My RAW from yesterday is jpeg today, a question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by igmolinav, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. igmolinav macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    Hi,

    Four years ago when I bought a Nikon D50, RAW format was 6 Mb. Today a Canon's EOS 550d (or Rebel 2Ti) jpeg fine is 6 Mb. Could we say these two 6 Mb pics are the same, especially at the moment when one has to work on them with photoshop, (I am starting to use photoshop)??

    Thank you, kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  2. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #2
    no you can't say that..
    the nature of RAW is different. your JPG is 6MB because the resolution is so much larger. JPG is processed and quite final. the 6MB RAW file contains just that, RAW information. the resolution is much smaller but the information in it much richer.

    RAW != JPG.. EVER!
     
  3. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #3
    No, RAW is the raw data from the sensor while a jpg is an interpretation of the raw data by your camera saved with a lossy file format. You lose information, no matter how big the jpg file is.

    Fine jpgs are not that useful, either use more moderate jpg settings or go RAW, that's my advice.
     
  4. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #4
    The same size (6MB or 6Mb? *) does not tell you if the quality is the same, especially when you use two different formats. RAW files store much more information than a JPEG even though the 6MB or 6Mb JPEG might contain an image with a bigger resolution.

    RAW vs. JPEG - Digital Photography School
    RAW vs. JPEG - Ken Rockwell
    RAW vs. JPEG
    RAW vs. JPEG
    RAW vs. JPEG

    Ever since I was able to save my photos in RAW on the camera, I do that and ignore the JPEG function, as RAW gives me much more control over the picture after I have transferred it to my computer. And as you want to use PhotoShop (and maybe even LightRoom), RAW will give you better results if you frell up the original shot.

    * Btw, Mb is short for Megabit, MB is short for MegaByte, 1MB = 8Mb.
     
  5. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #5
    I wish there was some sort of a National effort to make this more clear to the common consumer. I'm pissed about how the telecoms toss the term "megs" around. Thanks for pointing this out.

    Dale
     
  6. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #6
    I could also go into the whole Gibibyte (GiB) or Mebibyte (MiB) nomenclature if you like... ;)
     
  7. steviem macrumors 68020

    steviem

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    New York, Baby!
    #7
    Your D50 had a 6 mega pixel sensor. A 550d has an 18 mega pixel sensor. Raw on the 550d would be much better than the jpeg for working on and also for making the standard exposure adjustments if needed.

    RAW is more akin to a negative. You can use it to make more 'prints' but it does need a little processing.

    JPEG is like a 4x3 print. You can't really fix anything on it but it's ready to be shown
     
  8. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #8
    Well, that's somewhat true, but just because something has been saved as a .jpeg file doesn't mean it's "ready to be shown." You can take a RAW file, open it up in Lightroom or Aperture or whatever, and do no processing whatsoever and export a copy in .jpg format. It will look basically the same as long as you don't compress it enough to notice. Jpeg has nothing to do with looking different in and of itself, but it is a lossy compression scheme, and thus each time you save a new copy into .jpg and then open that one, and resave it, you're doing compression on top of compression... do it enough times and the degradation in quality becomes obvious even to a casual observer.

    When cameras output files into .jpg there is some automatic default post processing applied, and this can be changed in the camera, obviously. If that happens, then your "original" is a .jpg file that has already been tweaked, but it didn't look a certain way just because it was a .jpg file, but because it was adjusted (saturation/sharpness/noise reduction/contrast, etc.) as it was recorded to your camera's memory card. Once this is "baked in" to your .jpeg file, it's there for good, which really limits how much additional processing you can do, since you can't "undo" that which has been done at that point. All you can do is process right over the top... if that makes any sense... ;)
     
  9. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #9
    Hi,

    Thank you to all of you for your answers : ) !!!

    Very kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    In fact, I don't even know if a RAW file even has a "resolution". You only get resolution after a RAW processor has created an image via Bayer interpolation. For example, a 12 MP DSLR will produce \ 12 million pixels worth of raw data. This isn't resolution, since it's not an image, but it's 12 MP worth of data. However, after the interpolation required to give you a colour image, you're really down to around 2/3rd of the stated MP.

    Anyway.......RAW images aren't images. JPEGs are "real" images, which is why every program can open JPEGs. RAW images aren't real images. It's nothing at all. That's why you can't just open up any webbrowser and open a RAW file. Every time you open a RAW file (in a program that reads RAW files), you
     
  11. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #11
    Hi,

    Thank you for your post : ) !!!

    Kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  12. Bodhi395 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #12
    I always hear people say the difference between RAW and JPG is you can edit RAW files much easier. However, I have been saving all my images as JPGs and loading them into Aperture and have been easily able to edit them. I can change all the settings and make them look a lot different than how they originally were.

    So if you can easily edit JPGs, why bother saving in RAW?
     
  13. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #13
    Have you read the thread and some of the links it linked to?

    You can edit JPEGs (developed photo) with no problem and change as much information and settings as you like, but a photo stored as RAW (negative of the photo) has much more information stored inside to allow for non-destructive editing.
     
  14. Bodhi395 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #14
    So is it just using RAW allows you to go back to the original anytime you want and not worry that changes you made will be permanently embedded in the image file?

    One question I have though is, will an image shot in RAW and then edited for say white balance and some sharpening, look any different than an image shot in JPG and edited exactly the same way? So basically, in terms of just looking at a photo, can you tell the difference between a RAW image and JPG image if edited the same way?
     
  15. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #15
  16. paolo- macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    #16
    Grab your camera and set it to shoot raw and high quality jpeg at the same time. Snap a few shots and open them side by side in photoshop. You'll be stunned. Textures pop and details aren't lost. Also you have much more information to work with in post prod (IE change the exposure in photoshop with turning your image to a mush of noise).

    Basically when you shoot jpeg, your camera "simplifies" the data. That way, the file is much smaller. But wen it "simplifies" the images it looses all kinds of things and also amplifies stuff that shouldn't be there (noise).

    You don't seem to be the techy kind, check them side by side, you'll know for yourself. If you spend money buying sharp lenses and a good body, spend time focusing right, getting decent lighting, why not shoot with the full detail of your camera.
     
  17. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #17
    That depends on how much editing you do. RAW files give you more leeway during the editing procedure.

    If all it takes is minimal editing, because the picture is properly exposed and white balance is spot on, in all likelihood, you won't be able to tell the difference. If the picture is not exposed properly and you need to crank the sliders hard to fix it, you will be able to tell.
    White balance? Maybe, it depends on how far off your camera is. Sharpening? Probably not. In many cases, the jpg may even look sharper straight out of the camera compared to the developed RAW file.
    The most important point is: if the photo is good, no, because it won't matter. Also, nobody will tell you `oh, you can tell, it's a Canon/Nikon/Olympus' or `it must be an L lens.' Photography is not about gear, it's about the image.

    If only minimal editing is necessary or you scale down your image to post card size, you will not be able to tell. Even at full resolution, you will not be able to tell a properly exposed and white-balanced jpg from a RAW file.

    If you're not sure whether you should use RAW or jpg, compare both yourself. Do not do something extreme such as under/overexposing by 2 or 3 stops and see which one you can rescue (the answer will be: the RAW file gives you more headroom, but in all likelihood, the picture still looks ******). I'd start taking pictures in dark places (churches, bars, etc.), places that push your camera to the limit. Expose properly. Now you can compare both. The closer you are to ideal settings and circumstances, the smaller your benefit.

    The question whether or not you `need' to develop RAW has two components: (1) the benefit which you hope to have, but (2) there are things you need to master.

    Trying out RAW in normal shooting scenarios gives you an idea about the extra leeway you have. On the other hand, you will need to get accustomed to software such as Aperture or Lightroom. Without it, I don't see much point in shooting RAW as it becomes either very cumbersome (if you develop each image by hand) or pointless (if you continue to use iPhoto, for instance). RAW files are harder to edit since it takes more time and processing power. You cannot just copy your pictures from your memory card to a friend's computer and share your pictures, you need to develop them first with specialized software.

    Even though I only shoot RAW myself, I advise against `just shooting RAW because there are some examples on the internet that show how much better it is.' There are many components to taking good pictures and RAW files are only one of them. In many cases, you're better off investing time in learning how to use your camera, about composition and exposure, etc.
     

Share This Page