RAW vs. JPEG in Aperture

[dendronepthya]

I'm a tad confused right now. For the longest time, I've been shooting JPEG and doing post processing with Adobe CS2. About two weeks ago, I picked up Aperture 2 and started shooting in RAW. Right away I noticed some things I could do in Aperture that I could not do in Photoshop or at least that I didn't know how to do easily. Today however, I decided to try and import some JPEG files into Aperture 2. It seems like I am able to make every adjustment that was available to a RAW file. I imagine that the RAW file has more data and more flexibility, but I am not seeing the overwhelming benefit at this moment. Can anyone shed some light on what I'm missing? Thanks,

 

[cdness]

RAW is an uncompressed iage exactly as the camera captured it. Any tie there is compression involved the picture quality can go down when editing is required. Shooting in RAW gives you the ability to do edits without losing quality.

EDIT: FYI I am still a noob when it comes to photography, the above is just my understanding of the differences. Hopefully you'll get a more expert answer from some of the better photographers on the site.

 

[BlueCorn]

Exactly, it has to do with the amount of information available. When the camera creates the 8bit jpg file it discards a lot of information. Aperture, just like Lightroom, doesn't care if the file is jpg or RAW but the RAW version will allow much more editing before showing signs of degradation. That's the whole point of both programs. They let you work in RAW without adding any additional workflow.

 

[jmadison]

I'd recommend always shooting in RAW. It takes more space, but you can never go back and get that information discarded when you shoot in a compressed form. just my two coins...

 

[dendronepthya]

Thanks guys, that pretty much answers my question.

 

[OzarksReef]

When it comes to aquarium photography, the Key is the ability to adjust white balance using RAW format. You can also adjust exposure to avoid blown highilghts.

 

[dendronepthya]

Part of my confusion was with the white balance and exposure. Aperture allows you to adjust those two parameters even in JPEG.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Yeahhh but not as well. If you change white balance in RAW and in JPEG, the final outcome should (at the very least could) have a noticeable difference.

 

[OzarksReef]

Definitely - when you shoot in RAW, you have essentially an undeveloped exposure. All of the parameters - including white balance and exposure - can be fully adjusted to more closely match reality. JPEG shots are fully exposed - you can adjust some of the parameters, but you'll never get them as close as you can if the shot was in RAW.

 

[dendronepthya]

Having played with it a bit more I do see that the edits done to RAW files result in a much less harsh look as compared to the JPEG files.

 

[IPT]

The way I understand is like this. Shooting RAW the camera basically captures extra information for many "setting" options and stores it. It (for lack of better termiology) loosely applies settings to the image (such as color balance and sharpness) so you can view it. If you shoot JPEG's or TIFF those settings are permently applied and any of the other potential settings are discarded leaving you with a processed final image.

So, if you have a JPEG or TIFF and adjust it, A - you are starting with less information, and B - it has to modify and change the information it has already permenently saved. This could lead to a decrease in quality. If you modify a RAW Image, it basically just chooses from the extra information it had stored (not modified, but original data) and then it applies those settings permently. The extra info is discarded once you convert it. So in essence, shooting RAW is like taking multiple versions of an image with many different settings and then choosing which you want. Shooting JPEG is taking one picture and then altering it to look the way you want (which may or may not lead to image degredation).

That's how I understand or conceptualize it anyway. If someone understands it differently I'd love to hear about it.

 

[BlueCorn]

RAW is exactly what it sounds like; the raw data from the camera sensor. Before it can be used, it has to be processed. If you choose to shoot JPG, that processing is done by software running on the camera. When you shoot RAW there's very little that happens to it, in camera, other than having a thumbnail jpg embedded. (The image that you see on the LCD). It's then up to you how to process the image.

Aperture, Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) don't actually modify the RAW file, they just keep track of the series of adjustments necessary to render the image the way it appears on screen. When you export the image, or open it up in Photoshop, those adjustments get applied and the program creates a new image based on the changes. The source image data remains unchanged.

 

[IPT]

Doug, you are the man .

 

[BlueCorn]

:lol: - Nah, just a geek.