• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

what's the difference between

M

Melinda Marie

New member
RAW and JPEG?

Excuse the naive question...I just can't seem to find a good description of the two. I'm just used to using jpeg images sent to me by clients to manipulate in PS. But now that I'm looking into digital photography as a hobby, I keep reading about editing RAW images.

Can someone break this down for me in basic terms?

Thanks.
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Quick and Easy

in simple terms, the jpg files means the camera interpreted the data and created a finished image and in RAW format the camera only recorded the pixel data and you need external software to finish the image. JPG's are editable on a more limited basis out of the camera and RAW allows for much more editing ability.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Melinda Marie said:
RAW and JPEG?

Excuse the naive question...I just can't seem to find a good description of the two. I'm just used to using jpeg images sent to me by clients to manipulate in PS. But now that I'm looking into digital photography as a hobby, I keep reading about editing RAW images.

Can someone break this down for me in basic terms?
Click to expand...
Hi melinda,

Welcome to OPF. We set up this particular room in OPF just for this type of question. Still, I'm puzzled, who are the clients and who is doing the work in photoshop?

In any case, Kathy's description is a great start. Some wedding photographers, in fact, use jpg images. If one has checked the lighting and has gray card or else a good printer, hte results can be excellent.

Still, RAW images give one much more depth and latitude in in developing the image. For example, one can correct for over exposure and bring back the intensity of the bright white and so not have bright areas featureless. Or else in the shadow areas, detail that his hidden can now be recovered.

Working with jpg, which is a simplified file, has already a lot of the data about your image thrown out. Assumptions are made to give a great image immediately. Often it's excellent. The RAW file however, allows much much more optimization. The next idea to get a handle on is BIT depth, 16 versus 8. Do a search for that and get a rough idea.

Asher
 
M

Melinda Marie

New member
Asher Kelman said:
We set up this particular room in OPF just for this type of question. Still, I'm puzzled, who are the clients and who is doing the work in photoshop?
Click to expand...

I'm currently a stay-at-home mom mom and have been for 7 years or so, but used to be a graphic designer for a couple of different ad agencies in SC. Anyway, I still do a few print projects every now and then...mainly brochures, post cards...that sort of thing. My clients will send me whatever pict they have and I'll take out or blur the background, convert to b/w, whatever.

From what I gather, when I finally get my dslr (I'm ordering it after Christmas), I can choose to have my camera save my picts as RAW images, open them up in PS and go from there? Or am I missing something?
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Some cameras will let you save as RAW and Jpg or either one. You can choose. I shoot and do both. Sometimes the jpg is fine and if not and I missed it the RAW is insurance.
 
C

Colleen Vermillion

pro member
Melinda Marie said:
From what I gather, when I finally get my dslr (I'm ordering it after Christmas), I can choose to have my camera save my picts as RAW images, open them up in PS and go from there? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Different models of camera have different file formats for "RAW" mode, so depending on what camera you get and which version of Photoshop you're using, you might have to convert to another format before you can open them in Photoshop (Older versions don't support the newer camera model formats). If you've upgraded to CS3, then you shouldn't have to worry... just download the most recent version of Adobe Camera RAW plug-in (usually abbreviated ACR) from www.adobe.com, copy it to the proper location, and use File->Open to open your raw files. All cameras that write raw should come with software to convert your RAW files to JPEG images. How powerful the editing tools are in the manufacturer's software varies.

Like Kathy, I shoot in RAW+JPEG mode. I usually use the JPEGs, but every once in a while I get the exposure wrong and blow out my highlights and I'm really glad I have the RAW. The edits that you can do better on RAW files than on JPEGs are recovering highlights, significantly changing white balance, significantly lightening the shadows, and noise reduction. For minor adjustments, most people wouldn't be able to see a difference between the JPEG and RAW file.

-Colleen
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Colleen is perfectly right too.

She only forgot that ACR is not the only Raw Converter, there are many different, for Macs and for Windows, they convert differently according to the different cameras but also depending of photographers skills and choices…
Fortunately they all have a demo version that you may download for try before buy…

Though I use PS since V1.5… (wow, this doesn't make me young! lol) there are other software less expensive around, just post and ask, many OPFers do use alternatives to PS…

Best wishes and welcome into the beautifull world of raw…
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Canon

As a Canon user, I find that Digital Photo Professional and Canon ZoomBrowser are great tools for RAW; Not to say I don't also use CS3, but when I want to use an easy program that lets me make adjustments on the computer as if I were using the camera very simple! I am still learning PS (maybe it's a long ongoing lesson) but it's got an easy learning curve - ymmv!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Colleen is modest and as a consequence she forgot to mention about her company, Bibble, which makes highly regarded RAW processing software. She BTW, is somewhat of a whizz!

Asher
 
D

Diane Fields

New member
I would mention that many don't use RAW just for/as insurance but rather as their negative and process them just as they would in a darkroom. There are many benefits to using RAW. Jpegs are basically 'cooked' in the camera according to the camera's setup--with the RAW file you can process as you choose--not Canon or Nikon or whoever LOL.

And--yes, as Nicolas says, lots of different RAW converters. Many Canon folks like DPP which will come with your camera if you are buying a Canon. If a Nikon, then they have their own RAW converter plus there are a number of other 3rd party converters--including the RAW engines in Photoshop and Lightroom (same RAW engine).

Good luck---and welcome to the forum.

Diane
 
C

Colleen Vermillion

pro member
Asher Kelman said:
Colleen is modest and as a consequence she forgot to mention about her company, Bibble, which makes highly regarded RAW processing software. She BTW, is somewhat of a whizz!
Click to expand...

Thanks Asher, you're going to make me blush :)

It's not so much modesty as trying to to overwhelm Melinda before she's even shot her first RAW. Since we're going to toss you into the deep end Melinda, here's a website I think has a lot of good technical information about raw editing, and gives an overview and opinion on all the major converters:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm

I think that you should choose your raw converter the same way you should chose any tool - how well does it do what you want it to do in your hands and still fit your budget. The image quality of the top 10 contenders is pretty close, so it really comes down to personal preference. All of them have trial versions I believe, so when you're ready you should download the trials for the ones that look interesting to you and give them a real work out on your images. I know a number of our customers keep multiple converters around and process different scene types with different converters. That's a bit much for a hobbyist I know. My point is converters vary in how they handle different scene content and camera models, so it is very important to try them out on your images and not to rely too heavily on someone else's comparison using their images.

-Colleen
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonjour Colleen
I completely agree with your above post.

BTW, I have summarized (here) some trials for the new Canon 1Ds3 (results could be different for other camera bodies) files with different RC (Raw Converters), unfortunately Bibble cannot, AFAIK, yet handle these files.
Can you tell when we can try Bibble with these files?
Do your engineers need some raw files to complete their work?
 
D

Diane Fields

New member
Colleen Vermillion said:
Bibble has a version available for public testing that supports the IDs III in our Public Testing forum:
http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/viewforum.php?f=43

We're hoping this iteration is the one we'll release, but if we knew that for certain we wouldn't have to test :)

-Colleen
Click to expand...

I just downloaded the upgrade for Bibble Pro that includes this support--as well as for the G9 which some may be interested in also (and the new Nikon bodies a well). I honestly haven't used Bibble for awhile, but was very pleased with the changes since I had. It looks good Colleen.

Diane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top