I don't understand why RAW better than JPEG, when you end up saving as JPEG in the end?

Question

Everyone says that RAW is better b/c it's uncompressed and 12 bits of data (as opposed to 8 bits with JPEG). However, after I clean up the RAW photo on your RAW program (adjust exposure, white balance etc.) I end up saving as JPEG. Now I'm back to 8 bits, just like I would be if I were taking a JPEG with my camera. What's the point of taking RAW photos, when you end up saving it as a JPEG. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks!!!

Sorry if it's a foolish question, it's my first day taking RAW photos.

Answer 1

It'd not a foolish question - it's a great one!

The point is that RAW contains far more data that can be adjusted after shooting, which means it is much more flexible than JPEG.

12-bit means the software is counting the tones in your image using a much finer measure than 8-bit - so there is less interpolation going on when you make your image adjustments too (which leads to / is indicated by 'histogram combing' during post processing).

So if you start off with more AND more flexible information it is more likely you will preserve it during post processing until you output it - i.e. without the typical signatures of technically weak images (tonal banding, pixelation, blocked up highlights and shadows).

To draw an analogy, you print onto paper which can only hold 3.5 stops of light between the White Point and Black Point... but you shoot a much wider range of contrast in the real world... so the way you retain and compress this information can make a huge difference to the final result when you output it...

PS Piano Man is very largely right and THE definitive information is given in the links below.

Answer 2

RAW is uncompressed, that means you save exactly what the camera "sees". The jpegs sometimes show minor distortions, that wouldn't show up in a RAW. Especially in the past(jpeg compression wasn't very good), or when you need extremely high quality shots, it is useful to use RAW(you don't get any of the flaws that may occur during compression. Also in photoshop and possibly other programs as well, you have slightly better control over the final image when working with RAW. raw isn't really better but it has no distortions. If you think of film cameras, RAW would be a negative and jpeg would be the developed film. In development things can happen but the negative stays the same.

Answer 3

Yeah, actually, I think my "Sycamores at Night" might really benefit from RAW shooting. It will let me do more with the image to try to show what I am seeing.

As so many above me with real experience have already said, the advantage to RAW is that you can do many more adjustments in RAW than in JPG. You will always have your RAW file to go back to. You only save it to JPG when you are satisfied that you have the rendering that you want. It's not a problem to save it in a slightly compressed form once you have manipulated the image file in its original uncompressed form. Once you are back to 8 bits, you still have all the white balance, lighting and color adjustments that you made in RAW that you just can't make in the JPG environment.

For an opposing point of view, see what Ken Rockwell has to say on the subject:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm

And Piano Man, I've learned to just ignore all thumb ratings as they don't mean a thing. Yeah, I will give a thumb up sometimes rather than answer if I have nothing new to add but want to bolster up the other answer. I might give one thumb down a week, but that's only in a case where someone might answer a question like this one with a smart a** remark about your Mama PEG liking it RAW or something like that...

Answer 4

Mortal is correct, the RAW file can be considered the digital shooters negative.

The advantage of RAW capture lies in the ability to process the data an infinite number of ways, with infinite results. This is only possible by saving the digital image file as pure data from the sensor. Saving at capture as a JPEG, technically corrupts the data from the get go, by mapping certain pixel sites, and throwing out the data surrounding those mapped sites. Then when you open the file, the algorithms in the software estimate the lost data to reconstruct the image, and often introducing "artifacts".

Try this simple experiment...Take a JPEG file and make a copy. Take the copy, open it, then resave it 5 times in a row and then compare the original to your post 5 save file, and you will see the true meaning of a compressed images shortcomings.

EDIT: I gave you a thumbs up, piano man, I know you know your digital !!

Answer 5

Because raw is the equivalent of a negative. It's much easier to work with uncompressed data because you don't lose the data you would if you compressed it and then worked on it. If you shoot JPEG only then you are leaving it all up to your camera and it will junk important data to compress, which you would see if you shot both ways RAW+JPEG. I shoot in both formats simultaneously. Maybe you should to and you will see a BIG difference. I use JPEG to review and then take RAW image to adjust, if needed, and then convert to JPEG or TIFF. I know a great photographer though that only shoots JPEG, so it's really personal choice. I just find RAW files are much richer in color and more true to the eye because my photo hasn't been trashed by the camera.

Answer 6

Actually it might not be, depending on the type of software your using to edit.. Adobe lightroom for example lets you adjust more of the photo then say iphoto would be able to.. also adobe photoshop can work with it since it gives it much more data to work with, look at it this way, a digital image is all based on math, so if u have the raw data ( why raw is so much larger) your getting lots more info/details then if it were the compressed jpeg data. You can't adjust whats not there, this only is better when you print your photos, if your using the raw to get images that you only want to post on the net then it's a waste of time... my canon 40D can save in raw and jpeg at the same time, so depending on the body you have that might be a good route for you to take, then only edit the raw files u want to print and use the jpeg for net stuff as it only used rgb ( 3 colors).

Answer 7

The point is NOT to take your original RAW image to jpeg. Jpeg is a "lossey" format the loses some of it's data to compress it into a smaller format. Every time you resave a jpeg image it loses an aditional amount of data.

Keep your RAW files in that format. Archive them onto disc so that you don't accidentaly save it in another format. If you need to work on one of the images, make a copy from the disc and work on the copy. Save that one any way you want to, but, remember, every time you save the copy as a jpeg, some quality is lost. Meanwhile, your origial RAW file remains unchanged, with all of the image's detail intact.

Answer 8

It's odd that your professor suggested shooting high end jpeg for the main purpose of printing at Costco. Most photographers advise to shoot at the highest resolution for their camera simply because this preserves your options for whatever size or type of printing you want to do. By the way, the 20D has six jpeg settings: the S, M, L plus coarse/fine for each. Coarse has greater compression even if the pixel dimensions are the same. So you should shoot in L fine (the one with the tiny stair steps).

Answer 9

As shot, RAW and JPEG file are identical to the eye. But now, try to manipulate the picture.
For instance, try to apply some extreme manipulations in tone and contrast, and you will see that in delicate areas, which need a lot of detail (sky for instance) you may easily get into banding.

A RAW file allows you to process the data your camera acquired keeping the original informations intact, without altering with compressions or introducing remapped pixels to replace some lost information (due to compression).

Always shoot RAW and keep the original files.

Answer 10

The truth is, when you save to JPEG, it will be identical in appearance to the RAW file. The reason we have RAW files is because of the hidden information they hold. For example, if you have a JPG with overexposed highlights and underexposed shadows to the point they appear black, then you're stuck with that. But if it was a RAW file, then you can save the highlights up to about 2 stops max (depending on a few factors) and you can bring out shadow detail from a huge 6 stops or even more. That's the point of the extra bits.
Other reasons are more accurate white balance control which you don't have with JPG and also, the RAW file is just that - RAW - and doesn't have in-camera sharpening, curves, etc which a lot of the time I don't want. Hope this helps.

EDIT - to see what I mean, I have posted up an example here - http://www.straightshots.co.nz/raw_files.htm

While looking at it, remember, shooting raw isn't a safety net for sloppy exposure technique. The reason I use RAW mainly is because digital blows out highlights quite easily and shooting in RAW helps prevent that to a huge extent.

EDIT2 - it's amusing how I should get a thumbs down from someone when I have given no incorrect information.

EDIT3 - haha Dr Sam! That last comment made me laugh!

EDIT4 - Hey Dr Sam, I like everything Ken Rockwell says except his ideas on RAW. But I can see where he's coming from. He likes to shoot, not muck around behind a computer.

EDIT5 - Thomas - RAW and JPG are not identical to the eye. You set your camera to save a RAW and JPEG at the same time of the same image and look at them. They are only identical when you make the adjustments you need to the RAW and then save that to JPG.