The question as to which format to use has been an ongoing battle for many photographers for some time. It has just about been twenty years since I switched over from film to digital and the pros and cons continue to change. Some differences continue to be true while others have faded into oblivion. As you can see in the above pictures, the left image was taken from a RAW file and the right from a JPEG file. In case if you are wondering if there was any difference in the actual capture, I used a dual capture mode on a Nikon D750 that produced two files; one RAW and one JPEG.
Both images were adjusted in post, the RAW image using Adobe's digital raw software included in Photoshop CC and the JPEG using the Photoshop application itself. I applied the various filters as I normally would for each file.
1. Raw does not use compression (some raw files may be compressed to produce smaller files). The image below is a closeup of the fisherman on the dock; the left from the RAW and the right from the JPEG. If you look closely at them you can see that the RAW image is cleaner and more accurately represents the image while the JPEG shows mild artifacts. In truth, the artifacts produced on a large file from minimal a 4:1 compression scheme (usually the fine setting) are minimal and hardly worth discussing. Higher compression ratios will cause significantly more artifacts and should be avoided if possible for creating original images.
2. File size. You can see there is a significant difference between file sizes. The RAW image is 23.5 megabytes while the JPEG is 4.92 megabytes. The RAW image takes up 4.77 times (477%) more space than the JPEG. If memory is at a premium RAW images will be more of an issue. A one TB (terabyte) disc can hold approximately 42,500 RAW images of this size while it could hold over 202,000 JPEGS. A 16 GB memory card could hold 680 RAW images and about 3,250 JPEGS. With memory being so inexpensive these days this ends up not being a huge issue. I have over 10 TB of storage on my computer and use memory cards that are 128 GB in size.
3. Compatability. This has always been the greatest obstacle to the photographer using RAW images; they have not been available to work on them or even view them unless the corresponding software has been installed. Recently, Microsoft added support to Windows 10 machines that allow the ability to view thumbnails and metadata for RAW images. If your machine lacks the ability, you can access it through this website (for Canada click
here and for the US click
here). If you have a newer Mac device you can read about accessing RAW files
here. There are a host of applications that will allow you to view and work on RAW images. If you are looking for a free RAW editor, click
here. JPEGs are, of course, a filetype that is accessible by any device on the planet. That's one of the things that makes them so incredibly appealing.
4. Dynamic range. RAW's greatest advantage is in its ability to capture details in areas that JPEGS cannot. This feature is especially potent in shadows; highlights have some recovery ability but are not nearly as robust. In looking at the two original images, you can see details in the rocks from the RAW image where the JPEG shows mostly dark values. The houses across the bay are close to being blown out; JPEGS and RAW imaging technology both are challenged by blown-out highlights. Examine the image below carefully. The highlights come across a bit better in RAW. The shadows are significantly better using the RAW file.
5. Workflow. Most people don't alter the image parameters used when creating a JPEG. The digital camera comes with the ability to manipulate features like sharpness, contrast, hue, saturation, and so on. You can also set white balance in-camera and exposure compensation to ensure proper settings for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. All these have to be done
before the photo is taken. This is usually not too much of a problem if all the photos being taken are done in a similar environment and time-frame. Making these adjustments in post lacks the level of exactness some may desire; for that reason, RAW images tend to be preferred. A RAW image can be easily adjusted in post when opening the file in a program with suitable controls. Photoshop CC and CS offer these. The advantage here is those parameters can be altered
after the shot is taken. Each individual photo can have those parameters adjusted according to that file's particular need instead of having a cart-blanch option used. JPEGS, then, tend to be much easier to work with but lack the fine level of control open to RAW images. Creators of JPEGS tend not to use the camera features even though they exist. When a RAW file is open it takes time and experience to adjust those parameters, but the end result is superior. Longer processing time, better results.
Conclusion. People tend to use JPEGs because the process is easy and images can be viewed anywhere. The files are smaller and require less post-editing manipulation. RAW files are large and require considerable alteration in post. The image quality is superior in just about every way. The main difference tends to be how much time and resources the shooter wants to devote to producing an image. Professionals and advanced amateurs tend to rely on RAW files while just about everyone else happily produces JPEGs. Although a RAW image can be better than a JPEG with the proper input, most people find the difference is not worth the effort. In the end, it is up to the user. Chances are though, that if you are serious about learning photography, you will eventually be creating RAW images.
Thanks for reading.
Ericspix Eric Svendsen
Comments
Post a Comment