Detail of RAW vs Jpeg

[Gadgetdude]

I am hoping someone can help me understand the difference in detail of RAW vs JPEG? I was always under the impression that RAW imgages showed more detail. I mean they are almost three times the file size. 59mb vs 162mb. See images below that I took today. I have zoomed in on each of the two different images to show the difference I am getting between the RAW and jpeg version. On each image below, the RAW file is on top. Just look at the lily pads and the difference is glaring.

 

[tstr14]

I have noticed the same difference in DJI RAW vs JPEG. I believe it is because the JPG images are processed while the RAW are not. If you use photo processing software, such as Photoshop, you will find you can manually process the RAW images to be superior to the JPEG, especially if enlarging.

After years of shooting photos with cameras, I learned that unless I needed to make sure the finished product was as good as it could be, I would shoot JPEG only. The RAW images my cameras produce are far superior to those the DJI system provides, but even with them, if I want a top shelf image, I have to tweak the RAW image. That's OK for a handful of photos but gets old in a hurry if doing a lot of them.

 

[KS-6]

Which camera and are the focus methods the same?

 

[Johnmcl7]

What software are you using to process the raw image and what settings are you using? Although something doesn't look right to be getting so much less detail, the raw file has an embedded low resolution jpeg to make it easier to preview the image and I'm wondering if that's what you're using for the comparison above?

These days I wouldn't expect to get much more detail in the raw compared to the jpeg because the jpeg conversions from the devices are usually pretty good as long as they're not over processing the image.

As mentioned above, when the camera produces the jpeg file it's doing the raw to jpeg conversion for you and in many cases that can be good enough not to need the raw file - if you process the raw file similar to the camera, you'll get a similar jpeg at the end of it. However the advantage of the raw files is when the camera produces the jpeg file, a lot of data is lost so if you're not happy with the way it's processed the raw file gives you the freedom to process it with the settings you want. It's much easier to change WB when processing a raw file and where it can be particularly useful with a larger sensor is the amount of data you can pull back in the highlights and shadow areas of the image.

 

[Jim Martin]

It might be the program you are using to view the files. Some viewers (like Windows Photo) don't always do a good job of rendering RAW files, but when I import them into Lightroom, they look fine.

The file size difference is because jpg files are compressed vs uncompressed RAW files that contain more data. Since both images were taken with the same sensor, the amount of detail should be the same.

Maybe you could upload the two files?

 

[Gadgetdude]

Thank you all for your answers. You each were correct. I was viewing them from the drone hooked up to my iPad through the file viewer. Once I used my processing app, Affinity, it processed the RAW image in full resolution. However as tstr14 and Johnmcl7 pointed out, the jpeg processing in the DJI software is processing the jpeg almost superior to the RAW. Unless you are printing really large prints there really is not much benefit to shooting raw. Attached is the zoomed in portion of both Raw and jpeg. The JPEG is the one with more saturated greens.

 

[Jim Martin]

Glad you figured it out!
If you enjoy pushing a photo to the limits and making it as "perfect" as possible, RAW has its advantages. RAW files hold a lot more information that the sensor recorded. You can use that data to adjust the photo way beyond anything that can be done with a jpeg. It doesn't mean you need to shot RAW, it's just good to know what RAW can do.

 

[Meta4]

I was always under the impression that RAW images showed more detail.

There are differences, but they don't involve the level of detail.

 

[GadgetGuy]

There are differences, but they don't involve the level of detail.

Would it be fair to say that the DNG contains much more dynamic range and the ability to adjust while balance, while the JPG bakes in the exposure and white balance, making recovery and alteration more difficult, if exposure and white balance weren't nailed on the take?

 

[waynorth]

Would it be fair to say that the DNG contains much more dynamic range and the ability to adjust while balance, while the JPG bakes in the exposure and white balance, making recovery and alteration more difficult, if exposure and white balance weren't nailed on the take?

That is correct.
Have a look at these two photos from a mobile phone. The first is a jpg straight from the camera. The other is a DNG from the camera, adjusted in a RAW-converter. The burnt out sky in the jpg is impossible to recover, but in the DNG the dynamic range makes it easy to keep the sky fine.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Another "old school" way to look at it is the DNG is a film negative while a JPG is a slide.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I am hoping someone can help me understand the difference in detail of RAW vs JPEG? I was always under the impression that RAW imgages showed more detail. I mean they are almost three times the file size. 59mb vs 162mb. See images below that I took today. I have zoomed in on each of the two different images to show the difference I am getting between the RAW and jpeg version. On each image below, the RAW file is on top. Just look at the lily pads and the difference is glaring.

View attachment 183564
View attachment 183563

For myself: I look at JPG as a compressed, lossy format specifically tailored for immediate viewing and ease of sharing, I always think in terms of a JPG being like a Polaroid Instamatic... okay for a cursory look, but no good if the image is required for close scrutiny .

It is fair to say that the more recent JPG's are of a far better quality, but they're still pretty useless if you muffed-up the exp. settings because a JPG will not respond well to a lot of adjustment parameters, especially highlight or shadow recovery.

DNG is uncompressed - like the 'latent' image on a roll of exposed, but undeveloped film - all the data the sensor 'saw' is right there, covering a far greater dynamic range, none of it shaved away to keep the file size low enough to whack straight out to other people's screen devices at 72ppi.

I love working with the RAW format.

 

[dmcgrew]

A JPG is never better than a RAW file unless you're looking to save storage space or do not want to be bothered with editing. The JPG the drone saves is processed via that original RAW file. The only difference is the processing is done automatically and the RAW file is discarded. If you want the best possible image quality then you need to work with RAW files and edit. Using a JPG does not give the freedom of editing a raw file. Think of it like baking a cake vs buying a cake at a store. The RAW file is basically all of the ingredients laid out on the countertop and you put them together to make your own cake. The store-bought cake you can just take it out of the box and eat it but it might not be as good.

 

[vfrailing]

Another "old school" way to look at it is the DNG is a film negative while a JPG is a slide.

I disagree, Gadget guy. First of all, being a negative or positive (slide) is irrelevant. The DNG is a digital file with all of the data from the sensor intact. A JPG is that data processed by the camera's software to an image that is what the program thinks you want to see, sharpened digitally, contrast and saturation enhanced, and then compressed. All of the other data it considers unnecessary is discarded. In other words, the RAW is a digital positive and the jpg is a print from Walmart. JPG's look good and are smaller in memory usage, unless you are willing to do the work yourself. Like IKEA and Hand made furniture.