Comments on: RAW vs. JPG: Myths and misconceptions

By: Brad Walters

Brad Walters — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:54:13 +0000

That cleared up a BUNCH of questions I had. Thanks so much for posting this one.

By: John Watson

John Watson — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:44:38 +0000

It depends on the camera, the software, and the subjective taste of the viewer. You’re right that the same code should produce the same image whether it is run in a camera or on a PC. But cameras are limited in processing power and space for code which necessitates using different (not necessarily worse) approaches for image conversion than what is available in desktop software.

By: Nash

Nash — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:18:17 +0000

Okay, so Raw/Jpg has its own benefits. How about where its processed? maenig what is the different between a JPG created by the camera vs the jpg processed by a desktop PC. i read that because of processing power, its better done on PC. But, whati dont understand is a peace of code that process it is the same on a PC vs Camera. Processing power only enhances spped, not the logic. not the line of code, right? the logic of formatting a bit to a jpg formatted bit should be the same. (excluding mods yo can do to a raw).So shouldnt the out come be the same for JPG proccessed in Camera vs Jpg processed in PC?

By: Bruce Wayne

Bruce Wayne — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:59:49 +0000

But of course, if you want REAL quality, slide film is still the only way to go ;)

Let the flames begin!

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:38:20 +0000

Should I shoot in film and scan later or shoot directly onto a sensor? The film will record far more detail (more possible resolution, color and light gradients etc.), and a film scan typically produces more data. Most digital camera sensors do not produce 48 bit images (16 bits per channel) and even when they do, it’s still only three channels (RGB). Scanner sensors more often have the option to produce 48 bit images and because they use linear sensors they can often resolve more pixels for a given image area. The whole process of film and scanning will take quite a bit more work and expense. If I do everything right, I have the potential to create an image better than possible if I were to irreversably automate the workflow in the field.

Essentially, digital, at this point in time, is ALL about automation of workflow and not about potential quality. Because the available quality is more than sufficient for almost anything but a few niche areas (very large prints, ultra high resolution, wide angles of view, landscapes, etc.), the automation of digital is valuable. It makes no sense to go to the trouble and expense of a film workflow to shoot images for newsprint or the web (unless that’s all the photographer knows how to do).

RAW is essentially bypassing some of the automation that digital provides. For most work, it’s not worth it. If it is really worth spending a lot of time working on a single print, RAW can give you more to work with — but it costs storage space, potentially equipment expense, time and attention. If the shot is worth all that, I’d rather have it on film.

I shoot 24 bit jpgs on a Sony camera. I usually run them through Photoshop, but I find that I hardly ever do more than crop or resize them. The Sony camera automatically adjusts the levels, color balance, applies USM, and except in low light produces very little noise. Why shouldn’t it bake the image like this? Those algorithms are well known, simple enough to integrate into the camera, and typically work on most images. With the Sony, tweaking is usually a waste of time and doesn’t produce much improvement because it’s already been done for me. On RAW film scans, I have a lot of work to do.

On the other hand, if I want to capture a once in a lifetime image that I’m sure I’ll do more with than simply keep it on a hard disk archive somewhere, I’m going to shoot film.

By: Brian White

Brian White — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:11:54 +0000

I, too, have long considered the benefits of RAW and JPEG. “Better” is always a difficult term because it means different things to different people. RAW is better because it has more information. JPEG is better because it is almost as good and much, much smaller. Which is really “better” depends on what any given individual wants.

I wrote about this on my RAW vs JPEG page on my Landscape Photography blog, too.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:35:23 +0000

I’m very glad that I stop at this site and that I read the article because it has the basic idea of what JGP and RAW are all about. A good shot is a good shot regardless of the outcome for the picture and JPG reduces the amount of options you have with it while RAW creates and opens a wide range of them to make a good picture even better.
Like it is said in the article, the issue with RAW is time the size of the files and the difficulty that you have seeing and processing them but this could be overcome with practice and lots but lots of patience.

By: mitch

mitch — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:58:07 +0000

thanks for the clear and concise article. just wondering how much more space do RAW images take up than JPGs?

By: David Naylor

David Naylor — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:03:03 +0000

I’m in the same category as parl above. Since the AWB doesn’t really do the trick, and I often forget to set the correct white balance, I use RAW so that I can choose how to balance the image at my computer.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:04:31 +0000

Just getting to grips with RAW and I’m amazed at what can be achieved. Is it a better format than JPEG? Depends on what you want from your photography!