Hi, I'm Michael Mistretta, a teenage tech enthusiast, freelancer and new media producer. Welcome to my online home where I write about technology, reviews, and my thoughts and opinions on technology-related matters.
RAW vs JPEG
Dan McCullum just got his first DSLR (congrats!) and DM’d me on twitter asking for my opinion on whether to shoot in RAW or JPEG. If you are completely photo illiterate, I suggest you stop reading this, get a large mug of your favourite drink and start here. Most amateur photographers have probably heard these terms thrown around before, but don’t know which is better for them.
What are they?
Every time you click the shutter, your camera takes a picture and saves it in a file - typically a high-quality JPEG. JPEG compression is a lossy format that throws away the data that you can’t see in order to give you smaller file sizes. RAW on the other hand is lossless. It keeps every piece of data your camera captures - even if you don’t need it. This results in much larger file sizes, and slower write speeds. A RAW file isn’t even technically an image file. It has to be converted by special software on your computer and processed in order to be suitable for print or publishing.
Okay, but I asked what are they?
In essence, RAW and JPEG photos look pretty similar coming off the camera. In some cases, RAW photos can actually look worse as they are not as sharp and contrasty by default, creating the appearance that they are washed out.
So why would someone shoot in RAW if it produces worse shots and takes up more space off the bat?
While I don’t agree with Ken Rockwell’s opinion on this matter, he happens to have a decent analogy for explaining the purpose of RAW:
Cameras all start with raw data and convert this data to JPEG images with hardware in the camera. They then throw away the raw data since it’s no longer needed.
Saving this raw data is exactly like people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles around their house. They know they might need the information sometime, but it sure gets in the way! Other people think they are crazy.
The easiest way to understand why you want to keep the data in your photos is to see some real-world use. I scoured through my Aperture library to find two photos that were atrociously taken (by yours truly) to use as our victims in this experiment.
Example 1: White balance
Yes, that’s me in all my yellow splendor.
This is the photo right out of the camera. I know what you are thinking: horrible white balance. Photo is ruined. Delete. But this photo was shot in RAW, so there is still the original information from the camera saved in this file. Let’s simply tell Aperture to set the white balance from the colour of the shirt - which should be pure white.
After a white balance and a couple contrast and sharpness adjustments, the finished photo looks perfect. No one would have known that I had totally messed up the white balance had I not written this post. I was able to turn this photo from a reject to a rather nice portrait in under a minute.
That’s my secret. Shoot in RAW, and you can fix almost any mistake you make in the camera.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s look at what would have happened if we applied the exact same adjustments to a JPEG version of this image.
Bet you wished you had kept those 20 years of newspapers - you never know when you might need them.
Since the JPEG compression threw away data that you technically couldn’t see, you can’t make very extreme adjustments when editing the photo. All of the original data is lost and the detail in those parts are gone. Photo ruined. Delete.
Example 2: Over-exposed
By now, most of you are thinking that I’m a horrible photographer. There is a reason this photo came out overexposed. In order to blur the car I needed to slow the shutter speed to 1/25 of a second. I closed my aperture to f/22 (the maximum) and set the camera on the lowest light sensitivity (ISO 100), but the image was still going to be overexposed. I had to choose between a normally-exposed capture with no motion blur, or an over-exposed capture with motion blur.
I chose the motion blur. And with a couple adjustments in Aperture I came out with this:
That is the power of shooting in RAW. You can correct things that went wrong in the camera. In this case, I restored data from areas that were totally clipped (pure white) and brought them down to a normal exposure. Again, in order to see how revolutionary this is, you have to see the equivalent JPEG.
While the car and the trees look decent enough, the detail could not be restored from the road or the sky and resulted in turning those areas to pure grey. The photo looks washed out and ‘blah’ compared to the RAW version with the preserved detail
If you want more information on the specifics of RAW and JPEG photography, check out this in-depth post from one of the greatest photo blogs out there - Digital Photography School.
So which one should I use?
There are pros and cons to shooting both RAW and JPEG images. Many people choose to shoot in JPEG because it is a universal format that they can be taken right off the cameras and shared via email or published to the Internet. RAW shooting requires an additional step - and additional software. RAW images need to be processed in a program like Aperture or Lightroom - I prefer Aperture - or even Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop.
If you are not going to bother processing your photos, RAW is not for you. But even if you view photography as a simple hobby, it is worth investing in photo-management software like Aperture or Lightroom that make organizing, keywording, searching, and editing your RAW photos as simple as working with JPEGs. Flash memory and hard drive disk space is cheap enough nowadays that you can save all the data from your photos - especially if they are memories that you want to last forever.
Informative! Now I just need to save up my pennies for an good SLR.
Comment by Andrew Kirchofer — May 21, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Um, you might want to add that Aperture and Lightroom don’t support a ton of RAW formats, like Pentax for example…K110D=Forced to use Camera RAW,
“if you are not going to bother processing your photos, RAW is not for you.” That’s exactly why Ken Rockwell doesn’t use RAW. He takes the photo, makes some extremely minor adjustments if not none, and then posts it or sells it.
Comment by Connor Bevans — May 21, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
@Andrew Kirchofer: There are several point and shoots that shoot RAW, RAW is not exclusive to SLR’s.
@connor bevans: Lightroom does support the K110D. It uses the same back end as camera raw, so if Camera RAW supports it, so does Lightroom. Aperture is generally slower to get new RAW updates, but Lightroom generally supports most new cameras within a few weeks.
I really don’t agree with anything Ken Rockwell says. I’d have to disagree with you Michael, I really dislike his analogy. It’s a pretty poor one. Newspapers take up physical space. RAW files take up more hard drive space. With modern HD’s being so cheap, that’s not a factor for me or most people. The bigger issue is processor usage. The first paragraph of the analogy you quoted is reasonable. Not my favorite, but not wrong. The second is just bad.
You did do a pretty good job on the examples. Just be careful about quoting Ken Rockwell. Quoting Ken Rockwell’s opinion about anything related to photography is similar to quoting George Bush’s opinion about almost anything. The second you say who said it, half your audience is either no longer listening or will disagree with whatever you say.
Comment by Ben Drucker — May 21, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Nice post Michael. Funny thing is, I ended up deciding on RAW before I saw this, going out and shooting some pictures, and then coming back in to find a confirmation. Well done explanation! http://flickr.com/photos/dmdzine
Comment by Dan McCullum — May 21, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
The beginning of your article is misleading on a couple of points:
“Every time you click the shutter, your camera takes a picture and saves it in a file - typically a high-quality JPEG.” True, but not the whole story. Every camera actually records a RAW image. Some point and shoots and all DSLR’s give you the option to save that RAW file to your memory card. The camera may allow you to save a .jpg version of that RAW file also, (RAW .jpg) or instead of (.jpg only). Most point and shoots do not allow you to save your image in a RAW format and automatically save your image as a .jpg file format.
“In essence, RAW and JPEG photos look pretty similar coming off the camera. In some cases, RAW photos can actually look worse as they are not as sharp and contrasty by default, creating the appearance that they are washed out.” This is an incorrect statement! RAW files are just that, the RAW data that came off of your CCD or CMOS sensor. It is a file full of Red, Green, & Blue pixels of varying intensity from black to white. There is no de-mozaicing or any other processing of the image in the camera. A .jpg file has been completely processed by in the camera. The color temperature, exposure, brightness, contrast, tone curve and sharpening have all been baked into the file and it has been reduced from 12 or 14 bits per pixel of data down to 8 and then compressed. None of this processing can be un-done once baked in by the camera. Only minor adjustments can be made to a .jpg file once out of the camera without destroying the image, i.e. blowing out highlights or shadows for instance.
When you view a RAW file in a program such as Adobe Camera RAW, Lightroom or Aperture, the program is using some default settings to process the image so that you can see it. Comparing the default view of a RAW file to an out of camera .jpg has little if no merit. All RAW file processing programs have an auto exposure button that will process the RAW file to look very similar to the out of camera .jpg. The software reads the EXIF tag in your image file to determine what camera shot the image and can then apply processing that mimics what the camera manufacturer does in the camera. This can be done in bulk if desired and takes very little time to do. If you wish to shoot RAW in order to capture and save all of the available image data, but also want the convenience of (little or no post processing), shooting RAW .jpg if your camera will do so or just shooting RAW and applying the auto exposure setting in your software is an optimal solution. It allows you to later go back and re-process the RAW file to achieve a different look, correct a poorly exposed image or to take advantage of better RAW processing tool as they are developed.
The rest of your article is very well written and gives a great explanation of why you want to shoot RAW and what the benefits are. Your example photos are great illustrations. I also like that you disagree with Ken Rockwell
His arguments for shooting .jpg vs RAW do not hold water.
Comment by Jeff H — May 21, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Great post! Definitely making me rethink RAW. I tend to take everything in jpeg, because the camera really does write it to the card faster, but with the amount of pictures that I just can’t quite save, RAW is probably what I should be taking. Thanks a lot!
@thattalldude
Comment by Shawn K — May 21, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
I had a misfortunate event with taking JPG, I was shooting some people inside and it was very dark and I had ISO up to 800 and the shutter speed as slow as I could go with people and the shots came out horrible and I know if I had shot in RAW they would much better.
Comment by rmaspero — May 22, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Jeff H says: “This is an incorrect statement! RAW files are just that, the RAW data that came off of your CCD or CMOS sensor. It is a file full of Red, Green, & Blue pixels of varying intensity from black to white. There is no de-mozaicing or any other processing of the image in the camera.”
Unfortunately, this is not entirely true for all Raw formats. Some Raw’s give you the option for lossless or even lossy (supposedly outside the range of human perception) post-processing in the camera - in fact, some Raw formats (like the NEF from the Nikon D70 I think) give you lossy compression with no option for lossless.
People often make the mistake of thinking that Raw is a format: it’s not, and not all Raw’s are created equal. A Raw format from one manufacturer’s camera may be worse than JPEG from someone else’s, because (of course) not all JPEG is created equally either.
Another mistake is to assume that Raw makes a great archive format. It doesn’t: because there is no standard Raw format (ignoring things like Adobe DNG) it is highly unlikely that all currently-available Raw formats will be supported by future software. Today’s Lightroom might support your format - but will the equivalent software do so in ten or twenty year’s time? JPEG is likely to be supported because of its ubiquity, but various Raw formats won’t be. So even if you’re committed to shooting Raw, make sure you have archives of JPEG as well.
The key thing is that there’s no simple answer to the JPEG versus Raw debate. It depends on the qualities of your camera, your needs (if you do little or no post-processing, Raw is a waste of time) and, to be honest, your own visual acuity. Saying one is always better than the other for everyone is simplifying a very complex issue to the point of absurdity.
Comment by Ian Betteridge — May 22, 2008 @ 6:31 am
Most importantly, RAW takes away the need for you to set dozens of options on your camera. All you have to worry about are Exposure (Aperture & Shutter Speed) and ISO. The rest you can adjust on your computer.
Also, RAW doesn’t let the camera’s processor (or whatever it’s called) process the picture, but lets your computer do the heavy lifting, which obviously will lead to better-quality images.
Comment by Timothy Andrew — May 22, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Great post Michael! Love the photo examples. I usually shoot RAW JPEG…then I have the best of both worlds. I have some quick photos to post if I want, and others that I can process and perfect. Yeah, it takes up more space, but it’s not that big of a deal.
Keep up the good work!
Comment by macpug — May 22, 2008 @ 9:26 am
@Ben Drucker
I understand that, I’m just stuck with a crappy camera right now. Haha!
Comment by Andrew Kirchofer — May 22, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Superb post. Really informative with some great photo examples. I will refer straight back to this whenever I pick up a DSLR.
Comment by Sam — May 22, 2008 @ 10:19 am
I’ve been shooting RAW pretty much ever since I got my Canon Digital Rebel XTi. It’s the best way to go, especially if you have a big memory card (4GB ). With JPEG, the camera can make some mistakes that aren’t modifiable.
Comment by Stephen Chinnadorai — May 22, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Something that might be important (or perhaps obvious to most), but has not been addressed in this discussion. If one is shooting in order to have a hard copy printed….. is the lossy jpeg format capable of providing high enough resolution to satisfy a discerning eye? And if so, is the RAW format’s sole advantage to allow better correction of the image prior to its printing?
Comment by Phil — May 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
JPEGs at high-quality are fine for print work, although many printers will require TIFF, PSDs, or PDFs. The major purpose of RAW is to allow yourself the maximum flexibility when editing an image.
Jeff: I like what you mentioned about the batch processing of RAW images with auto exposure. This ensures that you have images similar to the JPEG processing with very little work - and you are able to retain the flexibility of fine-tuning your images in the future.
Comment by Michael Mistretta — May 22, 2008 @ 11:53 am
You’ve started a whole FriendFeed conversation: http://friendfeed.com/e/3659e748-c40f-3226-7abf-aa453c292af2
Anyway, I shoot nothing but RAW with my Canon G9, except for those times when I need to shoot a fast moving object, or when I’m moving fast; it is a P&S after all, and really slow.
And 90% of the time when I shoot RAW, I’m using manual settings because it is just that much more beneficial. One of the main reasons I got a G9 is because it shoots RAW. RAW is awesome (RAWsome? hmm.. :-P).
I can’t wait to get an XSi
Comment by Nick Humphries — May 22, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Ian, you are correct. Some camera’s, Nikon and a few other manufacturers do compress their RAW files either losslessly or in a lossy format (as does Nikon). Canon, which I am most familiar with, does not compress their RAW files on any of their cameras that I am aware of. Each camera manufacturer as well as often each new camera model from the same manufacturer has a different RAW file format. With the exception of Adobe’s DNG format, there is unfortunately no standard RAW file format. There are in fact some RAW file formats that are not longer supported by the manufacturer’s software. Case in point, I used to own a Canon D30, which was Canon’s very first 3 MP DSLR, body. Canon stopped supporting it’s RAW file format in their RAW procesessing software a couple of years ago. So far, Adobe has been able to and continues to support all known past and present RAW file formats. Unfornatuly this is a significant burdon for Adobe which is one of the reasons, I believe they are proposing the DNG file format as a standard. To date, only a couple of camera manufacturers have adopted the DNG format as an option on their cameras, I’m drawing a blank on which ones, but they are not any of the top maufacturers. I do not see Canon or Nikon adopting the DNG format an time soon, but maybe in the future if there is enough pressure from users or all of their competitors do so they may come around.
Another option that might provide a bit of insurance against RAW format obsolescence is to save your photos as a 16 bit .tiff file. .tiff is an old and well establisned format, which should be around for a long time. This format will allow you the same latitude for adjustments as a RAW file. Most if not all film scanners including the very top of the line drum scanners save their files in a 16 bit .tiff format. .tiff is generally saved as a non compressed file.
Comment by JeffH — May 22, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
The biggest conceptual hurdle to understand here is not to posit one versus the other, as in, ie, I either shoot RAW, OR I shoot JPEG.
1) Firstly, remember that ALL pictures are RAW. Yes, even Jpegs. All images START OUT as RAW, always. When your camera is set to JPEG, it takes a RAW picture, then AUTOMATICALLY makes a JPEG with default, auto settings, and then just SAVES the JPEG. Since this process essentially happens beneath the radar, people think their camera either takes RAW pictures or JPEGS. This is not the case whatsoever. Your camera can ONLY shoot RAW, the only choice is whether you SAVE that original RAW image, of if your camera throws it away, converts it to a JPEG and then just saves the JPEG.
2)Because of point #1, RAW is always, (yes always!), a superior original format (at least in terms of image quality, less so for convenience). JPEG is essentially a second generation format, akin to a copy or a photocopy. Yes, often a very good copy, but a copy nevertheless. So, why is the original RAW always superior to the copy? The reasons are very simple. Firstly, as noted above, its more versatile, in that you can change and/or correct many things at the RAW stage that have already been processed for, sometimes wrongly, if its a JPEG. But, and more importantly, its just simply:
3) the HUMAN factor. A RAW image can be processed later by a human being. A JPEG cant. Its already BEEN processed by your camera. It’s all done AUTOMATICALLY, much like a TV dinner. RAW is like a home cooked meal, you can change the recipe to suit the meal, whereas a TV dinner is always the same. If you shoot only JPEG, then you must convince yourself that every single image you shoot somehow only requires the EXACT same processing settings (highly naive), or , that somehow your unintelligent camera, can, in the blink of an eye, and more expertly, PROCESS your (originally RAW) files than a human being ever could. Neither of which is true. If you think your JPEGS look just as good or better than your processed RAWS, that just means that you, the human operator, hasnt learned how to properly develop those RAWS better than your camera (yet). And trust me, we’re not dealing with Skynet here. Processing RAWS is an art. Now if you dont want to bother to learn that art, then fine, just shoot JPEG, and make your life easier. But dont be intellectually dishonest; admit to yourself that you are saving only photocopies of the RAW pictures you’re actually taking. Admit that you are sacrificing quality for convenience.
People who say they shoot JPEG for convenience I respect. Those who say they do so for quality dont know what they’re talking about, or why. Most people wrongly think that its the “lossy” aspect of JPEG thats the problem, when its really more the fact that its a “photocopy” thats more the real issue. In fact, there is even a “lossy” form of RAW, called compressed RAW. But its still superior to JPEG, because at least its a lossy original, not a lossy copy, like JPEG.
Comment by John D'Agostino — May 22, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
BTW, thanks for the plug!
Comment by Dan McCullum — May 25, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Wow, some people get really hot under the collar about this stuff. I shoot Raw, and I shoot JPEG. I like both for various reasons. Hell, I shoot RAW JPEG sometimes. People had to make choices whether to shoot slide film or print…..I don’t ever remember people arguing about it. However, one thing to keep in mind, is that real photographers look at pictures, and they enjoy talking about the “art” aspect not the “technological” aspect. So, John, after you’ve finished your Hungry Man by Swanson dinner, maybe sit down with a nice glass of Red and a book of pictures and enjoy yourself. Photography shouldn’t be invoking such strong feelings from you, you sound like you need to mellow out, and worry about your own pictures rather than what everybody else does. Who cares what format I shoot in? When it’s hanging on the wall at 20X30″ and looks all nice, everything else is irrelevant. By the way, one thing I would like to clear up, is that professionals, like me, do not get asked what format we shot in by their agencies. Agencies typically ask for an 8-bit flattened TIFF. They could careless whether it was shot in Raw or Jpeg. So aspiring pros, shoot whatever format helps you make better pictures.
Comment by Mike — June 5, 2008 @ 8:54 pm