Raw Vs jpegs

Photoshop, RAW converters and photo management? Editing movie clips? Discuss it all here!

Moderators: Bob Andersson, Thomas, Bjorn van Sinttruije

Raw Vs jpegs

Postby jgcparker46 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:10 pm

hi guys and girls.

as you can see my gear below. im always taking pictures(well trying) of my 2 kids. with the ambition to have the picture blown up on to a canvas approx 4ft square to fill a large empty wall.

am i right saying shooting in jpeg is not the best for this.

i am shooting in raw at the moment. is that right?

im confused as to what the difference is other than file size..... and how big i can print it. jpeg wont blow up as big as raw.

am i right?

any advice to help me ?

i keep getting told different things n i dont no whats right or wrong.

will be using raw have an effect on my pictures at all ? brightness..... contrast....sharpness...


thanks
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200
jgcparker46
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby maxjj » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:18 pm

Hi
your camera has settings for the size of files you want to produce. If both jpg`s and your raw files are set to max in your menu the pictures will be the same size. Ie the size of your sensor.
The 24 MP`s of your D3200, means resolution of 6016 x 4000 , it can produce big pictures.

At 300 pixels per inch you can produce really top quality prints, but 150-200 dpi is more than sufficient for most purpose in particular if you stand back a bit.
More importantly than dpi and MP is your photo sharp ( sufficient shutter speed to prevent motion blur ) and in focus.


raw vs jpg is an ongoing debate. the camera will process jpg`s and apply some saturation, sharpness, contrast and auto white balance depending on what you have selected in your menu system, in what picture style. It throws away the rest of the information.

RAW files have nothing applied, its up to you to use programs such as Lightroom to add saturation, contrast etc. This allows you to take things further than you can with jpg. You can fix over exposure and underexposure more and its easier to recreate what you want from the picture by sitting on your desk moving a few sliders than taking half a dozen shots with various in camera settings.

Personally I try and get things right when I take a photo, aside from framing, picking aperture, shutter speed, awb I think about what sort of jpg I want the camera to produce. But I still shoot both jpg`s and raw , as I can improve things or push things further with the raw file as I am dealing with the original information. My wife just looks at jpg`s and for most things they are perfectly fine.
If you have a good jpg , its still a good jpg. I am also lazy or more importantly got better things to do than spending hours processing happy snapshots.

Its a bit of a learning curve using things like lightroom to process photos and I can now get through a large amount of photos pretty quick, unless I really want to adjust something major, but it does take a bit of an effort to learn.
You can of course also adjust jpg is lightroom and adjust many aspects, its just that with raw files you can take it further and you have a bit more room to play with.
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic
User avatar
maxjj
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Location: bit east of Melbourne

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby jgcparker46 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:31 pm

thanks


i think ill give lightroom a try... see if i can get the hang of it ..
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200
jgcparker46
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby Maestro » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:31 am

IMO you would do better to shoot two images in portrait orientation and stitch them together to give you a 3 foot high* by 4 foot wide print. (Or maybe don't even stitch them together; just print two separate sections/panels, so essentially a diptych.) I say this because, as maxjj noted:

"At 300 pixels per inch you can produce really top quality prints, but 150-200 dpi is more than sufficient for most purpose in particular if you stand back a bit."

But your 6016x4000 resolution is way under that for a 4 foot square print (particularly height-wise). Even in portrait orientation, 6016 rows/pixels falls short of even the lowest 150 dpi recommendation. (4 feet X 12 inches per foot X 150 dpi = 7200)

Ideally/hopefully, you can find a professional print house near you that can process Nikon RAW files, then all you would have to do is shoot the pics and give them the memory card (or maybe even just email them the RAW files). Then let them worry about the processing. (I'm assuming that any professional print house would send you a proof to approve before printing the actual image.)

Mark

*As a bonus, limiting one dimension to 3 feet could save you some money since large format printers often jump from 44 inches to 60 inches. i.e. to print 48 inches, you'd likely have to use a 60 inch wide printer (and paper).
Maestro
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby jgcparker46 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:09 am

Mark.
I understand everything u said. The maths has to add up.
6016x4000- does that only apply to jpegs then. And raw is bigger but in a different format?

Sorry if im sounding dumb.
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200
jgcparker46
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby jgcparker46 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:44 am

i found this on the net. is this quite accurate in dumb(me) guy terms?


If you’re shooting in jpeg and you hit the shutter to let all the beautiful light flood your sensor and record the image onto your memory card, the camera collects the information and quickly compresses it down into a reasonably sized file. It judges things like the colour of the sky and the temperature of the lig

ht. Even when you’ve taken the image in manual mode and set everything yourself, the jpeg still needs to make some decisions as it smooshes all that information into one little file.
But if you shoot in raw, the sensor stays hands-off and says “ok, hot shot. YOU deal with it!”
…this means that you have total, blissful control of your entire image.
…but not without some work of your own.
RAW files need to be imported into a computer program like Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw and then either instantly exported as jpegs (yikes!)
…or perfected according to your vision for the image with editing and then exported as a jpg or other printer-friendly format.
So just to make sure you get it I’ll say it this way: a raw file isn’t an image. It’s information gathered by the sensor and delivered to you on a memory card. It’s totally your job to then do what you want with that information before compressing it into an ‘image’.
Also, a raw file won’t usually have included the in-camera sharpening that jpeg compression provides. So don’t fret when you think your image isn’t as sharp as it should be – this also needs to be done by you in the post production editing process.


http://digital-photography-school.com/t ... arn-things
Please comment on my posts-The feedback can only make me get better !

Nikkon D3200
Nikkon 35mm af-s 1.8G
Sigma 70-300mm DG
Nikkon 18-55mm 3.5-5.G

JPD3200
jgcparker46
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:09 pm

Re: Raw Vs jpegs

Postby Maestro » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:07 am

jgcparker46 wrote:6016x4000- does that only apply to jpegs then. And raw is bigger but in a different format?

No. 6016x4000 is the native/physical/maximum resolution of the imaging sensor array in the D3200. (Basically, there are 4000 rows of photosites -- light absorbing sensors -- with 6016 photosites in each row, or vice-versa in portrait orientation.)

The difference between jpeg and RAW is sort of like:

if you took a picture with the lens cap on, jpeg would say, "all the photosites are black"; whereas RAW would say, "the photosite in row 1, column 1 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 2 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 3 is black ... and the photosite in row 4000, column 6016 is black."

So for a picture like that, the jpeg file would be much smaller.

The downside (for sharpness/detail) comes in when you instead, for example, take a picture of a black wall where you have slight variations in blackness.

So in this case, the jpeg file might say, "the photosites in row 1, columns 1-5 are all black"; whereas RAW file might say, "the photosite in row 1, column 1 is black, and the photosite in row 1, column 2 is just a tiny bit lighter than black, and the photosite in row 1, column 3 is black, and the photosite in row 1 column 4 is a tiny bit lighter than black, and the photosite in row 1 column 5 is black..."

So while the jpeg file would again be smaller, it wouldn't have all the detail of the RAW file.

Now, when viewing the picture of the wall shrunk down on a computer monitor, you probably wouldn't be able to see a difference. But if you were to blow that picture back up to wall-size, you might be able to see details in the RAW image that aren't present in the jpeg.

There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell... - Mark
Maestro
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am


Return to Imaging and Video Editing Software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest