Jpeg vs. Raw (Page 2): Here is another way to think about it. If you are satisfied with letting something or someone controlling the final appearance of your image, then go with jpeg.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Here is another way to think about it. If you are satisfied with letting something or someone controlling the final appearance of your image, then go with jpeg. Or, if you aspire to Ansel Adams or any of the other fine photographers who developed their own photo's and had total control over the final image, go with RAW. It's really about how much control do you want to have over your art.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

scsdesphotography wrote:

Here is another way to think about it. If you are satisfied with letting something or someone controlling the final appearance of your image, then go with jpeg. Or, if you aspire to Ansel Adams or any of the other fine photographers who developed their own photo's and had total control over the final image, go with RAW. It's really about how much control do you want to have over your art.

That is not about what the OP was asking. In any case total control over an image extends to JPG as well as RAW.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

We understand that Marion but many don't.

Marionsho wrote:

Yes, the monitor makes all the difference.
I PP my pictures on my calibrated Retina display and take them to class. Viewed on the school's monitors, every monitor in the room would look a little different. No fun when your beautiful blond haired model has green hair on the monitors in class.
Marion

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Delderby wrote:

Now try reading what the OP asked (difference before editing) before rushing out the stock answer. There will be a difference before editing. The JPG will almost certainly be superior. The RAW will appear flat with no "pop" as it still needs to be edited. A mistake made by many newbies is that when viewing a RAW using some manufacturers editing progs they are not really viewing the RAW at all, but a RAW with the same edits as in the JPG. :-)

This really depends on the software! Open a Canon .CR2 file in DPP, and it will take on the default camera JPEG settings found in the image metadata. It will look almost identical to the JPEG, right off the card. DPP is doing the processing in essentially the same way the camera would for a JPEG saved there.

Open that same file in another editor, and what you see depends on whether that software reads and applies the camera settings from the metadata as defaults, or uses defaults of its own, or your, design.

Canon allows this so you can see the accuracy of your JPEG menu settings, and so you can adjust from there. Really, a raw file is just the sensor data plus sidecar EXIF used to produce the JPEG preview image, and one, two, or three sizes of JPEG preview images.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Delderby wrote:

If you were using Canon's editor, then it does not show a true RAW - it shows an edited version using the settings you included in camera. :-)

Understood, the RAW is in Corel AfterShot and the JPG is in Microsoft Photos. The RAW is sharper but color is more flat, the JPG has more color but is less sharp. Just trying to give the OP an example.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Have been shooting RAW for about 1 1/2 years now. The amount of detail you can recover is fantastic. Would not consider going back to JPEG. Now you have my 2 cents.

Don

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

waegwan wrote:

Here is sort of an example out of my camera, not all cameras act exactly the same, I had my camera set to save in RAW and JPG at the same time. Of course the JPG is showing whatever sharpness and color settings I had in the camera at that time and I honestly don't know what they were. Anyway, the left image is RAW and the right is JPG both are straight out of the camera. The left image appears sharper than the right.

Frankly, I do not see any significant difference except for a slight difference in color saturation - very slight.

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

scsdesphotography wrote:

Here is another way to think about it. If you are satisfied with letting something or someone controlling the final appearance of your image, then go with jpeg. Or, if you aspire to Ansel Adams or any of the other fine photographers who developed their own photo's and had total control over the final image, go with RAW. It's really about how much control do you want to have over your art.

You and I have very different views of JPEG. I can have considerable control over the final appearance of an image shot in JPEG. Admittedly, I cannot exercise the same depth of control as with Raw, but if I do not need it why bother? Why waste the time?

jcboy3

avemal wrote:

Before editing if you put the exact camera settings on the same photo would the pictures be the same as far as viewing?

If you are using the software provided by the manufacturer, then you might be able to get a similar looking image from RAW as from JPG.

If you are using something else, like Lightroom, then it is not a simple matter to get a similar looking image. That's because the settings in the RAW editor do not match the settings used by the camera to generate the JPG image.

--- And here is where I veer off from the question ---

Personally, I don't really care what the JPG look like. I use the JPG for a quick screen of my images (focus, composition, etc), and then toss it. I have my own set of presets for RAW editing, and when I get done it doesn't look anything like the JPG. That's my taste; I shoot RAW for dynamic rage and processing latitude, to get the picture I want.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ford or Chevy?
Honda or Toyota?
Mac or PC?
JPEG or raw?

YES.

There is a reason and a purpose for every setting and tool on your camera. To suggest or think that there is only "one true way" is to express ignorance and prejudice of the highest order.

Cease and desist.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

PixelStan77 wrote:

We understand that Marion but many don't.

What really sucked was the teacher saying, "I'll calibrate all the screens (maybe 20) so we all see the same picture. And then, not do it. Makes me not want to take anymore classes. It did make me concentrate on composition, knowing the monitors would not render the same colors as mine.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

waegwan wrote:

Understood, the RAW is in Corel AfterShot and the JPG is in Microsoft Photos. The RAW is sharper but color is more flat, the JPG has more color but is less sharp. Just trying to give the OP an example.

This is surprising - a RAW should not be sharper than a JPG - in fact the opposite should be the case. A JPG will have a certain amount of sharpening done by the camera's own software - depending on the default or amount of extra sharpening dialled in by the user. A RAW does not have this benefit SOOC. Focussing should be outside of the differences between RAW and JPG. Jitter would affect both equally. :-)

jcboy3

Delderby wrote:

This is surprising - a RAW should not be sharper than a JPG - in fact the opposite should be the case. A JPG will have a certain amount of sharpening done by the camera's own software - depending on the default or amount of extra sharpening dialled in by the user. A RAW does not have this benefit SOOC. Focussing should be outside of the differences between RAW and JPG. Jitter would affect both equally. :-)

The JPG has sharpening applied, the RAW does not. Thus, the JPG should appear sharper than an unprocessed RAW. Extra sharpening has to be applied to the RAW to make it appear sharper.

This is my experience (as well as logic)

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Delderby wrote:

This is surprising - a RAW should not be sharper than a JPG - in fact the opposite should be the case. A JPG will have a certain amount of sharpening done by the camera's own software - depending on the default or amount of extra sharpening dialled in by the user. A RAW does not have this benefit SOOC. Focussing should be outside of the differences between RAW and JPG. Jitter would affect both equally. :-)

Understood, I was just trying to show the OP there is a difference. The way I understood the OP is if there is a difference in viewing. If you download the file and open it in Windows picture viewer the image on the left is slightly sharper. It probably has to do with a camera setting I should investigate. :)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

jcboy3 wrote:

The JPG has sharpening applied, the RAW does not. Thus, the JPG should appear sharper than an unprocessed RAW. Extra sharpening has to be applied to the RAW to make it appear sharper.

This is my experience (as well as logic)

Yes - exactly as I understand it. Which is why I was surprised at the comparison shown. :-)