Gosnap Photography Forums Tutorials Reviews Photos: Raw vs jpg

Raw vs jpg
================================================================================
Si on 15 January, 2008 03:02:00
 
We all face the dilemma at some point in shooting raw or jpg
I've tried to closely match what is achievable with raw and jpg with images
below. This is not exact, but I think it clearly shows the difference between an
untouched raw file to one that has been processed to fix faults and enhance the
image, and It also shows you the difference between a processed raw file an
emulated version of post processing of a jpg.
What you need to remember is that a raw file has had no on board camera
processing or compression, so the raw file is at 100% quality and allows you
more control in processing the photo. It will be larger in size, which means,
like for like with raw and jpg you'll get less raw files on your memory card as
opposed to jpg.
A jpg is a compressed file that the camera will apply certain settings too,
such as contrast, colour balance, white balance, so in effect, your camera is
deciding how the photo should look. Even though you still have a lot of control
in post processing, it is very limited in comparison to raw.
Please see the example photos below to get a better idea of what I'm trying to
explain.
Raw file (straight from the camera, but compressed to place
it on the internet as raw files are not recognised and will not display)
Compressed jpg on the left to try emulate the same processing done with the raw
file below. Processed raw on the right.
On the jpg, (left) you can see I've not been able to fully recover the
underexposed areas, also the highlighted areas have gone a brownish colour
rather than white seen in the raw file (right). Also on the left of the label on
the jpg file, you can see the white area is burnt out to the point where detail
is lost, but on the raw file you can see I have produced much better highlighted
areas than the jpg and not burnt any details either.