Photos taken in RAW setting have to be converted before they can be seen , they can be converted into various formats including common JPEG. Experimenting with the conversion program supplied with my camera I have found that when converted into uncompressed form which results in a picture file size of 37mb that there seems to be little noticeable difference to the eye when compared to the same pic in about 5 mb JPEG. Its seems all the extra bits don't always add much to the noticeable quality.
1
anonymous
What are you doing with the file? Viewing it on a screen? At what magnification?
What camera are you using? What settings?
Are you applying any settings to your raw image?
2
anonymous
Unless viewed at 100% usually you won't see any difference on the screen.
If you apply in-camera settings to a raw file it will took the same as a jpeg.
The difference starts when you start to work with your files, plus that you have the possibilities to go back to the original image.
If you don't do large high quality shots and work on the image to get the best out of it raw might not be for you.
If not do not need the 'least manipulated' image available for you in the long run raw is maybe a waste of time for you.
3
anonymous
In film terms the raw image is the negative. You can always go back to it and use it again. You always have to convert it to use it.
Jpeg is the print as it comes out of the lab.
If you shoot jpeg directly from the camera it is like using a mini-lab. You got little to choose in terms of output and any changes can not be undone
Using raw allows you to go back to the original image at any time and processing is on the computer is the pro-lab that gives you the possibility to adjust the image to its individual needs, as opposed to the fullaauto jpeg-in-camera-lab. And no more way to go back, changes are permanent.
4
turvytopsy
The point of a RAW file is that you're supposed to edit it. The JPG that comes out of your camera is just the RAW file that has been converted automatically into a JPG with some post-processing done in-camera. So, in many cases the RAW will look worse than the JPG, which has been tweaked by the camera. The advantage of the RAW is that you can do your own post-processing rather then relying on the processing that the camera does. This is because the RAW file has much more potential for tweaking, because it is the uncompressed, raw output from the camera's sensor.
5
rockrug
tools and turvy are spot on....RAW is less about IQ and more about the ability to edit.
Brian
6
davelliot
Right , got that and I have been able to enhance and correct pictures using it . But from time to time I see reviews which say something along the lines of ' ..this camera takes very good pictures particularlly in RAW format ' ... or other reviews which state that some cameras do have quality difference between the JPEGs and the RAW.
QUOTE -" The point of a RAW file is that you're supposed to edit it"
-----------------
To be clear I did do this and converted it to uncompressed type file , My point is that even with the much bigger file there wasn't much difference apart from adjustments to the colour , balance etc I made.
7
anonymous
All depends on the jpeg engine of the camera.
You can save a raw file exactly the same in jpeg, the only thing that changes is size of the file, due to compression. As long as the compression level is zero the file will look the same, but will be smaller.
However in many cases there are settings and filters applied when in-camera jpeg conversion is done. Saturation, contrast, sharpening and noise reduction are among those settings and filters being applied.
Now some manufacturers have very good jpeg engines, some not as good.
Some apply more filters, some less. This depends on the camera type as well - compacts typically have more filters applied directly, less manual options.
Certain filters which use a lot of computing power, like noise reduction, are not as good quality wise if done in-camera instead on a computer.
So yes, quality of the jpeg can be different from raw. My little Sony is in that category, the jpeg engine is pretty bad, even at low iso, I would never shoot it in jpeg.
8
davelliot
Right , thanks , but with the supplied Olympus Viewer 2 software for my camera it gives 2 choices of quality for jpeg , the highest quality is about 5 mb . there is no option for zero compression for jpeg with this program.
For uncompressed it gives the option of Bitmap file which it explains is the highest quality. To correct what I said before actually with this file its not 37 mb but 32 .7 mbs. Perhaps the difference in quality would be noticeable if the picture was blown up to big size.
Pro tip
Lonely Planet
trusted partner
trusted partner