JPEG and RAW Experiment

[Denise Gormish]

I did an experiment today of taking the exact same picture in both JPEG and RAW formats, then comparing them.

Results are on my blog.

[audrey77]

For some reason the blog is down, but I was able to read it in Google Cache, but not see the photos :-)

I think everyone has to remember that RAW files are supposed to be processed, and not used "straight out of the camera". They always look kind of dull or dark when you first open them. That is because the camera hasn't applied it's own corrections, brighteners, all of the jazzy stuff.

The file is larger because it has all of the image information, and is not compressed, so it doesn't loose quality. This makes it so much easier to have control of any minor corrections, or artistic applications.

For a while I was shooting RAW + jpg. My photos were looking so much more brilliant post processing, so I dropped the jpg. I have a preset set up in Lightroom that just batch processes the ones that I select- 1/10 the speed of a Photoshop action.

I urge you (if you have Lightroom... or the trial) to shoot raw, and apply your camera's calibration profile. Then auto-tone, adjust... It's amazing!

***BTW- I did read your husband's article... I save my corrected files as jpg... but I also save the good raw files. I don't think raw is going to go away... and if it does, there's always an old copy of lightroom/PSE camera raw***

[Sierra25]

Very interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing your results.

[katrinak]

Interesting experiment Denise but I must agree with Jen's comments above. They really aren't meant to be the same thing. I like to think of it as a negative (RAW) and a print from your local photo processor.(JPEG) Your RAW files should look dingier and flat just like a negative strip looks a bit funny too!

Raw files can be nondestructively used in software like Light room which is simply something you cannot do with JPG.

I have read repeatedly that the best way to ensure that you do not lose quality overtime and that you ensure compatibility is to convert your RAW files to DNG files (digital negative).

It really comes down to what you want to spend your time on and how important longevity and ability to fine tune your images might be. I'm sticking with RAW

[Denise Gormish]

I agree with Katrina's statement that it depends on what you want to spend your time doing.

I understand that RAW images do need to be edited. I did edit the RAW photos in Adobe Photoshop. But what I found is that the quality of the edited RAW did not exceed what I got straight out of the camera from the JPEG image. So I, personally, am happy enough with the quality that comes from a high quality JPEG image. And, hey, it means I save time by doing less editing, I save computer space and I have a stable image. I'm OK with that.

[dugarner]

Katrina,

To diverge from the RAW vs. JPEG philosophical exercise , I'm not familiar with DNG format. You said it guarantees compatibility; is it a universally recognized image format? Is it lossless? I guess I could google it, but if you've had experience with it, I'm curious if that's what I should be doing when I archive my images. I'm so frustrated that so many thousands of my images are now saved in a compressed format. I no longer edit any original files; even if it means fixing red-eye 30 times on a photo, I do it and never save the compression.

Is there a concern that RAW images can deteriorate over time? (I wouldn't think so.) Or is the concern about backward compatibility?

Sarah

[hguenthe]

The wiki for DNG states:

"In digital photography, the Digital Negative (DNG) file format is a royalty free RAW image format designed by Adobe Systems. Its specification was announced on September 27, 2004.[1] The same day, Adobe introduced Digital Negative to the market with its free of charge Adobe DNG Converter program. According to Adobe, Digital Negative was a response to demand for a unifying camera raw file format.[2] Digital Negative is based on the TIFF/EP format, and mandates use of metadata. All Adobe photo manipulation software (such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom) released since the announcement support DNG.

Adobe is submitting DNG to ISO for standardization.[3"

I hadn't thought much about it because my camera's raw actually is already dng format. Guess my camera choice saved me a step in ensuring ability to continue to use my files for years to come in raw format.

My main choice for using raw is that I am not a master at getting my lighting right so it gives me a chance to fix what I should have known to do on site but didn't manage to.

The concern I believe is backward compatibility.. think back to when floppy disks were the usual.. now, try and find a floppy drive unless you have an old one hanging around.

BTW, very cool experiment! and thanks for sharing it.

[audrey77]

By that time we'll be onto better things... things I can't even fathom!!!!

[bluelemur01]

hi Denise,
I think .jpg files can be quite beautiful, and sometimes RAW is just not needed!

RAW has more image/pixel info, as many people point out. And I do use it myself for client shoots with studio lights, or portrait shoots, so I can fine-tune the white balance and skin color. But I get amazing pictures of my dd everyday with "just" .jpg file that make me happy. A lot of a good photo is light and composition, and I have a easy workflow with my .jpg fines that suits my everyday needs.

I'd recommend to give RAW another try or two, using Photoshop to tweak the levels/curves/sharpening/white balance. You may be very pleased with what you get! It DOES take time and practice to figure out how to get the RAWs to lose that gray and get the punch. But don't feel bad about sticking to .jpg fine for everyday shots, either. If you are getting good photos, and your workflow suits you, then that's OK, too!

I still love me a good .jpg!

[SAHMom]

I guess the same could also be said of shooting in manual or on auto or one of the program modes. There are folks that are quite pleased with the results they get in auto, and so don't really see the benefit of shooting in manual mode.

I guess I'm a control freak all the way around and don't want the camera making the decisions on my images. Much how I don't trust my in camera meter to ALWAYS read the scene how I see it, I don't always trust the in camera adjustments to my images. I rather enjoy post processing my images and think, from a business aspect, it helps me stand out from the crowd often.

I do save my images at the end as jpeg, it is the format my lab requires. Thankfully, memory seems to get cheaper and cheaper... LOL