eg. journalism).

In your test shot you exposed the JPEG and the raw file the same. Right there is a potential difference of some consequence. Look at the illustration below of a flowering fruit tree (Canon G7). The camera JPEG is on the left. It's nuked to hell -- wastebasket fodder. But the raw file highlights were not blown out. I set an optimal exposure for the sensor and exposed the sensor to capacity. It's camera make/model specific but for most cameras to get a good JPEG you have to set an exposure than under utilizes the sensor. About how much do you think in the flower photo below? One stop? That's 1/2 the capacity of the sensor.

Look at the second illustration of the pond in the park (Fuji X-T2). Shooting & processing raw lets me take photos you can't take at all shooting JPEG. Same situation as the flowering tree in terms of exposure. The camera JPEG is nuked when the raw file was exposed to fully utilize the sensor. To get a good JPEG with that camera I would have had to reduce exposure -- that reduces SNR and that reduces IQ.

I did something else that you can't do at all shooting JPEG. It's mostly overcast and the foreground is in overcast light but there's blue sky visible. That's two different white balances and so I set two different white balances in separate parts of the photo. You won't find that in your camera's menu.

And that's barely just the beginning.

(Download)


(Download)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Loaded with character 🎯

Bret P Loc: California

Got great lighting and your jpeg looks really good? You're fine.

Need more dyamic range or plan to edit exposure? Go raw, but not with Apple Photos.

Bret P Loc: California

Great demonstraion

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If you shoot JPEG and refrain from manipulating the image you should be OK if the output of the camera is satisfactory to you. RAW data is called the "digital negative" because it has to be processed and not all editors process the RAW data.
JPEG files have 8 bits of compressed information and the files tend to lose part of their original information. RAW data has 12 or 14 bits of information in addition to millions of colors but neither you nor anybody else can see them and that includes the monitor. It is a fact to edit RAW data without losing information. Dynamic range is better and manipulations can be done freely knowing the data will not be harmed.

If you find that your JPEG files are satisfactory to you no reason to go RAW. You are saving time and if you decide to manipulate the file, not recommended, save it as Tiff. Warning, Tiff and RAW data are large and require lots of memory. Just remember, keep manipulation during editing of a JPEG file to the absolute minimum to keep the quality intact.

Walkabout08

Q.E.D. as they say in mathematics!

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

RAW file contains all of the data your camera collected.

The straight-from-camera JPEG is a file derived from the RAW file, that your camera created, using settings for white balance, color saturation, sharpening and overall exposure, that your camera thinks are appropriate, and then compresses the image, discarding data that your camera thinks is no longer needed.

The RAW file provides you with all of the data, and permits you to adjust the exposure, saturation, sharpening, etc. that you prefer. Often using different settings in different parts of the image.

As Ysarex has demonstrated, you can recover highlights, brighten dark areas, adjust white balance. etc. to reveal details in the image that the JPEG has lost, but that your eye saw when you took the photo, because your eye has greater dynamic range than your camera, and because your eye automatically adjusts when looking at bright and dark areas.

Many times the JPEG will be satisfactory. The RAW file requires work on your part, but affords the opportunity to do better. And often "rescue" a decent photo from a throw-away JPEG that your camera would have created.

NPSlover Loc: Woodbury Minnesota

The “discarding data” piece hits home with me. I want the ability to manipulate my photos not to create something that wasn’t there, but rather to bring forth details that my eye saw that the camera deemed unimportant. From what I’m reading, THAT is the value of RAW.

NPSlover Loc: Woodbury Minnesota

Thanks for taking the time to articulate so clearly. The images help me immensely.

The ability to set different white balances to different portions of an image seems highly beneficial. One might say necessary in order to maximize a photo’s potential. I don’t want to alter the reality of the scene I shot, but I do want to represent it as the eye sees it. I assume Lightroom has that capability?

NPSlover Loc: Woodbury Minnesota

Thanks. I appreciate the “to the heart of it” manner.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes, Lightroom is one of the best options in a raw file processor. You do have other options with some variation in features, performance and cost to choose from. Competitive with Lightroom are:
Capture One
DXO Photo lab
On1 Photo raw
etc.
free trials are typically available.

There are some open source options notably DarkTable.

And let's not forget free for your Canon camera DPP from Canon. You can download it right now and start experimenting no cost.