Back to the Basics IV: RAW or RAW Vs. JPEG

Back to the Basics IV: RAW or RAW Vs. JPEG

What is RAW?

A RAW image or camera raw image, is a minimally processed image type which contains all of the data captured by the image sensor of modern DSLR's, scanners, and motion film scanners. They earn their namesake due to the fact that they have not been processed, which renders them unusable for printing and editing with a standard bitmap graphics editing program. A raw image falls under the lossless file format category as it generally does not feature any compression or processing which removes any non-essential data.

Normally, raw images are processed a raw converter inside of a wide-gamut internally specified colorspace (a colour space, in short, is the assignment of numbers to actual colours and is a three dimensional object which encompasses all of the realizable colour combinations possible. It can be looked as the digital version of a painters palette  a mixing of paints or colours to create a wide range of colours available to paint with. Unlike a palette though, colour spaces are hardly seen and serve as the reference for imaging programs, cameras, displays, and printers to obtain the specified hue, luminance and saturation). After being opened in the converter, precise and specific adjustments are made to the information to get it ready for conversion to a usable format such as JPEG, or TIFF for printing or general digital use. It is important to note that for every camera manufacturer and device there is a corresponding file format, with several tens if not hundreds existing.

A good analogy to think of raw images with, is to think of their film counterpart, the Negative. Raw files are often called digital negatives, as they fill the exact same role in a photographers workflow. Much like the film negative, raw images are not immediately usable, but contains all of the original information from the time of capture to for creating an end-use image.  Just like the film negative, processing raw images is also called developing. Also akin to the film negative, raw images possess higher dynamic ranges (covered earlier in our HDR post) and wider colour spaces than their processed counterparts.

Why should I use it?

This is the big question, and well for any serious photographer worth his salt, the answer is a definite yes to its use, and even for the non-professional or not-so-serious photographer, it is worth shooting in. The first factor to consider is that raw images are a lossless format which means you keep all of the original data captured by the camera sensor and non-destructive (data destroying) editing is possible. A point-and-shoot camera or one set to shoot JPEG, inherently before the picture appears on your screen, pre-processes and converts the image into a lossy format (meaning any extra information is lost forever, and non-destructive editing is not possible). A easy analogy to think of; is that raw images are your film negatives and JPEG's or other lossy formats are your polaroid ready-to-be-seen developed instant photo. One is definitively higher in quality and information and the other sacrifices this and editing control for developing speed. below are a few questions you should ask yourself before deciding raw is not for you.

Question One: Will I be editing these photographs. period. ?

If you have any intention of using Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, Camera One, or any of the many photograph editing programs, this is an easy yes. When editing raw formats, you are not directly altering the information in the file, but rather altering a alias file (called Metadata) which is a manifest that the conversion/rendering process reads to output your desired image. This is called non-destructive editing because at no point is the any original information lost, and at any point can you revert to the original or change what you see to something else. Another advantage of the raw format is that you get a wider degree of flexibility (or flexibility at all), to increase/decrease exposure values, change white balance as often and to whatever you want. Raw image editing also allows for the creation higher quality images as your computer has a faster, better, and higher processing capability than your camera does, which do you trust to render/convert your images more (cameras are meant to capture information, not edit it). Raw images also allow for the correction of small defections in the image, dead pixels, under exposure, vignettes, noise reduction and sharpening capabilities are all issues that will come up as you shoot digitally more and more.

Question Two: Will I be editing these photographs later in the future?

If you are wanting to keep your photos for possible revisitation or reediting down the road, raw images are (currently) the sole way to archive your pictures and ensure that in the future, you will have the same control over your images that you have today. Shooting in JPEG and wanting to archive is like being a professional photographer and only shooting polaroid instant film, while your photos are instantaneously ready, a lot is left to be desired in terms of their versatility.

Now that you've asked yourself these questions, lets go over some of the perceived drawbacks of shooting raw, these are usually the walls that people build around their perception of raw and it prevents them from seeing it's inherent amazing capability.

Complaint One: They (raw images) take up too much space.

This is in our eyes the most legitimate complaint, raw images due to their inherently unprocessed nature containing all of the original information capture by the imaging sensor, are larger sized files than typical JPEGs. However, in saying this, it is important to remember one of the big rules concerning technology; memory has never been cheaper as of now. and now. and now. and if your reading this 5 minutes, 5 days, even five years from now, memory has never been cheaper. As the size rises and the price drops on digital storage, this becomes less and less a valid issue with raw images. Your future self will thank you for making the effort with raw images as you will be able to do so much more with your photographic archives. Again, what would you rather a library of negatives, ready to be turned into high quality, full featured prints/images or a library of polaroids.

Complaint Two: Editing takes too much time.

We at Shutter Science have heard this a lot. Short answer: your right, but only slightly. Long answer as follows. The editing of raw images when digital cameras and raw images were first commercially introduced and available for use to consumers, no longer exists. Modern image editing programs like the ones listed above, have made it possible to edit raw images in large batches in little to no time at all, especially when you have little to no edits to make. Also, if one looks at the process of converting that takes place within the camera, you will find that the same basics procedures taken in the camera are the ones you follow in an editing program, albeit with more control and power. If provable authenticity is needed, a batch no-editing raw images workflow is recommended as it will allow the photographer a negative file which can be used to show the original image, should the converted JPEG be called into question. JPEGS due to their inherent end-use (print, uploading online) position are not readily able to be used as a solid reference as anyone and anything could have manipulated them, and there is not a reliable process to ensure that it hasn't been altered. Again, raw images are called digital negatives for a reason.

Complaint Three: I don't want to manipulate my photos into something unreal.

This is a trick question. The manipulation of images is a very different process than the editing and correction of images. In the day's of film photography, editing was a necessity to produce images ready for print and display, no-one hung their negatives over a window and asked their friends and families to squint at them. In today's digital world the editing of raw images, due to the instantaneity of JPEGs, has been looked down upon as the manipulation of an image, when in fact it is, the same process your camera pushes on your image before you see it, albeit with finer controls and extended capability. As stated above, raw images provide a film negative-esque reference for proving validity of an image and for the creation of the final product. It can be argued that the processing of the lossy (meaning information is lost/destroyed) format JPEG in your camera produces a more "unreal" image than what your computer will produce as it, again, has lower processing power/must create the image in the split-second time it takes for your camera to display the image.

Now, while the above may look like a anti-JPEG rant, it is not. It is meant to be a compelling case to move to shooting raw images with your DSLR. It is meant to raise the question of the use of a digital negative rather than a instant photograph. JPEG's and TIFF files have their place as end-use formats, to be used for print, display or web publishing, but the use of them should not replace the shooting of a digital negative. 

Thank you for your time, and we sincerely hope, you've learned a thing or two. 

Stay tuned for next week's post, when we take a break from the basics of digital photography, and dive into the exciting, ever-so-trendy world of Lomography!