RAW vs. JPEG

JPEG vs. RAW?

I had to make this blog post after looking into this ageless debate's senseless progression and, sad to say, continued momentum. Yes, this silly spar is still going on with folks still sharing their thoughts so... why not share mine, eh?

My first problem with the debate clears the air of any debate: there is no debate! Get over it! Camera RAW data is the data that has been recorded by the camera's sensor. This is written to the disk. End of story. Whether or not I shoot in .jpeg mode in-camera or process my resulting .raw files afterwards in post, we are all shooting RAW data. Meaning: we are all shooting the data that our sensors are recording. The quality level of that data is determined by the type of gear we are using but ultimately ends up being directly related to our skill level with that said equipment. No matter what mode we shoot in. So what is the debate really about? And how come no one seems to understand?

ANSWER: TOTALLY DIFFERENT FILES

The argument is really not about files as these are two completely different types of files. It is comparing a goat and a cow. We could compare .gif to .png to .jpeg because those are all image archival file storage formats. RAW data, including .dng, is not. These are files containing original data from the camera sensor the instant the exposure was made. So we cannot compare the file types.

I saw one moron post something about if you printed off both images, you could not tell the difference between the RAW and a JPEG image. Dude: what in the world are you talking about?! Do you even know what you are saying? Have you performed this test yourself? Did your printhouse? Cuz I'm sure they loved setting up the machine for a 65MB image to print and use all of their ink! Now, I do not know if that is what would happen. I do know the only way you could print RAW data would be to print a .dng copy of the RAW: and that would just be stupid. Perhaps some folks do this but I do not see why you simply would not use a TIFF instead. I'd rather use a .jpeg. So, yea, I don't think there would be any difference in image quality if you printed side by side. That is not why we shoot in the RAW mode as opposed to the JPEG mode. It is not for a gain in printing quality. And since the .jpeg is actually what 98% of all my finished images will be saved as (not archived but finalized), the quality better be the same or I'll be finding a different file type, believe you me!

Another one of the common theories that is sung by the JPEG crowd is that the 'RAW shooters' claim to get more detail shooting RAW as opposed to .jpeg. This is true. But not how they think.

Shooting in a full RAW modus will get you a bit more detail but mostly in data and not in an actual image per se. Sound complicated? Not really. The sensor retained all of the data it captured in the original exposure. My RAW file will have more detail AVAILABLE should I choose to access it than compared to if I had shot in a straight JPEG modus, where I would throw all the extra data away from the RAW and keep only the converted image as the camera interpreted it based upon my predefined settings. Whoo. Glad it's so simple.

Personally, the point where RAW shooting is superior to JPEG shooting is simply in bit depth. I know the JPEG guys reading this are all going, Oh, c'mon, not another one of those! Forget them, they don't get it anyway. But their point is: what does bit depth matter when you are eventually going to produce an 8 bit image anyways? Uh, it matters EVEN MORE! Have you guys not thought this through or do you simply refuse? Here is the problem. If I shoot in straight JPEG, I save an 8bit file to the disk. When I edit this in post, I edit an image with 8bit depth. No more, no less. I get color banding, artifacts, you name it. IF I push too far in editing. Therefore, I ease back and stay safe. But I am still limited. If I shoot RAW and convert in post, I am now working with a 16-bit image. I can now make an HDR picture. I can do all of my editing, resizing, etc., with 16 bit depth. So I can really push the curves, go crazy with edits and manipulations and still maintain image integrity. When I am done, I save to an 8 bit color depth. But all of the EDITING was done at the 16 bit depth, maintaining higher quality. Try it, it works. Now, the difference is slight and not vast and that is where most JPEG folks argue. But it is still noticeable in print, especially on HDR images.

The truth is that we are all shooting RAW images. We capture what hits the camera's sensor. Then, we primarily have 4 different options. Those options are as follows:

• JPEG mode
• JPEG + RAW mode
• RAW mode
• RAW>JPEG mode

Many do not even know about the last option but I will lay out each option as is and give my reccomendation and my own testimony at the end.

JPEG Mode

• ADVANTAGES
  • minimal storage space
  • high throughput
• DISADVANTAGES
  • lossy compression applied
  • no possibilty for adjustment of RAW data

Some folks will misunderstand the last bit. This simply means that the actual RAW data itself cannot be further manipulated at a later date or time: when we press the shutter, it's a done deal as far as that image is concerned.

JPEG mode is a modus in which you can set your DSLR. This mode, despite popular belief, is actually still shooting in RAW format, as that is the only data any DSLR can glean until something new is invented. In JPEG mode, however, the RAW data is immediately converted from the sensor using the in-camera chipset. Sophisticated firmware converts the data instantaneously into a .jpeg file: none of the data captured by the camera's sensor is stored or saved. ALL of it is converted and compressed and saved into the resulting .jpeg file. This file is defined by presets which can be set from many different, tiny menus inside the camera's LCD screen which may be hard to access in certain shooting conditions. Luckily, you can assemble these settings and save them as profiles and call them up easily so it is quite handy when high throughput is top priority without a huge sacrifice in image quality. I will cover this stuff later in depth but, for now, this is a concise and accurate description of the mode.

This mode is very handy in a studio situation that will maintain the same white balance and high throughput is desired as well as a large number of images. Since the RAW data WILL NOT be saved, it is highly advisable to make sure to 'get it right' at this point and try and shoot for your finished product or as close to your end vision as possible since post processing options will be somewhat limited as OPPOSED to a full RAW workflow. You should still be able to achieve quality images with a proper skill set in this mode.

In defending this modus to the death, the blowhards do not even understand what they are defending. They are still shooting in RAW but simply converting the image simultaneously to the writing of the data to the disk. The camera manufacturer's have installed quality converters into the camera's firmware and the conversions should be top notch.

JPEG + RAW mode

• ADVANTAGES
  • all bases covered
• DISADVANTAGES
  • large file space requirements possible

I say possible because with this modus, different combinations of quality can be chosen, affecting the file size.

This combo modus is inherantly attractive to some due to its versatility: you literally have the best of both worlds. You can still post-process the RAW data as it is NOT thrown away with this option. You also have a converted .jpeg on hand, saved to disk as well.

The benefit to this mode must be the assurance of a speedier post workflow. You can transfer the images to your computer back in the studio and peruse the images. Images with satisfactory .jpeg's could have their RAW data thrown away at that time OR archived for further use, eliminating some RAW converting. If you missed an exposure or two or more, you can use the RAW file to correct it and possibly save the image.

My personal thoughts on the modus is that it is defenitely overkill and actually may make for a longer workflow rather than a shorter one. To ensure proper in-camera conversion, careful attention must be paid to camera settings for the .jpeg conversions which will happen instantaneously. Then, you still have to peruse all the images and decide what you like and what needs help, adding more time. If we go with a straight .jpeg workflow, we get what we got and that is it. If we go with a straight RAW workflow, same thing. Still, I feel this mode is great for beginner's and when I first began using DSLR's, this was the mode I shot in for a couple weeks before going full RAW. Your memory card may fill quickly if you set all of the quality settings to maximum with this modus.

RAW mode

• ADVANTAGES
  • all original data stored
  • no additional data stored
  • no additional settings in camera required
• DISADVANTAGES
  • large file space requirements
  • no image file created; only data is stored

This last point is the reason why some pros opt for a full .jpeg workflow: when you're working with that many images, it can seem to increase our workflow to have to still process the images. This crowd feels that one of the biggest advantages to digital is the removal of this step in the process. They are somewhat correct. However, those still shooting on film may not find the process any slower. Also, RAW converter software is amazingly intuitive and workflow orientated nowadays: large batches of RAW files can be quickly and accurately reviewed and processed in a very streamlined and efficient manner.

This mode is highly attractive to the fine arts folks and others who will be doing massive tweaking or variants of images. Also, high end fashion clients and other super technical niches will benefit from this precise and under-the-glass approach. The process resembles the dark rooms of the film days. Basically, when shooting in a full RAW workflow, you are taking the conversion process of the data into an image away from your camera and putting it into the hands of software specifically designed for the job. In theory, the software should produce more vibrant and accurate images then the camera software. In theory. There are a number of high-end software converters for RAW files that feature amazing workflows for large batch processing, allowing you to take settings applied to one image and, with the click of a button, apply them to several hundred others, if you wish. You can then review the individual images quickly and make adjustments as needed. Once finished, large batch output can be handled to maintain efficiency. With a professional setup, I highly advise a very capable and modern computer setup and build.

The benefit to this mode is the assurance of versatility and not being pinned down in any one direction. I personally use Phase One's Capture One Pro 7 software, which offers support for tens of hundreds of cameras sold on the market and thousands of lenses. This software can also shoot tethered, meaning, you take pictures with the computer hooked up to the computer and control the camera from the machine itself. This is the most viable option for high end professionals. Capture One Pro 7 also outperforms competitors like Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom for RAW conversion quality. In Photoshop, I can now edit with a 16-bit image instead of 8-bits. When I save as a JPEG in the end, my colors are smooth with no artifacts.

Another benefit to shooting RAW is during shooting. In RAW mode, all settings, like, D-Lighting, Sharpness, Contrast, White Balance, etc., are not recorded. White balance is recorded but can be changed. The rest are not even recorded into the RAW file. This means that when shooting, the photog no longer has to fiddle with the menus in the LCD screen: simply set the camera to RAW mode and shoot. Beautiful. Shooting RAW also requires a bit different approach. While you still need to get the shot right in camera, it is highly advisable to shoot for a more neutral and prime exposure with RAW. The more prime the exposure, the higher quality the digital data will be. This is beneficial later in post processing when different levels of detail are being pulled out of different areas of the composition residing in different exposure levels. Also, RAW works best with the bracketing shots used to make HDR images. RAW shooting frees the user to focus solely on shooting, like in the days of film.

In film days, your ISO was set by the film you used. Your camera determined the type of shot you could go for. So, you had different gear for different jobs. With DSLR's and RAW mode, you can now focus more on capturing great images and not have to also juggle the task of simultaneously converting your images when you depress the shutter button. This is the reason we 'RAW shooters' prescribe shooting in RAW: photography should be about capturing images. Post processing should be about developing said images. Photography SHOULD NOT be about capturing AND developing said images simultaneously: I do not care who you are, there is no way you can convince me that you can do as accurate a job when juggling both processes simultaneously: the work has to suffer. And I feel this is where digital photography has hurt the art itself. For beginning photogs, I advise shooting in either full RAW mode or a RAW + JPEG mode: this will help you learn more quickly what you did wrong in camera so you can do better the next time. This should NOT be a way to approach photography sloppily, I might add. Your work will still suffer and while RAW files can recover details that a .jpeg file simply does not possess, there is only so much data in the file and only so much of it can be recovered. RAW is NOT a safety net, even though that is what the jaundice JPEG jerks like to scream.

RAW>JPEG mode

• ADVANTAGES
  • all original data stored
  • no additional data stored
  • no additional settings in camera required
  • workflow may be improved due to in-camera processing
• DISADVANTAGES
  • large file space requirements
  • image file must still be created manually

This modus is not that well known and not talked about very much. In the RAW > JPEG mode, you shoot in RAW mode. Then, from your camera, you convert the images yourself to JPEG, applying different settings for image conversion. The mid to high-end DSLR's include in-camera RAW converting software, allowing the user to create image files completely inside the camera.

This mode may be attractive to folks who are on the go and need a faster workflow or need to get something into the clients hands immediately. While the in-camera converter is nice and handy, it may not be as capable and full of features as software alternatives. While this may not be a great option for pros, it is defenitely a plus for enthusiasts, hobbyists and semi-pros alike.

COMPARISONS

With these four options, we can clearly see that JPEG and RAW files are nothing to compare. JPEG's are the PRODUCTS of the RAW data itself, not competitors. When we adopt this kind of thinking we can start to better understand digital photography and all of its implications.

It cannot be argued that shooting straight JPEG (converting AND capturing simultaneously) is superior to converting after with more input from the user after the exposure has been made. It's like developing the image BEFORE it has been taken. Nevertheless, the technology not only allows for this to be done but produces very keen results. So why not do it this way? Well, that is exactly how the JPEG shooters feel. And that is fine. For a seasoned and experienced photog who knows his/her equipment, they should be able to produce work that would not be distinguishable from a RAW shooter. Should you then shoot straight JPEG? You betcha. However, I cannot for certain say that straight shooting, as I call it, will work in every situation. But it will work in many of them. For those who feel more comfortable with this workflow or pros with little spare time, this might be the most viable option and it is fine. But this does not make JPEG's superior to RAW. Why? Because JPEG's are still the PRODUCTS of RAW data!

For those more comfortable with shooting RAW, continue to do so and have fun knowing that you are truly free. Free to be as creative as you like with your work and not have any worries. You may wish to look into the issue of RAW file formats for archival purposes. Click HERE to read up on that. But shooting RAW will give you the most creative flexibility, no doubt. That is not to say that you will not also have creative flexibility with JPEG just keep in mind that you longer have the original data but a compressed version. However, the way digital works is that if you get the most prime exposure possible, you will be better off in post no matter which route you go.

For those who wish to test everything, I have put some thought into that as well. The real question shouldn't be 'Is JPEG as good as RAW?' Let's look at images side by side. That makes no sense since the product of RAW data IS a JPEG, PNG, GIF, or TIFF file. Instead, the question is really what is the best method for conversion? In-camera or post software? To do this test, you will probably want to do a shot on a tripod. You will need to get your camera set to take the highest quality exposure (most prime) you can set it. Then, go into your camera and set all the image settings (contrast, sharpness, saturation, D-Lighting, Profiling, etc.) to a neutral, standard setting, as neutral as possible. Now take a JPEG + RAW. If you have the most standard settings selected, your resulting images should be the same. Then, take the RAW into your software of choice on your computer and convert the RAW data into a JPEG. Compare both JPEG's to see which conversion yielded the more desirable results.

I have not yet conducted such a test but I would hope that the images are fairly similar in quality. Good. Now, go to the JPEG you captured in-camera. Be sure to make a copy of it first. Then, develop it. Load that JPEG into your RAW converter software and develop it just like you would the RAW file. Get the image looking just the way you like it. Now, save all these settings and export your JPEG. Next, load the RAW file into the converter. Apply the settings from the JPEG you just did (remember, you were supposed to save the settings so you should be able to apply them with one click). If the images were similarly captured, these settings should also fit the RAW. I would suspect the result would be that the RAW file will look more desirable with less color banding and artifacting. But I have yet to conduct this test. I will post my findings when I have. I suspect that this is the test we all must take to finally decide (at least for ourselves) which is superior: shooting straight (JPEG) or shooting RAW.