JPEG vs. RAW Example
Okay, so now I have more or less nailed down the real differences between JPEG and RAW images captured on a digital camera. In the extreme example shown below I took two images with the same manual settings on my Nikon 8400 camera, the only difference being that one was taken as a normal JPEG image, and the second captured RAW data. I intentionally took a badly underexposed image and then jacked up the dark areas using Aperture 2.0. What you can see is that the color and detail of the JPEG suffers terribly under this test, being that the jpeg compression is meant to preserve the image as it looked pre-processing. In this scenario, the raw file contained far more resolution in data that would normally look more or less black, pre-processed.
Once again, this example is extreme, and the cropped images have been heavily manipulated. JPEG on the left, RAW on the right.
(image is of the arm of a chair in my livingroom)

So, the question is, do you want to shoot in raw format? Will your pictures look better? Yes, no, maybe. Shooting in RAW format certainly gives you more leeway to manipulate an image after it has been taken, but this advantage really only becomes extreme under certain circumstances, such as under-exposure. If you're not planning on some serious post processing odds are you'd never see much of a difference. During my tests I processed several side-by-side images that weren't poorly exposed and the differences between the two formats were fairly minimal. JPEG really does do a good job of reducing the image size while preserving the depth and detail.














Recent Comments