RAW vs JPG

[Dolby]

As a n00b - what's the difference?

I'm guessing HUGE and totally uncompressed with RAW?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Most cameras compress their RAW files but it's lossless compression.

 

[Keeper]

I thought RAW is the picture without stuff like lighting correction/etc ?

 

[koffiejunkie]

I thought RAW is the picture without stuff like lighting correction/etc ?

Yes, it is. But more than that. It contains a fair bit more information than a jpeg does.

 

[MyWorld]

JPG is optimized for photographs and similar continuous tone images that contain many, many colors. It can achieve astounding compression ratios even while maintaining very high image quality. GIF compression is unkind to such images. JPG works by analyzing images and discarding kinds of information that the eye is least likely to notice. It stores information as 24 bit color. Important: the degree of compression of JPG is adjustable. At moderate compression levels of photographic images, it is very difficult for the eye to discern any difference from the original, even at extreme magnification. Compression factors of more than 20 are often quite acceptable. Better graphics programs, such as Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop, allow you to view the image quality and file size as a function of compression level, so that you can conveniently choose the balance between quality and file size.

So depending on your camera's compression JPEG should be fine for most people. Safes a lot of space.

RAW is an image output option available on some digital cameras. Though lossless, it is a factor of three of four smaller than TIFF files of the same image. The disadvantage is that there is a different RAW format for each manufacturer, and so you may have to use the manufacturer's software to view the images. (Some graphics applications can read some manufacturer's RAW formats.)

This is however the pitfall of RAW, you need proprietary software to view and edit it, however professionals still prefer it since you have a HUGE amount of control over the final image.

Watch the following podcast to see why RAW is still used:
http://meetthegimp.org/episode-12-raw-jpeg-tiff-what-when-why/
Watch Episode 11 as well to see how you can manipulate RAW images. Get as many of these show as you can, it is priceless!

 

[ITbob]

http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg

 

[HavocXphere]

As a n00b - what's the difference?

Raw is for masochists. jpg for sane people.

 

[BigAl-sa]

google:

raw jpeg site:mybroadband.co.za/vb

and look through those. There have been a few lengthy discussions on this topic.

 

[koffiejunkie]

So depending on your camera's compression JPEG should be fine for most people. Safes a lot of space.

Well, if I set the jpeg to 'fine' on my camera, they're in the 6-10MB range, while RAW is in the 15-20MB range - not a big enough difference for me to care.

This is however the pitfall of RAW, you need proprietary software to view and edit it

Not true, there are loads of opensource, and some non-opensource but free software that can handle RAW. The best ones are the commercial apps though, but even so, the opensource ones I've tried still provide great flexibility.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

JPEG is fine for a point-and-shoot camera

but for professionals like a photo studio etc, RAW is the best.

Depends on what you want to do. If you're happy with pointing and shooting, JPEG will be fine for you.

If you want to do enhancements to your photos, RAW should be the obvious choice.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Not true, there are loads of opensource, and some non-opensource but free software that can handle RAW. The best ones are the commercial apps though, but even so, the opensource ones I've tried still provide great flexibility.

and one that MyWorld would appreciate is RawTherapee, as it runs under Linux

 

[koffiejunkie]

Libs why do you say JPEG is fie for point&shoot? It's precisely on the P&S where I find RAW enabling me to safe far more of my images. My DSLR has a far more powerful and sophisticated JPEG engine, and very often there's little I can do to improve on what the camera did. But the JPEGs from P&S cameras are nowhere near as good when it comes to shooting at the extremes - low light, high dynmic range, etc.

 

[Krypty]

Once you go to RAW you never go back.

 

[bwana]

If you're not shooting RAW you're either arrogant or ignorant - Unknown.

With cpu cycles abound and cheap storage available if you have a dSRL and can shoot raw then I think you should, as long as you're willing to learn how to.

RAW on my P&S is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Dolby]

Thanks guys!

What P&S actually do RAW?

 

[Quantum Theory]

Why shoot anything other than RAW? You can tweak your pro shots to perfection... but if you have a memory card full off snapshots in RAW, batch process them to JPG with minimal effort.

 

[bwana]

Thanks guys!

What P&S actually do RAW?

Quite a few these days. You can search for features (incl RAW) at DPReview.com.

If you're considering RAW maybe it's time to start considering a real camera?

 

[Dolby]

I have considered an SLR, bwana - but the size and different really does put me off. I don't want to really a big camera bag around. Not to mention the price ...

 

[Dolby]

This seems a decent inbetween at R5,000?

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/canonsx20is.htm

But it doesn't do RAW and the slowest shutter speed is 15 sec :/

 

[bwana]

I have considered an SLR, bwana - but the size and different really does put me off. I don't want to really a big camera bag around. Not to mention the price ...

I was looking at some of these these so called super zoom P&S side by side with the smaller dSLRs the other day and there really isnt that much between them in terms of bulk. Since I cant put either in my pocket it makes it a really simple decision.