What is RAW?
11-27-2006, 03:37 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is RAW?
I have been reading a lot on line and I am trying to figure out the difference between shooting in RAW or Jpeg fine. Can anyone help the total newb out? Thanks a lot.
11-27-2006, 03:58 PM
#2
Registered User
I'm sure someone will post a serious linkie but I'll give it a go.
RAW is the data directly from your sensor. It includes more information than JPEG format can contain. Once you convert or capture to JPEG you lose the ability to do some things that RAW data can do easily. Most RAW formats are uncompressed (larger than JPEG) though some Nikon NEF's are a compressed RAW form (still larger file size than JPEG).
JPEG is a "lossy" format and that means that not every pixel is kept as-captured in your file. Using the "Fine" setting means you probably will not notice this in most uses. But to see what is going on, try shooting in the worst (smallest file size) JPEG your camera offers. You should see some blocky "artifacts" using that setting.
Even if you use a non-lossy format like TIFF, RAW can still do some tricks that are hard to do in any other format. What tricks? One is super-easy white balance adjustment AFTER you take the picture. Another is at least a full "stop" of exposure adjustment (brighter or darker) with picture-perfect results (as good as changing the exposure before taking a JPEG).
RAW is the data directly from your sensor. It includes more information than JPEG format can contain. Once you convert or capture to JPEG you lose the ability to do some things that RAW data can do easily. Most RAW formats are uncompressed (larger than JPEG) though some Nikon NEF's are a compressed RAW form (still larger file size than JPEG).
JPEG is a "lossy" format and that means that not every pixel is kept as-captured in your file. Using the "Fine" setting means you probably will not notice this in most uses. But to see what is going on, try shooting in the worst (smallest file size) JPEG your camera offers. You should see some blocky "artifacts" using that setting.
Even if you use a non-lossy format like TIFF, RAW can still do some tricks that are hard to do in any other format. What tricks? One is super-easy white balance adjustment AFTER you take the picture. Another is at least a full "stop" of exposure adjustment (brighter or darker) with picture-perfect results (as good as changing the exposure before taking a JPEG).
11-27-2006, 07:27 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both Penforhire and Muz hit the nail on the head... But simply put, when a camera captures an image in JPG mode (or any mode other than RAW) it is making creative decisions for the photographer based on a predetermined set of instructions. These predetermined instructions control such factors as color saturation, white balance, sharpness, contrast, levels, brightness, chromatic aberation, etc..... However, when you shoot RAW, you are taking the control away from the camera and making those critical decisions which can make or break an image and taking the task of editing these images yourself.
11-27-2006, 09:40 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome repsonses thank you. So would you say for a complete newb to photography who is just learning would you say not to shoot in RAW until I can master the Post Preduction aspect of the pictures?
11-28-2006, 07:12 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Tree Town
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so i'm clear..
If I have my picture in RAW form, I can change color saturation, exposure compensation, contrast, brightness, etc and it will be exactly like if I had properly composed these camera variables in the first place?
That's pretty cool!
If I have my picture in RAW form, I can change color saturation, exposure compensation, contrast, brightness, etc and it will be exactly like if I had properly composed these camera variables in the first place?
That's pretty cool!
Trending Topics
11-28-2006, 07:29 AM
#8
Registered User
Within limits what you say is true. Quite a bit can be done with non-RAW formats, just not as much and sometimes not as easily.
To Rob, every student is different in how much they can handle at once. There is nothing wrong with sticking with JPEG's to start and improving only your camera work. That is similar to shooting slides developed by a lab with no special instructions (push or pull). An awful lot of us started learning what we know by only working with our cameras and film selection, not controlling any darkroom process.
A low compression JPEG (say 10:1) image can be just as good in a print or on-screen as TIFF format. I suggest everyone make their own judgements. I did a controlled comparison when I got my first digicam, a 3 MP Nikon 990 which had no RAW option. To see the difference between the best JPEG mode and uncompressed TIFF I had to peep at individual pixels on-screen and even then the difference was subtle. The difference between ISO settings (e.g. 200 to 300) was much more dramatic. All I'm saying is keep your perspective if you hear JPEG being thrashed by some people.
To Rob, every student is different in how much they can handle at once. There is nothing wrong with sticking with JPEG's to start and improving only your camera work. That is similar to shooting slides developed by a lab with no special instructions (push or pull). An awful lot of us started learning what we know by only working with our cameras and film selection, not controlling any darkroom process.
A low compression JPEG (say 10:1) image can be just as good in a print or on-screen as TIFF format. I suggest everyone make their own judgements. I did a controlled comparison when I got my first digicam, a 3 MP Nikon 990 which had no RAW option. To see the difference between the best JPEG mode and uncompressed TIFF I had to peep at individual pixels on-screen and even then the difference was subtle. The difference between ISO settings (e.g. 200 to 300) was much more dramatic. All I'm saying is keep your perspective if you hear JPEG being thrashed by some people.
11-28-2006, 08:28 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major difference between jpg files and a lossless uncompressed file such as TIFF is that you can open and save a TIFF file a thousand times and not lose a single bit of data, but every time you open and save a jpg you lose data... the image becomes in time flat in color saturation and unsharp in focus. My suggestion if anyone decides to stick with jpg's would be to edit them once and then save in TIFF format immediately. Just my 2 cents...
