Differences between RAW and JPEG in photography

I know a lot of beginner photographers who shoot in RAW and don’t know why they do it. To the question: “Why?” - you get the answer: “What are you talking about, this is cool! All the Great Photographers of our time take pictures in RAW!” Okay, if you think so too, then this article is just for you.

So, let’s imagine that you just bought a camera, found how to change the format and immediately went to Google, or went to your friends, to find out which format is better to take pictures in...

If you don’t know what format to take pictures in, definitely take pictures in JPEG.

Why? – You will understand as we go through this article.

JPEG(or JPG) is the most popular format for viewing images today. It is read everywhere, right down to your mobile phone. Any digital camera takes photographs in JPEG format, the reason is simple: JPG provides excellent quality with minimal time spent on processing it.

RAW(from English raw – raw) is a file containing raw data directly from the matrix. Suitable for further processing and adjustment.

Here's exactly how it all happens:

RAW is a paradise for designers, a format designed for further processing and adjustments. You can work with it long and tediously (within certain limits), change brightness, contrast, and most importantly, all the changes you make will not significantly affect the loss of image quality. Essentially, you can change all the values ​​you set on your digital camera before shooting.

Main disadvantages of RAW:

1) since the “raw” format weighs many times more than JPEG, you will never have enough space to store it.

2) you still have to convert RAW to JPEG to print it or show it to friends.

3) time = money for a photographer, and working with RAW will take you a lot of time, both in processing and converting.

4) different manufacturers of digital photographic equipment have their own standards and settings for RAW files (this can be seen from the resolutions of RAW files, for example: Nikon.NEF, Canon.CRW, Sony.ARW), naturally because of this there is a lot of software for editing RAW files, the main problem is that in different editors, the same RAW will look different.

Beloved by everyone and read everywhere. A JPEG is created from the same RAW file, and all your settings on the camera are used, such as color settings, which you will not be able to significantly change during processing.

JPEG uses different levels of compression. On the camera you can see JPEG Basic, JPEG Normal And JPEG Fine. The better the JPEG quality, the larger the file weighs. Which to choose? It is purely your decision what is more important to you – quality or space on the memory card. Personally, I take pictures in JPEG Normal, because... The difference in quality between Fine and Normal is almost negligible, and JPEG Fine weighs twice as much. I advise you to experiment before choosing.

5) The rate of fire in RAW is significantly lower due to the processing of larger files, which results in loss of momentum, which is unforgivable for a reporter!

RAW+JPEG

Surely, if you delved into the camera format settings, you came across the RAW+JPEG option. In this case, the camera creates two files: RAW and JPEG.

The plus is that in the end you get both, the minus is that it requires even more space and time. And time is money. In addition, if you do not clean up your disk space, you will accumulate mountains of unnecessary duplicates that you will be sorry to delete... This situation reminds me of how old grandmothers cherish all the issues of newspapers over the past 10 years, with the hope that at least someday take a look at them.

conclusions

If you don’t know what to take pictures in, definitely take pictures in JPEG.

If you're a designer, shoot in RAW.

If you take dozens of identical photos of the same subject and then choose one, shoot in JPEG. At the same time, if you take one photo instead of dozens, take photos in RAW.

Evaluate what you like and what you are going to earn from, if you are going to become a photo reporter - get used to doing everything quickly and at once, learn how to set up the camera correctly. If you want to spend more time in front of the monitor than in front of the camera, shoot in RAW and learn Photoshop.

All DSLR cameras can save images in at least two formats. JPEG is the most common format. Such files can be easily read by almost any electronic device. Fewer people are familiar with the RAW format, but it provides much more editing options. Some cameras can also save images in TIFF format, this is a kind of intermediate link.

JPEG and RAW images have different sizes. Moreover, the difference is sometimes colossal. This alone suggests that much more information is stored in the RAW file. Large volume used to be considered a serious disadvantage. But now the situation has changed, as memory cards of 32 and 64 GB have appeared on sale. Some cameras are equipped with two memory card slots, so the amount of disk space can be increased to incredible amounts. RAW format files weigh 20-30 MB. It's easy to calculate how many of them will fit on a pair of 32 GB cards.

JPEG The file owes its weight to special compression algorithms. When saving, the camera cuts off a huge amount of information, some of which would be useful in the future when editing the image. In theory, the photo can then be corrected. But in any case this will lead to some deterioration in quality, not to mention the fact that sophisticated methods have to be used for correction.

JPEG images are only good for their simplicity. They can be easily opened on a tablet, smartphone, computer, game console... Nowadays it is simply impossible to count the number of devices that support viewing JPEG images. Also, these are the images that should be sent to the Internet on your website or social network.

Concerning RAW-format, then it is very specific. To display an image recorded in RAW, decent hardware resources are required. Because of this alone, such files cannot be displayed on a mobile phone (let’s leave smartphones with multi-core processors out of the equation). In a RAW file, you can work with the data received by the camera matrix. Technically, this is not the final image yet, but only “raw” data. The user can easily change the white balance - this will not lead to a deterioration in quality. Many other parameters can be adjusted without much loss.

If you saved the photo in RAW format, then you don’t have to worry about its future. If a mistake is made while shooting, it can be corrected later. For example, this applies to shooting in bright sunlight. In the viewfinder window, it is easy to miss that some areas of the frame have faded into white due to the long exposure. In a JPEG image, there is nothing you can do about this; no matter what adjustments you make, the white color will remain that way. A RAW image contains more data. Almost certainly, a special converter can find out what color the matrix initially received in a given exposed area. This way you can make the photo darker in certain areas without any loss. He will immediately become more beautiful. This is why all professional photographers prefer to save images in RAW format.

Even on a computer, you will need a special program to view such photos. It usually comes on a CD with your DSLR camera. The converter can also be downloaded from the camera manufacturer’s website. Such applications were created primarily for novice users. Therefore, the interface is designed in an intuitive way. On the left side of the window there is a photo, on the right there are various sliders for adjusting certain parameters. Sometimes such programs are even equipped with an “Auto” button. Pressing it allows you to automatically change various settings so that the exposure is correct.

If you regularly use Adobe Photoshop, you can use this too. This graphics editor includes a separate converter called Adobe Camera RAW. With it you can adjust even more parameters. If you learn how to work with this converter, you can work real miracles with your photos.

The Adobe Camera RAW interface is also not intimidating to a beginner. Here you can easily change the white balance or make exposure compensation. There are many brightness settings available, there is a histogram and a digital noise scale. You can change absolutely everything in this program, including correcting chromatic aberrations caused by poor-quality optics. When you do this, you are working with the data provided by the matrix rather than the compressed JPEG file. Therefore, all changes have almost no effect on image quality.

0

If you shoot with a digital camera (oh well... since you are reading this blog, it means you know how to use the Internet and other benefits of civilization, that means you are a normal modern person, then... why this “if” - you definitely shoot with a digital camera)... So Now, since you shoot on a digital camera, you definitely faced the question of whether to shoot in RAW or JPG. And it is precisely this question that we will answer in our short article.

First of all, RAW and JPG are different formats created for different purposes. And each of them has its own pros and cons. The most important thing is to understand whether you really need the capabilities that RAW provides, or is the simplicity and compatibility of JPG more important to you?

To do this, we compare all the strengths and weaknesses of each format. So.

.JPG

The main task of the JPG format is to convey the highest quality image with minimal memory consumption. This is where all of its shortcomings come from, but also its advantages:

Bottom line

JPG is the ideal format for those who value simplicity and ease of use. You can take photos and send them straight to print in a darkroom or on your home printer. Having copied them to your computer, you can immediately send them to your friends on the Internet. They take up little space on a flash card and you will always have enough JPG to print a 10x15 or 15x20 photo in good quality.

If you need to shoot a large volume of photos (500, 1000, 1500 frames) and you don’t have time to process all these photos in a RAW converter, choose JPG, because that’s what it was created for.

.RAW

The RAW format is “raw”, i.e. it requires subsequent conversion to JPG or TIFF. The fact is that when shooting in RAW, all information from the camera’s matrix is ​​saved into the photo file. It is thanks to this “rawness” that we have extensive processing capabilities, but also all the inconveniences associated with converting files.

Bottom line

The RAW format is used by all professional photographers and photo artists. For them, the processing capabilities and picture quality that RAW provides are a necessity. If you're a serious photographer, interested in working with color, or want to print photos in large formats, try shooting in RAW.

P donkey WITH fishing
In any dispute, a compromise can be found. And the dispute between formats is no exception, because you can always enable the function of simultaneous shooting in both RAW and JPG on your camera. This will, of course, require more space on the memory card, but you will be able to use the strengths of both formats.

How to ensure high-quality color rendition - this question probably concerns every photographer. You can adjust color rendering in two ways:

• Shoot in JPEG format and use camera settings - white balance, saturation, brightness, image contrast
• Shoot in RAW format (if the device allows this) and adjust color rendition when processing photos on a PC

Both of these methods have their pros and cons, I will try to briefly talk about them. But before we start practicing, let's first determine what the difference is between JPEG and RAW formats.

JPEG format

The format got its name from the acronym Joint Photographic Experts Group, the organization that created this format. JPEG is by far the most popular photo storage format, so all cameras without exception can save images in this format, and all picture and video playback devices (personal computers of all types, media, DVD, BlueRay players, digital photo frames and other devices ) are able to read this format and reproduce the image on the screen. Compatibility with a large number of playback devices is the main advantage of the JPEG format. In addition, JPEG files are moderate in size compared to other graphic formats - BMP, TIFF.

However, JPEG also has disadvantages. When encoding a picture into the JPEG format, data compression occurs, as a result of which some of the data is lost. With a high degree of compression, the quality of the image seriously suffers; so-called artifacts are visible on it, that is, distortions caused by the loss of too much information during compression.

The picture, I think, needs no comment.

Of course, the camera has several levels of image quality, for example, standard (standard, normal), good (good), best (fine, superfine). In standard quality, the photos are of a moderate size (a lot of photos fit on a flash drive), but in some cases artifacts may be noticeable in the photos. Photos with a lot of fine details are most susceptible to deterioration in quality - in this case, compression can significantly degrade the detail of the image.

Photos taken in the best quality have a larger size in megabytes; fewer images fit on a flash drive, but the detail on them is noticeably better. When asked what quality is best to shoot in JPEG format, I definitely recommend using the best quality. Flash drives and hard drives are not so expensive that you can skimp on photo quality. Photos taken at "standard" quality may look good on a computer screen, but even with minor processing you may be disappointed.

If we're talking about detail when shooting in JPEG, we can't help but mention setting the photo resolution. If the device has a resolution of, for example, 12 megapixels, then its maximum image resolution is approximately 4000 * 3000 pixels (this is enough to print 30 * 45 cm). However, you can change the resolution of photos in the image quality settings. Typically, settings are marked with letters:

• S (English small - small)- the smallest resolution, which is barely enough to print 10*15 cm. As a rule, it corresponds to 2-3 megapixels.
• M (English: medium)- average resolution. Photo resolution can vary from 5 to 10 megapixels, which corresponds to a print format of 20*30 cm.
• L (eng. large - large)- maximum resolution corresponding to the matrix resolution in megapixels. Modern devices have up to 36 megapixels, print format is up to 90*60 cm.

The ability to print photographs on huge canvases is a dubious advantage for the average amateur photographer. However, by saving photographs at the highest possible resolution, we gain additional opportunities to crop the image without visible loss of print quality. This is the decisive factor in favor of L mode, in which photos are saved to a flash drive with maximum resolution.

So, in order to get the maximum resolution combined with the best detail, in the photo quality settings we select the mode - maximum resolution (L) with minimum compression (best, superfine).

Sometimes pictograms are used instead of a verbal description of the compression level. Here is an example of the quality selection menu for a Canon DSLR. For now we look only at the left column:

We see that in front of the letters L, M, S there are icons with a smooth left edge and a stepped one. A pictogram with a smooth edge corresponds to less compression, and with a stepped edge - more. In the right column there are different options for shooting in RAW format, which will be discussed below.

Setting the quality and compression ratio is only half the battle... Now you need to make a number of adjustments to ensure the best color reproduction. Color rendering is adjusted in two stages:

1. Setting White Balance
2. Adjusting image parameters - contrast, saturation, sharpness.

White balance

You've probably noticed that different light sources have different color shades. A candle gives yellow light, the setting sun gives reddish light, a fluorescent lamp gives bluish light. Our eyes and brain are designed in such a way that, under almost any conditions, a sheet of white paper will be perceived as white - even if it is illuminated on one side by a candle and on the other by a fluorescent lamp. The brain will "force" itself to tell itself that the eyes see a white object because it knows that the paper is white.

Unfortunately, this number will not work with the camera matrix. The camera does not know what color objects we are familiar with are, so in unusual lighting conditions significant color distortion is possible. The most typical example is when shooting without a flash in a room lit by incandescent lamps, the photographs often turn yellow.

To avoid such color distortion, it is in our power to “help” the camera decide which of the objects should be “considered” white. This is done using the white balance function.

The easiest way to set white balance is to select one of the preset programs. As a rule, the camera has several presets. Usually they are as follows:

• Sunny
• Mainly cloudy
• Sunset Dawn
• Incandescent lamp
• Fluorescent Lamp
• Flash
• Custom White Balance

In auto white balance mode, the camera itself tries to determine the type of light source and adjust the color rendition accordingly. Most often he succeeds, but you should not rely 100% on this function. She especially likes to make mistakes in mixed lighting, for example - an incandescent lamp is on in the room (yellowish tint), and daylight (bluish tint) comes in from the window. In this case, no one will protect against the appearance of yellow, or, conversely, blue faces in the photograph.

This photo shows how Auto White Balance fails in mixed lighting. To avoid such errors, in some cases it is necessary to forcefully set the white balance in accordance with the prevailing type of lighting. In this case, setting the white balance to “incandescent” would help. The landscape outside the window would turn a little blue, but the yellowness in the foreground would disappear, making the color rendition closer to reality. Of course, there is a way out - each time set the white balance in accordance with the source of the main lighting. We entered a room illuminated by incandescent lamps and set the white balance to "incandescent lamp". We went outside and set it to “sunny” or “cloudy” depending on the weather.

In cases with mixed lighting, when there is light from a window on one side and light from a lamp on the other, a flash often helps. If it has sufficient power, it can “crush” other light sources and illuminate the scene being filmed with uniform light. In this case, the white balance must be set to either “flash” or “auto” (when the flash is turned on, the device itself will determine it as the main type of light source). The best results are achieved when using an external flash, but for amateur “household” photography, in most cases the built-in flash is sufficient.

Manual (custom) white balance

Although the preset white balance modes cover most frequently used lighting sources, there are situations when none of the proposed modes are suitable. Take, for example, an incandescent lamp. Powerful lamps (75-100 W) produce light that is closer to white, while weak lamps (25-40 W) have a yellowish tint. A special case is energy-saving lamps, especially cheap ones, whose spectrum is such that even the human eye is sometimes unable to adequately assess the color picture.

Some devices have the ability to fine-tune the white balance relative to the preset one, however, in order to optimally adjust the color rendition for given lighting conditions, you need to take several frames with different settings and select the setting with which the color rendition is as close as possible to reality. This takes a long time and is not always effective, since you have to focus on the image displayed on the LCD screen, the color rendition of which is not always ideal.

It is much easier to use the “manual white balance” function. To do this, you need to photograph some white object (or just a sheet of white paper), and then point this photograph to the camera as a sample by which to set the white balance. I don’t see any point in describing in detail how this is done - different devices have their own sequence of actions, so I recommend using the instructions, everything is described there step by step specifically for your device.

Most cameras can save one or more custom white balance settings. If you regularly have to photograph under specific lighting, it makes sense to save the white balance setting so that you don’t have to worry about photographing a white sheet later.

To illustrate the capabilities of manual white balance, I propose to compare the color rendition in two photographs:

Automatic BB

Manual BB (the white jacket of the left character was used as a white sample)

The result is noticeable - in the first case the photo turned yellow, in the second the color rendition is close to reality.

Setting the Picture Style

The “picture style” function is probably found in all cameras. With its help, you can adjust the brightness, contrast, color saturation, picture clarity, and also “force” the device to shoot in b/w or sepia mode.

As a rule, the device already has a set of preset image styles - landscape, portrait, natural tones, accurate tones, and so on, as well as several “empty” cells for custom settings. Here is an example of the menu item “selecting a picture style for a Canon EOS 5D camera:

All presets are a combination of parameters:

• sharpness
• contrast
• saturation
• tone color

It’s somewhat reminiscent of the picture adjustment function on a TV :) With contrast, saturation and tone color, I think everything is clear. Sharpness refers to software “enhancing” the contours of objects, due to which the picture will appear sharper. The key word is "seem". In fact, software sharpening does not increase the detail of the photo. If the object in the photograph is slightly blurry initially (out of focus, or the lens could not capture all its nuances), no software algorithm will be able to “invent” the missing details. You shouldn't turn the sharpness control all the way up in hopes of improving the quality of the photo.

As you can see, setting up your camera to shoot JPEGs to get the best results is not as easy as it might seem at first glance. This is precisely the main disadvantage of JPEG over another format - RAW - which will be discussed further...

RAW format

Why do you need the RAW format and why is it better than the JPEG format?

The format got its name from the English word "raw", which means "raw, unprocessed". In principle, this is quite consistent with the essence of the matter. When using the RAW format, the signal captured from the matrix is ​​written as a file to a flash drive (the file extension may differ for different cameras). The camera does not do any processing, allowing the user to process the information on a PC using a special program - a RAW converter. This gives a huge advantage - the photographer does not need to worry about white balance, brightness, contrast, saturation of the image - all this can be adjusted later on a good monitor. “Raw” data carries a large amount of redundant information, which, if necessary, will allow you to adjust all these image parameters as accurately and correctly as possible.

In the JPEG format, all "extra" data is eliminated to provide the smallest file size, which seriously limits processing capabilities. While brightness and contrast can still be adjusted, incorrect white balance is much more difficult to correct, especially if the error is large. In this case, you have to sacrifice the naturalness of the flowers. Here is an example when a photograph that had turned yellow was extracted from JPEG and RAW.

Original version

Corrected version (JPEG)

Corrected version (RAW)

As you can see from the examples above, when trying to correct the white balance in a JPG, the picture acquired a somewhat unnatural tint, as if the photo was shot on cheap negative film that was scanned on a household scanner. I note that in this case I did not make any special efforts to bring the colors closer to real ones, but this required several operations in Adobe Photoshop. You can read more about editing white balance in JPEG in this article /article45.html. The point of the article is that correcting a minor white balance error in a JPEG is possible, but it is a rather non-trivial task. If there is a serious white balance error, it is unfortunately impossible to restore color reproduction without visible loss of quality when working with the JPEG format.

Main features of RAW

Instead of describing the capabilities of RAW here, I will show an example of how one initially unsuccessful photo was saved. During a summer trip to St. Petersburg, my wife and I visited the Hermitage, naturally taking a camera with us. As in all museums, flash photography is prohibited in the Hermitage. Anticipating this situation, I took a fast Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens. But the main problem lay in the fact that different rooms had different lighting - in some there was daylight from the windows, in others there was artificial lighting. If I were shooting in JPEG format, I would have trouble setting the white balance. Looking ahead, I will say that the shooting was carried out in RAW and it was possible to simulate the situation, what the result would have been with certain BB settings in JPEG. So let's start from the beginning:

Auto white balance:

A terrible mixture of yellow and red! Such photographs are often taken when the room is illuminated by a large number of incandescent lamps of relatively low power, in which case the photograph is painted in a yellow tint. Well, let's try to set the white balance to "Incandescent"... Here's what happened:

A bit better. The yellowness became less, but an incomprehensible green appeared. The result is also unsatisfactory.

The option of manually setting white balance is very labor-intensive, since you will have to carry out this procedure in almost every new room. Fortunately, there is a RAW file that allows you to set the correct white balance on your computer in 1 mouse click.

For RAW processing, we used the Digital Photo Professional program, which came with the Canon EOS 5D camera (on the software disk). As for other devices, I’m more than sure that something similar is provided for them too.

The program has a very simple interface, so understanding it will not be difficult. In fact, it duplicates the camera settings regarding color rendering, and also has a number of other functions.

To set the white balance, take the eyedropper (shown by the red arrow) and poke it into the part of the photo that should look white or light gray. In this case, it was my jacket. The colors in the photograph can be seen in the picture. The result obtained cannot be compared with what was obtained only with standard camera settings.

The Digital Photo Professional program allows you to “retrospectively” set the color rendering settings of the image, which are available through the camera menu. Thus, during shooting you get the opportunity not to waste time setting white balance or choosing an image style. This is especially true when shooting reportage, where every second counts. The program allows you to do some things that are simply not available through the menu, for example - adjusting noise reduction, adjusting sharpness, correcting chromatic aberrations and distortion (distortion of straight lines at the edges of the frame). The only condition under which all this works is that the photo is taken in RAW format. With JPEG most features are not available.

It must be said that the Digital Photo Professional program has relatively little functionality compared to the popular Adobe Photoshop Lightroom program, but it is worth considering the fact that licensed Adobe Photoshop Lightroom costs about $200, and updates to new versions of this program are paid (about $100 ). Digital Photo Professional is available to us completely free of charge and is updated to newer versions just as free. However, there is a caveat - the program itself cannot be downloaded; it must be installed from disk. From the Canon website you can only download an update to the latest version.

I see no point in writing a manual for Digital Photo Professional here for two reasons - firstly, it will only be of interest to owners of Canon devices, and secondly, such a manual already exists - http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/canon_dppix.shtml

Even if the JPEG version has the correct white balance, the RAW version of the photo will likely have better quality. The reason is simple. The performance of a computer processor is much greater than the performance of a camera and it can handle more complex image processing algorithms - improving detail, filtering noise, and other processing. Even if processing takes some time, this is not a problem for the computer - the user can wait. When photographing, every second is worth its weight in gold. As a result, the algorithms used by the camera to process the image taken from the matrix are squeezed into a tight time frame so as not to reduce the speed characteristics of the camera. For example, those actions that a computer can do in 10 seconds, the device must perform in no more than 1 second. This inevitably affects the quality of processing, especially when the device does not have the most modern and fast processor. This is why the result of shooting in JPEG is almost always worse than correctly processed RAW.

It is impossible not to mention one more technical aspect. When shooting in JPEG, pixel color information is encoded in 24 bits, when shooting in RAW - from 30 to 42 bits. It's easy to imagine how many more colors can be encoded in 42 bits instead of 24.

What are the main disadvantages of the RAW format?

RAW is not available on all cameras. Owners of DSLRs and “top-end” point-and-shoot cameras can rest easy, but those who have relatively inexpensive compact devices may be disappointed - they most likely do not support the RAW format.

RAW files cannot be opened on any device other than a PC with special software installed. Media players, digital photo frames, and tablet computers will not display photos in RAW format. To do this, they need to be converted to JPEG format (on a PC, using RAW processing software).

The RAW processing program that comes with the camera on disk has a rather meager set of capabilities. More functional software is often paid.

The file size is approximately 2 times larger than JPEG in the best quality. If you are going on a long trip and intend to take photographs in RAW, stock up on a larger capacity flash drive.

What is the RAW+JPEG format?

In most devices, you can select a mode where photos are written to a flash drive in the form of 2 files - one RAW, the other JPEG. This can be useful in cases where the main shooting is in JPEG format, but you need to play it safe so that if something happens you can “pull” an incorrectly taken photo from RAW.

If the results in JPEG format satisfy the photographer (or customer), RAW files can be safely deleted. As you can see in the picture, for the JPEG option you can choose different resolutions and qualities. Keep in mind that when shooting in RAW+JPEG, the flash drive will run out faster than just shooting in RAW.

What format should I shoot in?

If you're interested in getting the most out of your camera, which translates into the highest quality photos possible, I highly recommend shooting in RAW. All further chapters of the textbook will assume that the shooting is carried out in this format.

Questions for self-control

If your camera can shoot in RAW:

1. Install a RAW processing program on your computer (if it is not already installed). If you don’t know where to get it, look for it on the disk that came with the camera.

2. Take several photos in RAW+JPEG format. If you are shooting indoors, try to avoid flash.

3. Download the result of the shooting to your PC and process the RAW files in the installed program. Set the correct white balance (based on the white area of ​​the image), brightness, contrast, and noise reduction level. Compare your results with JPEG images.

If your camera does not support RAW

1. Check what image quality you have selected. Set the resolution to maximum with minimum compression.

2. Experiment with image styles - change brightness, contrast, saturation, color tone. Save your favorite settings as a custom mode. How to do this - read the instructions for the camera.

3. Learn to set white balance using a sheet of white paper.

Very often you can hear a categorical recommendation - you can’t shoot in JPEG! Only the magic word RAW allows you to create a “masterpiece” without hesitation! Only RAW allows you to see everything in detail and make a wonderful picture out of a damaged photo! Strong statements, but very similar to advertising slogans. How substantiated are such claims? How obvious is this difference to the average amateur photographer in practice? Is RAW really so superior to JPEG or is it just another technocratic delight? Is there a similar picture here? When the difference is perceptible, but for many only on a subconscious level?

In this article I will try to show by my own example why I personally prefer RAW. If you are already doing this, then my experience may be useful to you. And for those who have not yet decided to master a graphics editor, it may be prompted to take this right step.

So, let's begin. Most modern cameras allow you to shoot in two formats at once - JPEG and RAW.

RAW is a “snapshot” of raw data from your camera’s sensor that has undergone minimal processing.

JPEG is the result of subsequent significant processing of this data by the camera processor, in accordance with the settings that you chose and that were prescribed by the manufacturer.

Different companies have their own extensions to designate the RAW format. For example, for Nikon these are files with the NEF extension, for Canon - CRW or CR2, but for convenience I will continue to write RAW.

The main advantages of the RAW format are:

RAW is the source. The camera processor barely touched it, irreversibly processing the image when converting to JPEG;

RAW contains more information because... on the camera matrix, one image point is encoded with a combination of 12-14 bits, and in-camera JPEG is 8 bits.

What gives the first advantage:

Converting RAW to JPEG can always be done on your home computer, where more intelligent programs, such as Photoshop, will do it noticeably better;

You can always flexibly customize the conversion process. The camera has built-in mechanisms for noise reduction, sharpening, and color correction. Once you receive a processed JPEG as an output, you will no longer be able to cancel this processing. RAW gives you a lot of options for correcting your photo.

The second advantage can be described simply - imagine that all words denoting brightness were excluded from your vocabulary and only “black” and “white” were left. There is no gray, you won’t say “it was getting light” or vice versa, “it was getting dark.” Likewise, JPEG, compared to RAW, is significantly limited in expressing its “emotions”.

To show the advantages of RAW, I conducted several experiments with the landscape captured during our hike, see.

This is what a raw JPEG looks like and almost exactly what RAW looks like. This is the source obtained from the camera.

Source frame

The camera adjusted the exposure throughout the frame, as a result the clouds turned out to be “burnt out.” Instead of fluffy scatterings, there are absolutely white spots in places. Let's try reducing the brightness to minimum and see what happens:

It is easy to notice that, with the exception of a very small spot, the texture of the clouds was drawn in full detail.

Now let's reduce the brightness by the same amount on the JPEG:

Reducing brightness in JPEG

A significant part of the clouds remained knocked out. These points in the graphic file contain pure white color, and no matter how much you reduce the brightness, you won’t be able to squeeze additional information out of “nothing.” The same problem is visible on tree leaves. And the color of the sky acquired a poisonous bluish tint.

Now we try the second option - raise the brightness to maximum:

Wp:image ("id":5758,"align":"center") -->

Increasing brightness in RAW

There are no failed shadows in the processed landscape, so the effect is not so noticeable, however, it is clear that the shadows were highlighted better in RAW than in JPEG.

I looked at the two simplest operations, but the most relevant. However, RAW helps not only in saving dark or, on the contrary, overexposed photographs. Another big plus is the detailing. The two bottom pictures show this difference well. Look at the bushes against the sky under the rearview mirror. Or on the bushes against the background of the white slope in the left center.

RAW

JPEG

The picture speaks for itself. Having processed the image “automatically” into JPEG, the camera lost a lot of small details, so on the left, from the slope above the road, the bushes and tree branches seemed to have disappeared. However, the picture on the right shows that they are there. This shot was specially shot in very difficult camera conditions, when a dark instrument panel was adjacent to a bright picture behind the windshield. The RAW format retains much more detail.

If you add problems such as setting white balance, saturation, contrast, which have an irreparable impact on the final image, then the advantages of the RAW format become even more significant.

To demonstrate them fully, I suggest you compare the original image at the very beginning of the article and the result that can be obtained from RAW, through simple manipulations with the sharpness and contrast settings, loading everything with masks, and polishing with “curves”:

Clickable up to FullHD

Well, I think the advantages of RAW are obvious. RAW allows you to pull clouds out of a white sky or a forest from a black stripe, adjust the white balance correctly when you shoot a portrait between a window and a fluorescent lamp, it’s easy to make HDR (for HDR fans), etc. RAW makes it possible to be more careless about your choice shooting parameters, as it allows you to later correct your mistakes in the graphic editor. This is very important for me, since most of the photographs are reportage in nature and errors with settings are not uncommon.

And if you start studying photographs with a magnifying glass, you can find many more advantages that are not striking. But if they don’t rush, should amateurs pay attention to them? This is up to everyone to decide for themselves.

For myself, I concluded a long time ago that even if in 90% of cases RAW capabilities are not needed, then 10% are worth taking photos only in it. And first of all, because I don’t see any arguments for shooting in JPEG. A little higher is serial shooting, but how often do we use series? And the smaller file size is easily compensated by the larger size of the flash drive.

So, if you are planning to start processing your photos in a graphics editor, do not forget to try RAW, perhaps the number of photos will be noticeably reduced. But you shouldn’t completely rely on RAW; after all, the picture is taken not by the camera, but by a person. You can correct minor technical errors, but you are unlikely to create a “masterpiece” by moving the sliders in the editor.

What should those whose cameras do not shoot in RAW format do? If you carry out further post-processing in a graphics editor, professionals recommend setting all additional corrections to a minimum in the settings. For example, reduce or disable contrast or sharpening. You can do all this later yourself on your computer.