The Sleeping Giant's Sea Lion

by Jakub

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

218

The Value of RAW: I think you may be misunderstanding the value of RAW. In the grand scheme of things, from seeing a scene with your eye to printing it, the best you get is what the printer you printed with is capable of, and that tends to be considerably less than what you see, or your camera or your computer is capable of representing. The value of RAW ...


78

Here's a concrete example of the advantages of shooting raw from a recent wedding. I always shoot raw+jpeg and use the jpegs to quickly sort through the photos afterwards. Here's a jpeg of the first dance that would have gone straight in the bin, except for the fact that I had very few shots of the first dance due to some very difficult conditions: I ...


51

The JPEG format has the advantage of giving small files. The RAW formats have the advantage of preserving all the data collected at the shot. The PNG format gives neither of these advantages, so you don't even get a compromise between the other formats, you get almost only the drawbacks from both formats.


47

If the dimensions of the image are multiples of 8 (or 16 if chroma subsampling is used) then the rotations are lossless. Otherwise it is not possible to rotate the image without recomputing the blocks i.e. recompressing the image, which is lossy. The reason for this is that jpeg images are broken up into a series of 8x8 or 16x16 blocks which are compressed ...


38

Image size notes aside, a big reason is that PNG does not have a standardized means of EXIF embedding and that will immediately shy the camera makers away from it. There would be a lot of information lost by doing image conversion to PNG in camera as a result and, for the most part, would probably been seen as a negative by most photographers.


33

RAW: Pros: Great color More post-processing options Cons: Large File size More storage needed Slower capture time More complicated workflow for processing JPEG: Pros: Fast capture (so higher burst speed) Simplified viewing/sharing Cons: Finalized (editing degrades the image more) Smaller range of color/contrast options.


33

I expect pro-RAW answers will dominate here, so I'll offer a pro-JPEG view. I was shooting RAW from the start when I started using digital cameras. However, after a few years, when looking into my workflow, I realize that I very rarely use what RAW offers (post exposure white balance changes, exposure corrections and so on). My typical adjustments to the ...


29

I was a beginner at the time, took this picture of a very nice sunset. I was pretty disapointed by the picture... Once I learned how to properly use Lightroom, I was able to get most of the details back from the original RAW file to get it to what I was really seeing in real life.


28

I will add my own input. Doing this specifically isn't the reason to shoot RAW, it's just the primary reason why shooting RAW gives you fundamentally more headroom to work with when pushing pixels around. I took this shot at a show a mate of mine was playing at (in this actual band). 1/60th ISO 1600 f/2.8 on a Canon 50D with EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 lens. Here is ...


26

I am an amateur photographer going semi-pro and even though I still only use RAW I have come across a few occasions where RAW+JPEG was needed (or at least would be a great convenience): ready to email files (like @rowland-shaw wrote) - some times you need to get your photos out there as fast as possible lite photo files to browse through - given that your ...


23

PNG may use a lossless compression algorithm, but it is lossy in comparison to the raw data. You lose bit depth, the camera may introduce demosaicing artifacts, you may bake in a bad color balance, the camera may apply inappropriate sharpening, the in-camera noise reduction may wash out detail, etc. I don't think there's a big demand for a format that's as ...


20

A JPEG may start out with 8 bits per R, G and B channel, but when stored in the JPEG it is stored very differently, where there is no real "bit depth" but instead values are stored as frequency coefficients of a given precision. In JPEG what's more relevant is the quantization rate, which affects how much information is thrown away during the quantization ...


19

jrista pretty much summed up the whole difference, but just to clarify on the point of RAW headroom: JPEG is 8 bits, meaning 256 discrete levels per channel (RGB) which creates quite a wide range of color (16,777,216 discrete colors to be exact), but that pales in comparison to what RAW can potentially offer. The actual number of bits that a dSLR sensor ...


18

Let's consider the image captured by the sensor (RAW) as calibrated and neutral. The equation is the following to generate a color balanced JPEG is: JPEG = RAW * T where T is the color balance transformation Normally to apply a different color balance to a JPEG, you would need to apply the inverse of as-shot transformation to the JPEG (to restore the ...


18

The reason you got confused is that it's not the file size that is displayed in Photoshop. Photoshop's status bar shows uncompressed size of image. With three 8-bit color channels, that's 3 bytes per pixel, resulting 34.9 MB for a 4288 x 2848 image from your camera. JPEG is a compressed format, so the actual file is smaller. Showing compressed size would ...


17

JPEG 2000 has not garnered wide acceptance due to a few factors. Lacking backwards compatibility to JPEG Lack of wide browser support Questionable legal status (Only) 20% higher performance, while considering how inexpensive storage is Additional processing power/time needed to create JPEG already considered quite good Amount of rework to the code in ...


16

The biggest upside for RAW is color depth. Most RAW formats capture color information in 12 bit format. This means that color intensities can vary from 0 to 4095. In contrast JPG can only capture 8 bit in color depth (0 to 255). Therefore a RAW file can be tweaked much more extensively without the whites being washed out. The only two downsides I can think ...


16

I capture everything both raw and jpeg, it gives you the best of both worlds. Take this original jpeg: Normally you would probably junk this shot, its totally overexposed. Correcting it in photoshop is not going to give you more detail: Contrast this with the RAW shot, which was underexposed 1 and a half stops during post: You get significantly ...


16

"To ensure that my photos display in the highest possible quality for display on Facebook, re-size your photo before you uploading" The supported sizes are: Regular photos 720 px, 960 px, 2048 px High Resolution Cover photos 851 px by 315 px (keep cover photos under 100K to avoid Facebook compression) (JPEG with an sRGB colour profile) Any ...


15

Not really. Weirdly, "jpeg" is really the name of the compression and not the standard for the file format that bears the .jpg name. There's various different container formats that can hold jpeg-compressed streams. The official one is JFIF, although by strict reading files containing EXIF data don't properly correspond to that spec. (Aren't standards ...


15

In the RAW+JPEG workflow, JPEG is what you shoot for. RAW is the safety net. The primary benefit or JPEG is not smaller files (that's the second), it is that JPEGs are actually images. Images have advantages over RAW files, already mentioned by others: quick preview, ready to email, no processing required, etc. Once the shot is taken you are done if you did ...


15

In your command prompt, go to the folder and run this: for /f "delims==" %r in ('dir /b *.nef') do del "%~dpr%~nr.jpg" 2> nul Basically, it goes through the current folder, runs through the .NEF files, and deletes the JPG if present. It ignores any errors if the JPG is not there. If you want subfolders, include "/s" (without quotes) in the dir ...


15

I default to the three-star setting (out of four), but I always use RAW + JPEG so I can revisit the choice, because there are situations where yes, it makes a difference. Particularly, when there is strong contrast across color channels, like a tree with red leaves or flowers against a blue sky, JPEG compression artifacts can be surprisingly visible with the ...


15

Bear with me for a second here for some background.... When you downsample a 4000×3000 image to 400×300, you are "discarding" 11.9 million of the 12 million pixels. This clearly reduces "image quality", depending on what exactly you mean by that term. If you go from 1000×750 to 400×300, you're reducing the area by about 6 times. Again, data is discarded, ...


14

I always consider a RAW file like a traditional negative -- The biggest benefit of shooting in RAW is the ability to tweak things like white balance and exposure with greater accuracy and ease back when you're "developing" them. However, shooting in RAW consumes memory card space faster, and some cameras perform faster when shooting in JPEG


14

The values are arbitrary and meaningless, and only serve to confuse people. The EXIF standard seems to imply that if the tag is missing, 72 is the (still-meaningless) default. However, it is apparently mandatory for the TIFF standard, from which the JPEG/EXIF format basically inherits everything. So maybe it has to have some value to properly comply with the ...


14

JPEG actually uses two types of compression, a lossly and a lossless one. Lossless compression doesn't cause artifacts, so we can ignore that part. The particular type of lossy compression in JPEG, called a discrete cosine transform for the math knurds, allows a tradeoff between compression ratio and fidelity. Most software sufaces this as a "quality" ...


13

I shoot JPEG + RAW because my camera produces really good JPEG output. It has flexible control over tone curves, color, and contrast. I'm not usually interested in producing HDR-compressed images — in fact, I often prefer a high contrast look which reduces dynamic range. If I get the exposure and other settings right, I really don't benefit much from RAW. ...


13

An example Using the current photo of the week image. This is the high-quality JPEG: re-saved in Gimp with JPEG quality 80 (low); please note the general loss of sharpness, "dots" around high-contrast edges, loss of detail in low-contrast areas: and re-saved in GIMP with JPEG quality 30 (very low); please note evident 8x8 blocks and severe loss of ...


13

Not at all. Lightroom is a great tool with many well-integrated features. Version 4 which is roughly half the price of previous one adds maps, book publishing, soft-proofing to the already useful organization and processing tool. The organization tools are probably worth the price alone and the export feature is the best one I've seen. So what if I don't ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible