Raw vs. Jpeg - the advantages & disadvantages

As there's been a lot of discussion elsewhere, I thought that I'd start the ball rolling and try to list the advantages and disadvantages of shooting in Raw. So here goes - I'll list some but this won't be exhaustive - please add more.

Raw - the Advantages:

A Raw file has as much information in it as the camera can produce

Raw files can be opened using a variety of software, each of which has its own characteristics and interpretation

Raw files can be used to produce 16-bit editable files (actually 12-bit) which show less degredation if severe adjustments are needed

The only parameters set on the camera which affect the Raw file are ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed and focus

Within limits even exposure can be adjusted when opening a Raw file

The Raw file remains intact and can be re-interpreted many times and this includes in the future when better software may become available

White balance is highly adjustable

Jpeg - the Advantages

Smaller files - easier and quicker to store and open

A format understood by many types of software now and almost certainly for a long time to come

Adequate for many applications and still editable although to a far lesser degree than Raw

It would be interesting to hear other people's view so please add in - perhaps we can sort a definitive list!

Reposted from another thread:

We get a lot of beautiful pictures sent in to Diver Mag but most of them are shot in jpg. The art editor often contacts the author to see if it is possible to get a bigger file but alas no - not if that is how it's shot. He often asks if they have the original RAW files and the answer he gets back is often "Huh?". This limits the size to which these pictures can be reproduced with quality. I know one professional who shoots in jpg and says he cannot tell the difference. I am looking at a November copy of the mag that he works for (our deadly rival) and, blimey, I can certainly see a difference (see p60 if you have it). It is a lovely shot but the quality is grim. I would be gutted if I only had such shots in a compressed format.

I used to be a real photographer (ie with £50,000 commissions). I recently checked with some of my old contemporaries and I am sorry to tell you they all still shoot film. I find I can just about get a good quality dps from my digital. OK, tell me I should get a Canon!!!

Jpeg - the Advantages

 

Smaller files - easier and quicker to store and open

A format understood by many types of software now and almost certainly for a long time to come

Adequate for many applications and still editable although to a far lesser degree than Raw

 

It would be interesting to hear other people's view so please add in - perhaps we can sort a definitive list!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

one note! A RAW file can be converted into a Jpeg, Going the other way is not an option.

Raw - the Advantages:

 

Raw files can be used to produce 16-bit editable files (actually 12-bit) which show less degredation if severe adjustments are needed

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a professional number cruncher, I think this is the most important benefit. A great deal of dynamic range info is lost in going to the 8 bit format. This can show up in clipped highlights and banding.

There are some extream examples where starting out the conversion process with a different camera profile and raw converter, which changes the intensity distributions of the RGB channels can make a big difference. Here's one example:

This is the JPG as rendered by the camera

Here's the result after conversion with the best camera profile and raw convert I can find for this image and some photoshop adjustments.

In therory there should be a set of RGB curve adjustments that will render the camera JPG to something close to the second image, but I've not been able to come close.

Herb, In your RAW example, while the sunbburst is better, the water has a purple tint and the reef is very green.

Is it just me?

Is it just me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Jpeg version looks much better to me on my calibrated monitor as well.

I shoot RAW+Jpeg on my 20D. Perhaps I need to go back and take a look at my saved Jpegs.

By the way Herb - I really enjoyed your presentation of shark images at the NCUPS meeting a few months back. They were best I've seen on this subject. You music selection was also commendable.

-Brad

It would be interesting to see Herb's example shot on slide film. I would love to see a side by side comparison. Going digital has it's advantages but also you really need to know how to color correct an image, whereas in the days gone by you would just get your film back and that was it, at least with slides.

Herb, In your RAW example, while the sunbburst is better, the water has a purple tint and the reef is very green.

 

Is it just me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're right, I went back and had a look. Part of the problem was that I forgot to convert profile to sRGB before posting. Here it is again with a little tweek and convert color profile to sRGB.

Regarding the in-camera jpeg vs. Raw. The converted Raw image will vary depending on software used and the user. It would be worth trying conversion through Canon software, and Photoshop and any other conversion software you are able to try. Given that the in-camera processing starts off with the same Raw data that the in-camera jpeg is derived from, at some point it should be possible to create at least as good as if not a better image.

Adobe have some downloadable pdfs about Raw capture which make interesting reading, especially about 'overexposure' - these explain why the resonse of digital capture is substantially different to film in extreme highlight areas. Films none linear response will be hard to mimick with current capture devices, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a software solution might be possible for the sort of shot posted here.

Another advantage of Raw which I didn't list before is that it is possible to correct some if not all of the colour fringing due to chromatic problems caused by ports. I find some correction is needed on macro shots, although the amount depends on the actual focus setting - once a jpeg has been produced, colour fringing is harder to deal with.

Herb brings up an interesting point, i never convert my stuff to sRGB before posting on the internet...

Do most people? Will this make things look brighter?

How about that in RAW and jpeg, ya think doing the conversion in jpg will make a difference as compared to doing it in tiff or RAW?

I would think not...but who knows..

It appears the core reason posted to shoot RAW: quality.

Jpeg: speed.

As I've posted in another thread, a lot of my life revolves around speed in workflow:

<snip> I shoot RAW + jpg. I review in jpg with Photo Mechanic, and make the first pass in Photoshop on jpg. Usually that's what gets passed up to the city desk or sports desk.

 

It is very rare when I resort to RAW; it just takes too much time that can be better spent in the bathroom or eating pizza.<snip>

A decade ago, when we still shot film, I'd print from wet film about every third day. That's how much demand for speed comes from a daily editorial environment.

When I come home from a dive trip, all comfy in my sweats and relaxed with a cup of coffee, I still review in jpeg. If I open it to idly "play" with the image to see if it has potential, it's in jpg. RAW enters the picture when I've finally selected an image, and get serious about quality.

I'm not willing to give up either advantage, RAW/quality or jpg/speed, so I'll continue to shoot both.

All the best, James

Another point which is easily overlooked was one I found when I shot negatives rather than trannies.

When you shoot a negative it is subject to post-production processing - that is to say printing.

When you shoot RAW the same applies.

There is a definite problem if you do not know what you are trying to achieve during post-production processing.

Like a good chef, you need to know what a good meal looks and tastes like! If you do not know what a good pic looks like how would you know how to apply the controls?

Yes Herb. Much better now.

Herb brings up an interesting point, i never convert my stuff to sRGB before posting on the internet...

 

Do most people?  Will this make things look brighter?

 

How about that in RAW and jpeg, ya think doing the conversion in jpg will make a difference as compared to doing it in tiff or RAW?

I would think not...but who knows..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike, you really need to convert to sRGB, inless you use "save for web" which converts it to sRGB automatically I believe.

Internet brousers do not read the imbedded profile, they will assume that it is sRGB for all jpg's. Thus anything still in adobeRGB will look off as you can see in herbs example.

Yes Herb.  Much better now.

Mike, you really need to convert to sRGB, inless you use "save for web" which converts it to sRGB automatically I believe.

 

Internet brousers do not read the imbedded profile, they will assume that it is sRGB for all jpg's.  Thus anything still in adobeRGB will look off as you can see in herbs example.

I routinely use "save for web" and have never changed to sRBG....when do you do it and how? after 'save for web'?

Karl

Hi Karl,

It's just about the last step for me. I have a convert to web action that does:

Resize w/ Fit Image

Sharpen

Watermark

Convert to Profile - sRGB

Save as JPEG

Cheers

James

There is a difference in file size dependant on which save method you choose. This difference is most apparent on smaller images, such as thumbnails. A 100x150 pixel, quality 8 jpeg saved using the "Save As - Jpeg" method will be between 70 and 100 kilobytes. Using the "Save for Web" method, quality 70%, the image will be 10-12 kilobytes. Does anybody know why? Does the color profile, retained when "Save As - Jpeg" is used, add much to the file size?

-Brad

There is a difference in file size dependant on which save method you choose. This difference is most apparent on smaller images, such as thumbnails. A 100x150 pixel, quality 8 jpeg saved using the "Save As - Jpeg" method will be between 70 and 100 kilobytes. Using the "Save for Web" method, quality 70%, the image will be 10-12 kilobytes. Does anybody know why? Does the color profile, retained when "Save As - Jpeg" is used, add much to the file size?

 

-Brad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not the color profile. JPEG reduces file size by averaging over blocks of pixels. You'll notice more blocks of nearly uniform color if you lower the quality.

Normally I'd expect the quality to degrade as the file size dropped.

To attain the same file size using the "Save As - Jpeg" as I get using the "Save for Web" method I 'd have to drop the quality to 2 or 3 (out of 12 settings). The image will look very poor. The equivalent sized image generated through "Save for Web" will look much cleaner.

-Brad

Hi Brad,

Any idea why that is?

Cheers

James