Remarkable difference between JPeg and RAW. . .!

[Deleted member 85071]

This little drone is a serious learning experience for me. I bought it knowing very little about photography. I'm beginning to figure it out a little.
I really wish I would have had it set on RAW for the sunrise that looks like a rainbow. . . I really do.

 

[Deleted member 85071]

The other image.

 

[Porky]

Both cracking photos, I shoot everything in Raw now, much better working with the photo in post

 

[Rockowe]

Really cool

 

[Meta4]

I really wish I would have had it set on RAW for the sunrise that looks like a rainbow. . . I really do.

It might have looked a little like this:

That's just a rough and dirty attempt working on the file you posted.
It could be a lot better with some effort and the original file.
Just because it's a jpg doesn't mean you can't work with the image.
Jpg images are a lot better than many people imagine.

 

[eastsidedronr]

raw is always the preferred method of capture butt....you can save a jpeg as a tiff or psd or dng file in photoshop and do non destructive edits on layers.

 

[JMagnus]

During my 23 years of professional photography there has always been a debate about raw vs jpeg as to which is better. There are many photographers who do mighty fine work shooting in jpeg only. Personally, I've never understood why anyone would want the camera to make decisions for them as to how their photos will be processed which is what jpeg does with its compression algorithms. That's why I usually shoot with my camera in manual mode and I've always shot in raw. I want to make those creative decisions, not some algorithm. IMHO it gives me much more control and a wider gamut to work with than jpeg. I'm not trying to put down those who shoot in jpeg. It's just my personal preference.

 

[Meta4]

I've never understood why anyone would want the camera to make decisions for them as to how their photos will be processed which is what jpeg does with its compression algorithms.

The assumption that those photographers doing fine work with jpg are letting the camera decide how to do the processing probably isn't a valid one.
I know I spend a lot of time in Photoshop with my jpg images.
Modern camera jpg images are a lot better than many people believe, and for many purposes are quite good enough.

 

[Photo Beaty]

Coming from 20 years of regular photography I am a big fan of raw files. For example, with my Mavic 2 pro I shoot every still in both raw (DNG) and jpg. When I look (using photoshop) at the two shots of the same scene taken simultaneously, the DNG has a native size of 18x12 inches with a resolution of 300. The jpg native size is 76x50.667 but the resolution is only 72. When I send files to professional printers they demand a resolution of 300. I would be very sorry if I had only jpg files. Of course, when I share cell phone photos with friends and family they are jpgs with a resolution of 72 but those are not useful for a large size wall hanger.

 

[dcrist66]

Coming from 20 years of regular photography I am a big fan of raw files. For example, with my Mavic 2 pro I shoot every still in both raw (DNG) and jpg. When I look (using photoshop) at the two shots of the same scene taken simultaneously, the DNG has a native size of 18x12 inches with a resolution of 300. The jpg native size is 76x50.667 but the resolution is only 72. When I send files to professional printers they demand a resolution of 300. I would be very sorry if I had only jpg files. Of course, when I share cell phone photos with friends and family they are jpgs with a resolution of 72 but those are not useful for a large size wall hanger.

100% agree
If you have the space on your SD card shoot in both so you aren't limited, then you can decide in post how you want to use them. I generally delete most of the jpg photos based on what I do or do not like but I keep all the raw because I can always go back and edit the raw and export it as a jpg if thats what I need it for in the end.

 

[JMagnus]

The assumption that those photographers doing fine work with jpg are letting the camera decide how to do the processing probably isn't a valid one.
I know I spend a lot of time in Photoshop with my jpg images.
Modern camera jpg images are a lot better than many people believe, and for many purposes are quite good enough.

I may not have been clear. In jpeg the camera/jpeg algorithm decides how much data "survives" upon compression. Whereas in raw all data is available for post processing. I totally understand photographers using jpeg images also post process. The problem IMO is there is a loss of data available with the jpeg for post processing purposes. This can make fine tuning an image harder than it is with raw. As I stated I know there are many good images created with jpeg files but i prefer to have all the data available for my processing.

 

[Meta4]

When I look (using photoshop) at the two shots of the same scene taken simultaneously, the DNG has a native size of 18x12 inches with a resolution of 300. The jpg native size is 76x50.667 but the resolution is only 72. When I send files to professional printers they demand a resolution of 300. I would be very sorry if I had only jpg files. Of course, when I share cell phone photos with friends and family they are jpgs with a resolution of 72 but those are not useful for a large size wall hanger.

You are confusing yourself and adding to the myths about raw images.
The resolution of the jpg and the raw images is exactly the same.
If you are shooting a Mavic 2 pro, all your still images are 5472 pixels ×3648 pixels.
Whether that's expressed at 72 dpi or 300 dpi makes no difference to the resolution.
The level of detail and the ability to print larger depends only on resolution - how many pixels the camera records.

 

[Cymruflyer]

During my 23 years of professional photography there has always been a debate about raw vs jpeg as to which is better. There are many photographers who do mighty fine work shooting in jpeg only. Personally, I've never understood why anyone would want the camera to make decisions for them as to how their photos will be processed which is what jpeg does with its compression algorithms. That's why I usually shoot with my camera in manual mode and I've always shot in raw. I want to make those creative decisions, not some algorithm. IMHO it gives me much more control and a wider gamut to work with than jpeg. I'm not trying to put down those who shoot in jpeg. It's just my personal preference.

It is fairly simple really. If the person is happy with the way their image is turning out in Jpeg format and also do not want to do any or very minimal post work to the image, then Jpeg is the way for them, plus it is much less memory to be storing. And of course, it depends on the final use of that image.

If you have the time and like to do the work, then using a RAW image is the way to go. But, if you use a RAW image then use a programme to do all the changes for you, to that RAW file, using a few button clicks, then you are not too much different by letting that programme run all the algorithm changes to the RAW image, than if you had allowed the camera to do them to arrive at a finished Jpeg.

 

[Meta4]

It is fairly simple really. If the person is happy with the way their image is turning out in Jpeg format and also do not want to do any or very minimal post work to the image, then Jpeg is the way for them.

That's a very common opinion on the forum but my experience is that contrary to the popular belief, you can do plenty of post processing with jpg images as well and get very good results.
The bad rap that jpg gets here is not at all justified.

 

[Cymruflyer]

That's a very common opinion on the forum but my experience is that contrary to the popular belief, you can do plenty of post processing with jpg images as well and get very good results.
The bad rap that jpg gets here is not at all justified.

Meta4, you may have possibly misunderstood what I stated. If you read again what I wrote, you will see that no where did I state that you can not do very much post processing with a Jpeg., and I am assuming you are saying this to me, from what you wrote above. I simply stated that plenty of people do not wish to do much to their images after capture. Some do and possibly more do not want to do as much as working with a RAW file would require, and therefore, a Jpeg is best for them.

I shoot in both RAW and Jpeg, though not every image I shoot do I take both formats. If it is a difficult lighting scene or if it is something very special, then I will shoot both, in order to have a RAW file to work with later. I will still work with the Jpeg file in post but I at least have the RAW should I need it.

If it is just something nice but has no special meaning or something I never intend to do any extreme enlargement with and don't need the entire colour gamut held in a RAW file, then the Jpeg file will suffice. There have been the rare times when I wished I had taken both, but those are so few and far between that I can live with that. And at the end of the day, if everything I have on file were RAW only, or RAW and Jpeg, I would have needed at least five times the HD space I am currently using, due to the very large file size a RAW image is.

I just wanted to make it clear, that for those wondering about the two types, who have no intent other than to have some nice photos to look at on the computer and share with family and friends, and who have limit experiencing with post processing, that a Jpeg alone is going to be a perfectly good option, for their needs.

A lot of people live and die by the need for RAW only and some simply repeat what they have heard or read on the matter, with no real understanding of why a RAW might be best, or why a Jpeg will do just fine for a particular use. And that is why I wanted to point out that for those who do not wish to do the post, or for those wanting to do just a little post, then Jpeg is fine if they have no major use in mind that possibly a RAW file might be better suited.

 

[Mavic Maveric]

During my 23 years of professional photography there has always been a debate about raw vs jpeg as to which is better. There are many photographers who do mighty fine work shooting in jpeg only. Personally, I've never understood why anyone would want the camera to make decisions for them as to how their photos will be processed which is what jpeg does with its compression algorithms. That's why I usually shoot with my camera in manual mode and I've always shot in raw. I want to make those creative decisions, not some algorithm. IMHO it gives me much more control and a wider gamut to work with than jpeg. I'm not trying to put down those who shoot in jpeg. It's just my personal preference.

Same with me. I have a Canon 6D (prior camera was a Canon 3ti) and I always, always shoot in RAW and in manual. It's what you see is what is captured. Then, I bring out what I want in Post Editing. More work but SO worth it. I just ordered my M2P. It's coming Tues. I will keep my shooting tradition alive with that.

 

[sar104]

It's impressive that this debate has such stamina. The basic difference is very simple - raw images contain all the original information captured while JPEG images discard much of it via:

1. selective reduction of the dynamic range to get down to an 8-bit encoding;
2. image compression to reduce file size.

A camera JPEG is a subset of the full image. In a scene with a large dynamic range (1) throws away shadow or highlight data, or both. (2) commonly causes compression artifacts such as banding in uniform sky gradients. Images that don't have either of those characteristics can look just fine as JPEGs straight from the camera. Those images can also be post-processed to improve them further, but they don't have all the data to work with that was in the original raw image.

 

[Cymruflyer]

It's impressive that this debate has such stamina. The basic difference is very simple - raw images contain all the original information captured while JPEG images discard much of it via:

1. selective reduction of the dynamic range to get down to an 8-bit encoding;
2. image compression to reduce file size.

A camera JPEG is a subset of the full image. In a scene with a large dynamic range (1) throws away shadow or highlight data, or both. (2) commonly causes compression artifacts such as banding in uniform sky gradients. Images that don't have either of those characteristics can look just fine as JPEGs straight from the camera. Those images can also be post-processed to improve them further, but they don't have all the data to work with that was in the original raw image.

I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with that fact, but there are those who do not posses the expertise, and or time, to go through each RAW file to get it to look it's best, so end up with a poor looking (on the surface) RAW file and are then not as happy as they would be looking at a camera adjusted Jpeg, even though there is not nearly the data left that a RAW image file would have available. A pure RAW file is a bit like a beautiful woman, smartly dressed who was splashed by a truck running through a large puddle of muddy water. The details are all there but it requires some effort to clean it up to get to the beauty underneath the surface view.

 

[sar104]

I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with that fact, but there are those who do not posses the expertise, and or time, to go through each RAW file to get it to look it's best, so end up with a poor looking (on the surface) RAW file and are then not as happy as they would be looking at a camera adjusted Jpeg, even though there is not nearly the data left that a RAW image file would have available. A pure RAW file is a bit like a beautiful woman, smartly dressed who was splashed by a truck running through a large puddle of muddy water. The details are all there but it requires some effort to clean it up to get to the beauty underneath the surface view.

It appears to me, just from this thread, that there is significant misunderstanding and disagreement.

 

[Maviac]

If it is just something nice but has no special meaning or something I never intend to do any extreme enlargement with and don't need the entire colour gamut held in a RAW file, then the Jpeg file will suffice. There have been the rare times when I wished I had taken both, but those are so few and far between that I can live with that. And at the end of the day, if everything I have on file were RAW only, or RAW and Jpeg, I would have needed at least five times the HD space I am currently using, due to the very large file size a RAW image is.

I think that's the bottom line. You can always make a RAW image look as good as, and usually better than, an in-camera JPG, but the opposite is not true. If I'm planning to blow something up to hang on the wall, or taking a picture to sell, I always use RAW. But for routine shots of friends and family in a park on the weekend, I'm shooting in JPG because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to process every photo (if I'm shooting in weird lighting conditions, I MIGHT have the camera keep both the JPG and RAW just in case I need to fix something).