raw (Page 2): You can't see a RAW image file, it's just computer data. What you see when viewing a RAW file is the JPEG file that's embedded in it. Additionally, the viewable JPEG...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

billyc46 wrote:

can someone please explain the difference between raw and jpeg

You can't see a RAW image file, it's just computer data. What you see when viewing a RAW file is the JPEG file that's embedded in it. Additionally, the viewable JPEG file, and the RAW file itself, only contain exposure and light balance data without any enhancements from the camera menu settings such as contrast or clarity. There can be others. You add those ehancements plus more in post processing and then save that conversion to a JPEG or TIFF or other format for additional processing. At least that's how I see it.

bcrawf

BebuLamar wrote:

At the minimum an image file must contain 3 values for each pixel. One for red, one for green and one for blue. The JPEG met this requirement.
The RAW file however only contain 1 value for each pixel. That is the most significant difference between RAW and any other image file format.

You are saying that a RAW file is a trimmed-down JPEG.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Longshadow wrote:

In a nutshell - a raw file is a proprietary file that contains all of the information (a lot) for an image the camera captured, a
JPEG is that information converted to a standard file format (smaller) that is readily displayable by browsers (and other programs like Word).

?????

A RAW file is a file that contains ALL the information captured by the sensor.

A JPEG is a file that contains only selected information captured by the sensor based on various settings selected on the camera and on a compression algorithm that makes assumptions about the data to reduce file size.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

lamiaceae wrote:

No, no, no. This question should be banned from the UHH. It seems to be asked every 5 minutes! I never noticed in the day, did people ever ask what's the difference between a negative and a print?

Jpeg is like a print; if you want to change it you need a marking pen.

Raw is like a negative; you can change the print outcome by how you develop it.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

cedymock wrote:

Jpeg is like a print; if you want to change it you need a marking pen.

Raw is like a negative; you can change the print outcome by how you develop it.

TonyBot

How about a bad food analogy:

JPEG -
You go to the grocery store, stand in front of the meat counter, and buy a box of BubbaBurgers. Can't go wrong. A really good, pre-made product. Made to satisfy almost everyone - almost.

RAW -
You go to the grocery store, stand in front of the meat counter, and buy a pound of ground sirloin. Then you turn around, and decide to add some green onions, gorgonzola cheese, and your special blend of spices -- BECAUSE ALL OF THAT STUFF IS THERE AND AVAILABLE!

Some, in fact probably a lot of us, are satisfied with the pre-made product (including me, a certain percentage of the time). Less work, good stuff.
Others, want to do just a little (and sometimes a lot) more. More work, but also more satisfaction.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

billyc46 wrote:

can someone please explain the difference between raw and jpeg

For your reading pleasure . You'll have to do the reading work yourself.

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

RAW is binary data, not an image, a JPEG is a viewable image that has been converted from RAW. All digital cameras internally shoot RAW and convert to a viewable file so that it can be viewed on your LCD screen

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

If this sort of question annoys you then just pass over it. There is no need to be condescending. I asked dumb questions when I first joined UHH and people politely answered my questions. The OP joined just a few weeks ago, what a reception for a new member. UHH used to be welcoming; I hope we return to that attitude. As to the people who treated this OP with disdain, "shame on you."

For the people who politely answered the question, "Keep up the good work!"

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

Jpeg is a fixed, lossy format. Tiff is much better as it does not lose density. RAW is as the camera captured and it is "developed" by the camera software shen it is downloaded. RAW is like a film negative in that it's exposure can be altered plus two stops or minus two stops when it is developed. Thus fixing a world of problems. It also preserves the density of the file off the sensor.

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

Raw gives a photographer much more power to control highlight and shadow. I am not knowledgeable as are many on this forum. After years of reading here about raw I eventually bought Lightroom and switched my camera to raw and saw the power of being able to take an interior shot with a bright window in background and pull out the hidden data and have a finished photo that is much superior to what I could accomplish in jpeg. I speculate that the larger the sensor size, the larger the improvement of switching to raw. My sensor size is 18 x 14.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

bcrawf wrote:

You are saying that a RAW file is a trimmed-down JPEG.

Heavons NO! RAW is digital data right from the sensor. It is not viewable until it is converted into a picture. JPEG is a file type of a compressed photo. By compressed it means digital means have been used to reduce file size with minimal loss of quality. It is smaller than file types that are not compressed (like TIFF) or are not RAW.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

autofocus wrote:

RAW is binary data, not an image, a JPEG is a viewable image that has been converted from RAW. All digital cameras internally shoot RAW and convert to a viewable file so that it can be viewed on your LCD screen

They are both data files that need to be interpreted for display, just like any other computer file.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

TonyBot wrote:

How about a bad food analogy: br br JPEG - br You... (show quote)

I kind of like your analogy. Can you find me a burger that I buy once and yet eat over and over again while changing the spices each time? That's kind of like raw too. You can take the same bit of ground sirloin, and enjoy it cooked a thousand different ways.

The most important change I made in my digital photography was shooting raw images and using non-destructive editing like Adobe Light Room. If you can afford to store them, and digital storage is cheap these days, I say always shoot raw.

timcc Loc: Virginia

photoman022 wrote:

If this sort of question annoys you then just pass over it. There is no need to be condescending. I asked dumb questions when I first joined UHH and people politely answered my questions. The OP joined just a few weeks ago, what a reception for a new member. UHH used to be welcoming; I hope we return to that attitude. As to the people who treated this OP with disdain, "shame on you."

For the people who politely answered the question, "Keep up the good work!"