RAW and JPG

[karven]

I want to know what is the difference between RAW and JPG  format?

[smack53 · Accepted solution]

Karven,

RAW format is an unprocessed photo. The camera records what it sees according to the settings you use. Sort of a digital negative, this format allows you to recompose the shot by allowing you to change different settings than you would be allowed for a JPEG. All the information captured is recorded and kept, so if you used the wrong white balance for instance, you can correct that readily when you process the RAW file.

JPG (or JPEG) format is a processed photo. The camera uses the settings of the camera and finalizes the photo in the camera for you. There are limited changes you can make to the JPEG since whatever the processing did not use gets discarded. Things such as blown out skies are not as easily recovered as with a RAW image since the details are gone. 

RAW files allow for much greater detail and to look closer to the way you saw the scene and want the finished product to look like. The downside to RAW files is the file is extremely large and cannot be viewed without special software. Canon provides the Digital Photography Professional software to view and convert the RAW files. JPEG's are smaller files and are readily sharable. 

Hope this helps you understand the difference.

Smack53

[ScottyP]

The post above was a very good summary.  RAW is your friend.  You can really get a lot more keepers because RAW is so much more forgiving for post processing tinkering. 

White balance is a particularly good example.  That is something that is hard to nail 100% of the time, even if you are trying.  I find I often forget to even try.  Perhaps some people are perfect at remembering to switch the WB setting when walking from the sun, to the shade, to the indoors, to the clouds, to the fluorescent light, etc., but I am not.  Even when you remember, sometimes the WB is still a little off anyway.  With JPEG there is only so much you can do to fix it.  With RAW it really doesnt matter; you can leave it on AutoWB all the time and then just set your WB in post processing.

If you are using a program like Lightroom, you never even notice you are in RAW because the conversion is basically automatic. 

[Tomsm]

I advise you to read a good and understandable article on this topic: http://www.arcsoft.com/topics/photostudio-darkroom/raw-jpeg.html

[Vetteran]

The latest version of DPP does a better job of converting to jpg than Lightroom and better than the camera's version of jpg.

Try some side-by-side comparisons.

[ebiggs1]

"The latest version of DPP does a better job of converting to jpg than Lightroom ..."

There are always seems to be the two camps.  Photographers that love DPP and those that don't think so much of it.

Of course I am in the camp that think Adobe's ACR 8.4 is much better than Canon's own conversion routine.

Is it true?  I don't know for sure it is a subjective thing at best.  

I try every latest upgrade to DPP and just can not see why anybody likes it.  But one of my best friends loves it and 

even though, he is an outstanding photographer.  To each his own.

[Vetteran]

Correct,  .jpg is the format to use for screen viewing and .tif for printing. 

But take the picture in raw and then convert it to the suitable format.

An external conversion is noticeably better than using the camera's own version of .jpg.

True DPP does not have the myriad of tools that Lightroom has but the conversion

to .jpg by DPP is better. I have a lot of spare time and done much

side-by-side comparison. I recently needed the parallax adjustment available in

Lightroom but saved it as raw and then converted that using DPP. Did both and

the DPP version is superior.

DPP

Lightroom (- did that a week ago when I had assmed that Lightroom would be better.)

[ebiggs1]

I am glad you and he think so highly of DPP. But to state positively it is better is subjective at best.
Of course I have 90+% of the professional field that agrees with me.
You sound alot like my
buddy and that great you both like it so much. I will continue to try each new version and decide on it.
One huge problem is most images wind up in LR or PS anyway. DPP is no LR and not even on the same planet as PS.
Glad to know somebody else likes it at least there are 2 of you out there.
All the best to you
EB

[Vetteran]

You misunderstand. I did not say that DPP is a better program but simply that it converts raw to jpg better. That is not a subjective assessment. Try it, save a cr2 file as jpg using both Lightroom and DPP and see the difference - provided that your monitor is capable of showing the difference. 

[hsbn]

Like Ebiggs said "it's subjective". I've been comparing for years and no it's not better for me. I still do it with every new release of LR and DPP. But like Ebiggs1 said, someone will think Aperture is better, Capture One is better, or DXO is better, etc... there are many RAW conversion software out there :).