Jpeg vs RAW in lightroom

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnj2803

New Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Miami
I have been looking at some of my pictures, mixed shot with RAW and jpeg. I noticed the only adjustment i cannot do when the picture is in jpeg is choose the WB that is also in my camera. I am just left with "as shot" and "auto" WB settings. I noticed that i can still use the customize WB by dragging the slider into whatever settings i want. One of the reasons i shoot RAW is this.

What other setting adjustments are there that are exclusively available for RAW files? a quick look at the develop settings made me think that the WB is the only different setting. With this in mind, i might strongly consider shooting jpeg again :D because of the smaller file size :D

I am not completely ignorant with RAW vs jpeg. :D I just want to know what controls are there for RAW vs jpeg in LR :D

thanks
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
While you can edit both types of files in LR, remember that the RAW files is (usually) a 16-bit file that can be adjusted without a loss in quality. A JPG file is derived from a RAW file (or from your camera's sensor), and is an 8-bit file (unless you are using the new JPEF2''' standard which I believe supports the 16-bit format). As it is derived, all of the settings at the time the file is created are "baked in" the image. Any change to the file will result in some degradation when it is saved (or exported in LR). How much depends on many factors. So, in short, you want to keep your edits/saves to a minimum in order to avoid image degradation. There are other factors as well, but I do not have the time at present to elaborate.

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Replytoken link=topic=7447.msg5'817#msg5'817 date=1249319993]
There are other factors as well, but I do not have the time at present ot elaborate.

--Ken
[/quote]

you are talking about the jpeg editing right?

[quote author=Replytoken link=topic=7447.msg5'817#msg5'817 date=1249319993]
There are other factors as well, but I do not have the time at present ot elaborate.

--Ken
[/quote]

i will be waiting for this.


I completely understand about the differences between the 8 and 16 bit type files. So in reference to my original question, are there differences in the controls in raw vs jpeg (aside from WB)? your answer is NO?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Aside from White Balance which is hard coded into the JPG file and can be adjusted, albiet destructively, vs the non-destructive RAW file, all of the controls in the Develop module work except one: The number of choices you will have in the Camera Calibration panel under the Profile pull down.. With a JPG you only have one, the embedded profile your camera used when creating the file.

The correct question you should be asking is not will the Exposure (or any other tool) behave the same with a JPG vs a RAW, but rather will the result be as satisfactory. The answer is no. You can move the Exposure slider on both but take both images up one stop in exposure and you will see definite degradation in the JPG compared to RAW. Do all the tools work? Almost? Should you use JPG over RAW? That depends upon your willngness to settle for space over quality. (FWIW, the space on disk is smaller but the space in RAM is less of an advantage than the storage space)

Remember your camera has already applied a tone curve, saturated, sharpened, applied a color space and a white balance before you put the JPG into LR. None of those things can ever be undone. With a RAW file it is as simple as Zeroing the image via the supplied Preset.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=RikkFlohr link=topic=7447.msg5'821#msg5'821 date=1249323168]
Aside from White Balance which is hard coded into the JPG file and can be adjusted, albiet destructively
[/quote]

WOW this is really nice to know. I thought LR edits all photos NON destructively! thanks

[quote author=RikkFlohr link=topic=7447.msg5'821#msg5'821 date=1249323168]
all of the controls in the Develop module work except one: The number of choices you will have in the Camera Calibration panel under the Profile pull down.. With a JPG you only have one, the embedded profile your camera used when creating the file.
[/quote]

thanks for this. I never noticed this before.

[quote author=RikkFlohr link=topic=7447.msg5'821#msg5'821 date=1249323168]

The correct question you should be asking is not will the Exposure (or any other tool) behave the same with a JPG vs a RAW, but rather will the result be as satisfactory. The answer is no. You can move the Exposure slider on both but take both images up one stop in exposure and you will see definite degradation in the JPG compared to RAW. Do all the tools work? Almost? Should you use JPG over RAW? That depends upon your willngness to settle for space over quality. (FWIW, the space on disk is smaller but the space in RAM is less of an advantage than the storage space)

Remember your camera has already applied a tone curve, saturated, sharpened, applied a color space and a white balance before you put the JPG into LR. None of those things can ever be undone. With a RAW file it is as simple as Zeroing the image via the supplied Preset.
[/quote]

thanks for this. I really appreciate it! Shooting RAW really has its advantage! I came from the free canon program DPP, where i saw right away the difference of RAW editing vs jpeg. I guess i'm still going to shoot RAW.

thanks again! :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When I say destructive, I don't mean you can't get back to your original JPG created white balance-you can by zeroing the sliders. What I should have more correctly said was that JPGs are frozen in their white balance and any changes you make will not yield the same benign results as fiddling with WB on a RAW
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rikk did a very nice job elaborating on the differences. I initially posted a short reply because I wanted to make sure your original post was acknowledged in a timely manner. I did not mean to cut my reply quite so short, but I ran out of time, and am sometimes very slow at typing out my thoughts in a coherent manner. I apologize if the brief response came across as curt, as that was certainly not my intention.

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, nice explanation Rikk and Ken. I think you got across the main point: Yes, you can definitely work on the JPGs, but in the absence of other compelling factors, it's likely the wrong choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you don't resize it or change it all I don't believe you do lose anything as it just copies out the original plus any metadata options.

To add one more comment on RAW vs JPEG you throw away at least half the data that the camera captures when it converts the image to a jpeg.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top