The Real Truth About JPEG images .. by .. Michael Furtman

`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·

Quote .. One of the great myths in digital imaging – adopted as gospel by both photographers and editors – is that JPEG images are so inferior to RAW as to make these images unsuitable for professional work. JPEG is different from RAW, that's for sure, and both have their advantages, but to consider JPEG files unsuitable for professional work is simply wrong.

`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·


I don't wish to be viewed as the anti-RAW guy .. I'm not .. I would probably shoot RAW if my camera supported it AND I owned stock in SANDISK

the latest memory card I saw was 8 Gigs the size of a postage stamp .. that's just crazy talk .. the first Harddrive (external) I saw was the size of a shoebox and only 20 megs

but ... back on topic .. Jpeg vs RAW

... discuss (again) .. :o)

You're nothing but trouble my friend.

Regarding the above quote, storage space not being an issue RAW is by definition superior to JPG, because it contains the JPG information as well as more, and it contains the potential to be so much more than a JPG version of the same image. JPG's sole advantages are speed (you don't have to make a JPG out of the image), and size. This used to be an issue more than it is now that the storage media units of measure are gigabytes rather than kilobytes. My Olympus puts about 75 RAW images on each 1GB memory card. I rarely need more space than that, but I carry a backup just in case.

it depends entirely what the work is - if its for publication in newsprint for example, then JPEG is fine as the screen is so coarse in the print process and isn’t colour critical that any flaws in the image would be lost in the process. Photography for fine art or subject matters that contains subtle gradients such as flesh, fine fabrics etc would be a totally different kettle of fish. I have had the misfortune on many occasions to have had to retouch JPEG files for commercial applications when major colour alterations are required. whilst it is, of course still perfectly feasible to do it, the process takes much longer as there is less colour space detail to work with and often requires extensive clean up work. As such - using JPEGS in a business environment over RAW or uncompressed TIFF files is simply not commercially viable.

All digital cameras shoot in RAW. If you use a digital camera you are shooting in RAW. Some cameras always convert the RAW to JPG in the camera and some have the option to leave the photographer to do the conversion on their computer. The latter simply gives you the opportunity to influence the conversion.

RAW files are not superior to JPG. RAW files are not really image files at all. All RAW files have to be converted to a displayable image format; JPG, TIFF or whatever.

I prefer RAW as I am more in control instead of allowing the camera to set the default conversion parameters.

they are superior to JPEG in respect of the thirty odd percent more data they allow to be captured which in itself is reason enough to use it as the format of choice.

You are correct, JPG is a lossy conversion and therefore some and possibly a lot of data is lost when the RAW is converted to a JPG.

But a RAW is not an image format; it can be considered to be a record of the electrical signals received by the CCD/CMOS at the point of exposure. The RAW still needs to be converted to a JPG/TIFF etc and doing this yourself on the PC gives you the superiority of selecting how this is performed and how much loss (if any) to accept.

Saying RAW is superior to JPG is like saying a lump of metal is superior to a car. You can only compare the type of cars you make from the lump of metal.

true enough.