67

Once I've a JPEG photograph image file, how can I find out whether it is a RAW file or not? If you have a JPEG file, then it is not a RAW file. RAW isn't a single format, but rather a collective name for image files that contain data straight from the sensor. RAW files need to be processed in order to convert them to more general-purpose image formats like ...


31

Beyond the very obvious memory card requirement differences between RAW and JPEG images as noted in the question: JPEGs are compressed and typically have much smaller file sizes. For example a RAW file from a Nikon D800 can be 50MB and the JPEG may be a fraction at 10MB. This benefits not only memory card capacity but also editing workflow speed, archival ...


24

you don't have to reproduce the algorithms that the camera is running to render your photo on the small display on the camera. This all depends on how much you value what is shown on the camera's LCD - it isn't any more "right" than any other algorithm. If you personally happen to like Sony's algorithm, then you may find it advantageous, although you can ...


23

Unless somebody frivolously renamed a RAW file, it will never have a file name with the .jpg/.jpeg/.jfif extension. Typical extensions for RAW files will be .raw, .arw (Sony), .dng (Android phones etc.), .nef (Nikon), .cr2 (Canon)... A JPEG file will always have the text JFIF somewhere near the start if opened in a text or hex editor, among the hieroglyphs (...


17

It Depends Ultimately, which format is a better fit for you is up to you, and what/how you shoot and process your images. Some folks will categorize the difference as amateur (JPEG) and pro (RAW), or not-serious (JPEG) and serious (RAW), but it's simply a matter of which format gets you what you want out of an image. Why not both? Side note: space is ...


14

JPEG, as you know, is a lossy compression format. One feature of the format is different quality levels, which correspond to greater or lesser amounts of information discarded to save space. See Is it worth using Pentax's Premium JPEG quality setting? where I did an investigation of various quality levels and their tradeoffs — it's a different model and ...


12

Yes, the evidence that this is a fact is that RAW images are used to make the JPEGs. It isn't possible for a JPEG to have a wider range than a RAW image because the RAW image is the actual sensor data from which the JPEG is made. A JPEG is the processed image produced by the camera taking its best guess at how the image should be processed. It discards ...


10

There are so many variables regarding power consumption per shot that it is probably a little hard to precisely nail down. In general, shooting raw is understood to require more power than shooting JPEG assuming all other variables are equal. Even when saving image files in a raw format, a preview or thumbnail JPEG is generated by most cameras. So some, if ...


10

First - do you have a specific problem? The time to dump an image to the memory card varies a lot from camera to camera and the best solution for your problem is probably to try to investigate it yourself. Also why are you focusing on the time it takes dump the file to the memory card? With the often large buffers of modern cameras you can often continue to ...


9

Things look different because everything is different and you have done no effort to make them the same. Your DSLR has control over brightness and so does your screen and your friend's, etc. The probability of them being at the same brightness without you doing explicitly so is absolutely zero. A JPEG image and RAW file is different. As a matter, a RAW ...


9

No. RAW files are certainly capable of being converted into better quality images but that will not improve your photography. There is a huge difference between better photography and higher image-quality and these are largely orthogonal concepts. Think about it, there are great images made famous taken on a film camera of 60 years ago. Its quality of ...


9

There is no justification for removing JPEG processing in digital cameras for the foreseeable future, there are plenty of reasons not to use jpeg but none to make it completely unavailable. From a performance perspective the biggest bottleneck is writing the file to storage card(s) and mandating bigger files would yield no speed improvement at all. Cost ...


9

The raw image is 12 (or maybe 14) bits, and JPG is 8 bits (less range). JPG does not handle changes of extreme range well. The JPG image already has white balance and color profile in it, likely our bad guessed try that has to be corrected first (which is the reason we are looking at it). Not even speaking of JPG artifacts, the Raw always is the ...


9

Why can software correct white balance more accurately for RAW files than it can with JPEGs? There's a fundamental difference between working with the actual raw data to produce a different interpretation of the raw data than the initial 8-bit interpretation of the raw file you see on your screen compared to working with an 8-bit jpeg where the entire ...


9

Trivial ways to recognize whether a file is a RAW or a JPEG: File ending: JPEGs end with .jpg or .jpeg, RAWs end with different strings (e.g. .cr2, .nef, .arw, ...) File headers: Usually, formats put some signature in there that tells programs. Size: Given the same size and motive, even quality 100 JPEGs will be significantly smaller. (e.g. 20 MiB vs 5 ...


8

The main advantage with RAW is that several of the camera's lossy processing steps such as sharpening, noise reduction and demosaicing are not yet "burned in" to the image file, allowing you to choose the algorithm later in software, and re-adjust it as many times as you like with different settings, without the generational loss associated with ...


8

Neither solution is acceptable in my opinion, especially for something as important as a wedding. Large hard drives are cheap and spare compact flash cards are not terribly expensive, so I would just get more storage and shoot raw. If computer processing power is your limiting factor - that can be a little more expensive. Even so, a decent PC ...


8

Of course I don't know. :) However the most common causes for these things are: RAW is "softer" The RAW image isn't 'softer' - JPEG image is doctored in-camera usually with quite aggressive sharpening. Especially on entry-level cameras this sharpening is 'yelling' sometimes and can cause artifacts Besides sharpening, JPEGs usually have in camera some ...


7

RAW certainly gives a lot more after-the-fact flexibility. But, it's generally true that if the exposure is correct and white balance set to match the lighting, that flexibility is less important. If you're happy with the processing options the camera gives (and, especially for higher-level cameras, such options are extensive), RAW isn't really a necessity. ...


7

The most likely reason is the relative brightness of your camera LCD and your computer screen. I wouldn't judge if the image is bright just because it looks bright in the LCD. I would instead use the histogram - start by taking a well-exposed image where you have a histogram that indicates the image is not too dark and not too bright. I would turn off "...


7

Because RAW doesn't discard information through lossy compression (like JPEG does), you can often recover some smaller detail by manually processing the RAW file. The example below provides an illustration of this: Yes, this is a picture of my ear. I had my camera set to record both a JPEG and a RAW file when I took the picture. The one on the left lacks ...


7

Always shoot RAW if you can. A RAW file is a capture of all the light that hit the sensor photocells at the time of exposure. This allows you to read, interpret and convert that data in any number of ways. A JPEG is just 1 out of 1000+ ways you can interpret that RAW data. Depending on your scene, camera and the sensor, a RAW file will give you anywhere from ...


7

I'd look at this one somewhat differently; you say that you want "lighter and sharper" images, which are actually two different problems. To get lighter images, you need to either get more light into the camera, or change what the camera does with the light. To do the first, you can either have a longer exposure or a wider aperture; to do the second, you ...


6

The RAW sensor data is linear. JPEG images use a gamma curve, which means that increasing data values represent an exponential increase, which is a more efficient way of storing things because the human vision system isn't linear either. (Without this, excess precision is wasted on varying hues of bright colors, leaving not enough for the darker end of the ...


6

Nope. From a manufacturers point of view, it wouldn't even be a different camera. They'd sell the exact same camera with some firmware that prevented jpeg compression. When it comes to integrated circuits, mass production is where the money comes from. A product with reduced feature set is often just cannibalised with a special firmware. I remember how I ...


5

First, you are making a common mistake thinking it is 36 bit. I made the same mistake for a while. In reality, RAW data is monochrome and thus only 12 bit in your case since each pixel doesn't have any color information without looking at neighboring pixels. Beyond that, it depends on the software being used. Color, as mentioned, is derived from the ...


5

This is a setting and a feature of your camera. NEF files are what is known as RAW files. They store the actual image data as it was captured by the sensor, before any post-processing is applied in camera. It stores much more information that allows for a lot of valuable post production changes, like altering exposure (to a limited extent) or recovering ...


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