Pull JPEG - cannot pull

I already have one small article about RAW vs JPEG (Rav vs Jeep). JPEG and JPG are one and the same. Because of my work, I almost always have to shoot in RAW.

Pull RAW and JPEG

Pull RAW and JPEG

The main advantage of RAW is that you can draw any very different (in terms of settings) photo from it. RAW, personally, helped me out more than once, but about its convenience when twisting and turning the settings in the editors - I'm already silent. By the word "stretch" I mean major change in some settings of the received digital image.

Recently, for review Nikon D5100, shot in RAW + JPG mode, because I was afraid that my converter would refuse to process the RAW files of the new camera. On the one hand, a lack of RAW in software compatibility was clearly manifested. But on the other hand, I tried to refine strongly underexposed frames with JPG. The result was impressive. After that, this mini article was born.

Experimental bee. F2.8, 0.5s, ISO 100, WB auto

Experimental bee. F2.8, 0.5s, ISO 100, WB auto

The idea of ​​the review is as follows - JPG can also be pulled in the editor. Not as flexible and not of the same quality as RAW, but the end result differs by a very small percentage even when printing on A4 (and it is unlikely that many print in a larger format).

And so, I conducted an experiment. Shot in RAW mode (without compression, 12 bits per pixel) + JPG (high quality with a priority of quality, not size) to my Nikon D200. I will explain - at the touch of a button the camera simultaneously writes two files to the memory card, the original RAW and JPG.

The complexity of the analysis lies in the fact that the camera cannot give (write to the card) the original picture in JPG format, in any case, the picture recorded on the card will already be applied to it with filters in the face of Picture Control (Picture Control Mode). For the image management modes, I separately wrote in the article - setting up Nikon cameras. Therefore, the RAW photo itself without processing and the JPG photo of the same image are different. Therefore, always keep this in mind when reviewing pictures in the examples.

Shadow rescue experiment

The experiment includes seeing in practice, and how much RAW is superior to JPEG when extracting information from shadows (from dark tones in a photograph). Therefore, the essence of the experiment is extremely clear. It is necessary to take an underexposed picture, and, as in the fairy tale about Turnip, try to bring it to mind, "stretch" it - after all, this is famous for RAW and JPEG suffers.

The normal frame that turned out has the following settings: ISO 100, F2.8, 1 / 2s, BB auto - this picture is slightly higher.

Here is the underexposed frame (below), which turned out with these settings: ISO 100, F2.8, 1 / 30s, BB auto. As you can see, underexposure is 16 times (1/30 divided by 1/2 we get the number 15 or 4 steps). You can read about the steps in the Aperture section.

Underexposed frame without modification

Underexposed frame without modification. Original JPEG without pulling

Here's what happened when restoring a picture from the original RAW by changing the exposure parameter + 4 in Adobe Camera Raw.

+4 steps in the direction of light tones, extended from the previous photo from the RAW format

+4 steps in the direction of light tones, extended from the previous photo from the RAW format

Here's what happened when restoring a picture from a JPEG original by changing the “exposure” + 4 parameter in Adobe Photoshop.

+4 steps in the direction of light tones, elongated from the original in JPEG format

+4 steps in the direction of light tones, elongated from the original in JPEG format

It turned out strange that the 4 steps in RAW and JPEG give a different histogram to the picture. Therefore, I decided to hold out (finish off) the JPEG a bit stronger. As a result, below is a snapshot elongated +7 ev (+7 steps) from JPEG:

JPEG +7 ev

JPEG +7 ev

Here are the crop (1 to 1 clippings) of all three modified snapshots. The fact that that pulling from RAW leaves a lot more color shades, halftones etc.

Crop 1 to 1 of three upgraded shots

Crop 1 to 1 of three upgraded shots

But both of these images are printed on A4. When printed, the pictures were signed in what format they were taken before processing. I immediately determined where and what came out of what, but ordinary people to whom I showed the pictures thought for a long time where which picture was and often did not guess.

Printed Elongated Pictures

Printed Elongated Pictures

With JPEG it is very difficult to squeeze something with an underexposed frame. You can squeeze, but worse than from RAW. Also a myth is the fact that JPEG does not support changes white balance, this is not entirely true, just dig deeper into the settings of your Photoshop.

Light tones saving experiment.

I conducted the same experiment when overexposing the image. Instead of the right ones for the right exposure ISO100, F2.8, 1 / 2s I took ISO 100, F2.8, 8s, That is overexposure in 4 steps (excerpt 16 times longer than necessary). After which, I tried to put the picture in order, reducing the exposure by 4 steps. Here's what happened:

The difference in saving light tones when overexposing

The difference in saving light tones when overexposing

Practical conclusion

As the experiment with refinement showed exposure footage - RAW far outperforms JPEG when adjusting exposure. As it turned out, JPEG format can also be adjusted, but with much lower image quality, especially when overexposing.

If you still haven’t decided in what format to shoot, then I recommend to ordinary fans of photography (namely photographs, not techno-fans) not to fool their heads and shoot in JPEG, and professionals themselves know in which format to shoot them.

I advise you to familiarize yourself with my topic experiment to find out how ISO is implemented in some central control centers.

Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Add a comment: Dmitry



Comments: 54, on the topic: Pulling JPEG - we can't pull

  • Serg

    Thank you for another informative review :)

  • Once again, I was convinced of the superiority of the RAW format. Let it be larger in volume, but what a field for maneuvers! :)

  • Crelian

    Thanks for another informative review! To the above, it is worth adding that RAW-format is a “digital negative”, which allows you to “develop” photos an infinite number of times and with different effects, while remaining unchanged. In addition, RAW cannot be faked and the possession of such a file speaks of your unambiguous authorship of the picture.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      In fact, RAW is not a “digital negative”, it stores already “developed” data from the matrix pixels. Likewise, JPEGs can be processed an infinite number of times, as long as the processor leaves the original file. Simply, there was such an opinion that RAW can be turned back and forth, but in fact the converter simply always starts to change the original file, having previously reset the already “wound” settings. Its only serious advantage for photos is 12bit versus 8bit in JPEG - the difference is 4 units of information, or 16 (2 to 4 powers) times. And 16 times is already a serious number.

      • SONY

        JPEG is a lossy format. There are no 8 bits.
        Somehow, I don't remember why / why, I took a very underexposed shot. RAW. In the converter I saw the outlines of the house. When converting to TIFF, they were there too. But when converting to JPEG, even at 100% quality, a uniformly black frame turned out ... The compression algorithm considered this house superfluous.

      • Vitaly

        You confused bitness and the base 2 logarithms a bit. Degrees of two are certainly taken into account when comparing the amount of information, but only when converting from bits to kilobits and beyond. To calculate how much it loses, JPEG simply subtracts 8 out of 12 and multiply by 3 (the number of channels in the RGB color space). It turns out that we lose 12 bits of color information in each pixel. The advantage is 36-bit versus 24-bit per pixel in the frame. That is, one and a half times.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          As practice shows, one and a half times there does not smell.

        • av1981

          Everything is right there. Color channels are the same. It is considered on ONE channel.

        • fsv141

          Vitaly does not think correctly. 24 bits give 16 million combinations, and 36 bits give 4 billion (that is, 4 thousand million). What time is 16 less than 4000?

  • Crelian

    “… Basic RAW converters such as Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Nikon ViewNX 2…”

    It would be interesting to read about these programs, their differences and their values ​​for the amateur beginner and advanced). Because the very Photoshop turned into a legend and I often saw and heard that people put it, but use it only for red-eye correction and for a couple of effects. The same Nikon ViewNX 2 is generally free and comes with the camera, and to remove red eyes, tighten the contrast or BB it is enough. In addition, she immediately and without any problems understands the Picture Control setting, greatly facilitating the processing of pictures, as The camera has already done the initial processing. In a word, it would be great to hear the opinion of a professional about these programs. Thanks!

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I do not like to write about programs, but I will definitely organize an article on this subject.

      • anonym

        and where to find the correct and detailed settings for working in RAW?
        I have a photo editor Zoner and there is no exact description ...

    • Sergos

      and why no one mentions acd see - a wonderful editor, especially easy and, most importantly, fast to work .. the latest versions are a miracle. for an ordinary and advanced amateur, more than enough. working with RAW, please. with layers, no, but this is already for some specialized tasks - rare and dreary ... easy to download on mediaget. other editors, to put it mildly, eat time.

      • B. R. P.

        A good thing.

  • SONY

    > As you can see, underexposure is 16 stops (1/30 divided by 1/2 we get 15 or 4 stops)

    Probably, nevertheless, 16 times ...

    • Arkady Shapoval

      That's right, just a mistake crept in.

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    Of course, informative material for both amateurs and professionals, but please tell me one thing how it is necessary to be a professional to shoot so dark and then pull it as much as 4 steps ... I don't think that the pro's hands do not grow from there, with small errors shooting I don't think the result will be noticeable both in Raw and in Jpeg pulls ...

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Shoot dynamic scenes with a flash indoors, my experience shows that there will be shots where the flash simply does not illuminate - this is a photo that can, and sometimes needs to be stretched.

  • Paul

    “Shoot dynamic scenes with a flash indoors, my experience shows that there will be shots where the flash simply will not illuminate - this is a photo that can, and sometimes needs to be pulled out.”
    +1, also came across this.

    Arkady, thanks! very interesting and informative article about turnip :)

    • Baron von Tripperbach

      And especially such situations kill when in the hall the ceiling in places is purple. If you use an external flash in the wrong direction, and try to use white as much as possible, all the same, everyone's faces will become beetroot. So pull this out of your own house as a punishment. Even from RAW, pulling this out is generally not easy, although sometimes it is easier than it might seem.

  • Andrei

    jpg, as far as I remember, is based on hard algorithms that cut off information that is not important for perception. It doesn’t even cut it off but uses algorithms for a greater loss of quality. On the verge of black or white especially. So to pull something out of it is basically useless. There is nothing special to pull.

  • Alexander +

    Judging by the pictures with elongated overexposed photos, another conclusion suggests that it is better to translate such photos into BW, since the color loss is much greater than the loss in contrasts

  • Alexander

    Once again, I was convinced that on this site they write mainly nonsense, which confuses beginners, and leads away in the wrong direction. Write further, readers will be found. I’ll add on my own, if everything is in order with the eyes and the monitor, then an easy correction of 0,5-1 stop is the maximum that can be done in 8 bit JPG format.

    • Baron von Tripperbach

      Thank you, dear Alexander. To be honest, I do not understand at all why switch the shutter (and autofocus with a jumper in the lenses) to JPEG, if there is a possibility of shooting in RAW. Naturally, JPEG is also needed - but perhaps for a control view on a computer, and not for further restoration according to the principle "from a black sheep at least a piece of wool". Because comparing the capabilities of JPEG restoration with the capabilities of RAW pre-correction and subsequent conversion is like comparing the capabilities of a drag sled with the capabilities of off-road vehicles modified for the trophy.

    • Ivan

      Learning to shoot without correction!
      Everything is simple

  • Maria

    Hello Arkady! I really appreciate the advantages of the RAW format, but I myself shoot in JPG, because friends often ask to throw their photos through social networks, and sometimes I want to brag about my successful pictures myself, but the RAW format does not support the Internet, at least I haven’t seen it anywhere. Is it possible to reformat RAW somehow?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Yes you can. The disk that usually comes with the camera comes with the appropriate software. Also, most cameras can handle RAW.

    • Baron von Tripperbach

      There are such programs as Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop, version 7.3-7.4 (in Photoshop CS6) has undergone many positive changes compared to version 6.x in Photoshop CS5. If we take the officially free programs, then RAW Therapee is of interest, which has significantly more settings. At the moment, version is relevant for Windows - but it was released at the end of June 2012, that is, for new cameras released in June itself and later, it will be useless. While Adobe Camera RAW is updated regularly.

    • Alexander

      Picas will save you

  • Eugene

    Hello Arkady! Thank you so much for your work! I learn a lot of interesting things.
    I read your practical conclusion on this page- (If you still haven’t decided what format to shoot, then I recommend that ordinary fans of photography (namely photographs, not technomania) not fool their heads and shoot in JPEG) and decided to ask you about setting up the camera JPG Nikon D90
    I recently purchased a Nikon D90 with a Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f / 3.5-5.6G IF-ED lens.
    The problem is shooting people using a flash (it doesn’t matter whether the camera is using a flash or from an umbrella, indoors or outdoors) - faded, flat faces are as if powdered. Adding contrast to the camera (I downloaded and installed additional curves on the camera) or Photoshop partially solves the problem, but at the same time, the DD narrows, parts are lost in the shadows, and in the lights, you have to work on separate layers, pull back the lights and shadows.
    I'm not lazy, but I feel that something is wrong with the camera settings. (This is my first Nikon. Before that I shot it with Zenit (I store it as a memory-Zenith E, 11,15,18 and lenses = Helios-40 (white with 39), 44,77, Zenitar-M 1.7 / 50 — with only two petals — a square diaphragm, Mir-24, Jupiter-9, Granite-11), then on the figure-Olik-E300-on Olik there were never such problems -What RAW didn’t even know)
    Your advice is very necessary !!!

    • Baron von Tripperbach

      Didn't know what RAW is? Congratulations. You just systematically killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. There was at one time Olympus E-500 - so there I was extremely dissatisfied with the quality of sketches, regardless of the optics: everything is faded, without small details, “sky-white-trees-dark”, UG in general. Therefore, I shot in RAW, while maintaining a small (1024 or 1280 on the larger side) JPEG thumbnail for viewing. The Sony A65 does not have such a setting option - either only save RAW, or in parallel with the candy wrapper in the highest intra-camera quality, or only transfer the shutter to candy wrappers of different formats, which in itself is technically illiterate. Interesting - what prevented them from saving after shooting RAW in parallel with an obscene quality sketch, suitable only for control viewing on a computer, in order to save space for precious RAW files, adding another 20 percent to the card in terms of capacity? If I shoot only in RAW, a breakdown begins at home with scandals, they say, show me, bl ***, "here and now", this is "the age of digital technologies bl *!" It's strange that Sony did not provide this option.

  • gecko

    Arkady, what do you think gives the best result in a situation of reportage shooting in a dark room?
    a) intentionally limiting ISO on the camera with getting an underexposed photo and then “stretching” it in the editor
    b) obtaining initially correctly exposed image but at the cost of noise from high ISO values

    If in more detail: I’m shooting in JPEG on the D5000, a 50mm f / 1.8G AF-S lens, with the Nikon’s most budget external flash (Polaroid PL108-AF). The task: shooting extremely mobile games of two children in an apartment, incandescent light. I’m shooting in M ​​mode, I don’t set shutter speed greater than 1/125 so as not to get blur, I press the aperture to 3,5-5,6, otherwise, due to the small depth of field of both children, the focus will not work. Flash to the ceiling or wall. Due to lack of light, normal exposure is achieved at ISO 1200-1600.
    I set the ISO from 400 to 640, unnecessarily thereby taking underexposed shots, then pulling them to ACDSee. Is this the right way? You did not compare, which ceteris paribus gives the worst result? High ISO noise or unavoidable loss of detail due to underexposure?

    • Baron von Tripperbach

      No, this path is wrong. Converting the shutter to JPEGowno when it is possible to shoot in RAW with further conversion is like beating a goose that lays golden eggs day after day until it dies without giving up any of them.

      • Baron von Tripperbach

        “… With further conversion…” - an error, correctly “with further conversion”.

  • Eugene

    Good afternoon!!! I have a problem, if you can, tell me how to deal with it: I ordered a photographer for a pregnant wife, the girl took everything on her canon Rav 2. After some time I came for the pictures, but she didn’t give half of it. information suddenly disappeared. Although she transferred it from 2 flash drives to hard drive, created a folder there, viewed it in lightroom 3.6. And then I entered and the folder on the hard disk does not open, it shows that the file is damaged. And she wiped one flash drive, so she could only give half of the photos that were on the other flash drive, the other half of the photos disappeared irrevocably (???) .. I tried to restore pictures on her hard drive at her house, but the PhotoRescue Professional program does not see for some reason its raw files (neither live nor destroyed), it finds JPEG files quickly, but the problem with raw is ... Tell me which program can restore them?

  • Alexey

    Arkady, I think all users would be happy to read your thoughts on the graphic editors you use, the pros and cons. Well, at least basic tips for beginners on how to edit photos correctly, where to start. Thanks.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      In general, Radozhiva does not specialize in describing processing methods. As soon as I mature for a similar article, I will definitely publish it.

  • romanych

    I prefer to shoot in raw, this format often helps out during processing)))).

  • Ivan

    The topic is interesting for beginners.
    What about myself is that I don't like fooling around with post-processing since the days of bw in Practice. I have always processed and printed myself, so I know what a hassle it was to pull live silver))) there ... I got used to shoot immediately into the exposition, so to speak. Therefore, I do not fool around and pour JPEG.
    Each Olympus has individual settings.
    OM master 2 copes with all the necessary tasks. I don’t like to shop, but I don’t like to accept it now.
    Therefore, for an ordinary user, it seems to me JPEG for the eyes.
    People shoot hundreds of photos, it is impossible to process each one with high quality - there will not be enough time.
    They wallow in thousands of us on servers for years)))
    We print units.
    Let everyone draw conclusions for himself.

  • Tatyana

    Hello . I would like to ask. Is it possible to extract information from the overexposed raw with minimal loss? Thank you in advance .

    • Evgchita

      What, you immediately in the comments? At least take a look at the article, everything is written there ... Well, aren't you ashamed? For whom is it all written then? Then go straight to Google and ask your specific questions for each question you have.

  • Yerydyn

    How can I change raw quality photos to regular?

    • quickvox

      "Save as ..." and further in any. * Format

  • newreportage.ru

    In fact, the dilemma: RAW ws JPEG - makes a certain sense when shooting a highly interesting reportage. It's simple: the burst shooting speed drops and the buffer quickly clogs up, and then you have to waste precious seconds and wait for all this to be written to the memory card. Well, these are obvious things.
    It also drops when the bitrate is increased from 12 to 14 and in the RAW format (lossless compression, normal compression, no compression). Accordingly, speed and buffer will be lowest at 14 bits and “no compression”.
    Therefore, if the task is to shoot in RAW without fail, then during sequential shooting it is advisable to set 12 bit and "normal compression". Or shoot in JPEG in maximum quality, turning off all noise reduction. Therefore, for Internet publications and for newspapers, many reporters do not bother too much and shoot in JPEG, relying on their own literacy in choosing the right exposure.
    Moreover, very often it is necessary to quickly send photos to the editor directly on the spot, therefore, you must agree, no one will be picking with ravas. Plus, most laptops simply hang when processing heavy ravas, especially from multi-pixel arrays (the same ravines of the latest Nikon models weigh 50-75 Mb each!).
    But what about weddings who also shoot a reportage, but are dependent on quality? RAW only. And here the best option is 12 or 14 bits (depending on the intensity of the scene) and strictly “lossless compression”.

  • Olga

    Tell me, please, who knows. I took pictures in Rava, everything is beautiful and rich. I transfer the photo to the computer, they change the color to dull, as I understand it, they open in Jipeg, but how can I overtake the photo in Jipeg and at the same time keep the color and weight of the photo in ravine?

    • Yarkiya

      On the contrary, the camera shows you a premium jeep, and a dull RO file opens on the computer. To beautifully handle RAW and get the desired result, you need to learn a little.

    • Dmitry

      If you use Nikon, then open the raves in your native ViewNX or Capture NX2, and from there convert to jpg. Then the beauty and saturation will not "fly off".
      Long to explain why, just try.

  • Michael

    Processing RAW files is a creative process, as in the good old days: manifested, washed, fixed, dried, etc.

  • Novel

    “Then to ordinary photography lovers (namely photography, not techno-lovers), I recommend not to fool around and shoot in JPEG ...”

    If there is even a small probability that the frame is standing, then only RAV or RAV + Jeep- in the event that now there is not enough brains to work with RAV. Maybe after a year the experience will be added, so you can return to the RAV file of an interesting trip or night shooting ... Flash drives and hard drives are now cheap, there is no point in saving space for the archive.

    • anonym

      No need to shoot in JPEG!
      Simple shooting rules:
      1. RAW.
      3. Minimum ISO.
      4. Exposure without "smearing".
      5. The main subject is in focus.
      6. Soft lighting of the object.
      7. Open aperture (0-2,8; and landscape: 5,6-8)
      8. Competent RAW development.
      9. Minimal "photoshop".

      • Oleg

        good rules

    • NE

      You are a thousand times right!

  • Yura

    Korisna stattya, before speech.
    Especially, the speech about “.. I recommend not to fool your head and shoot in JPEG, but professionals themselves know what format to shoot in.”, - if you explain the newcomer in two words, because of the authoritative dzherelo;)

  • Sergei

    The main advantage of RAW is that you can draw any very different (in terms of settings) photo from it. Well said, but what if when importing raw into the editor, this photo becomes faded? Example - I open nef in the editor, the photo is normal for a second, and then there are distortions in colors, especially in blue and blue, and this cannot be corrected by any manipulations. What to do about it? Interestingly, the entire Internet is silent about this. For two years now I have not been able to process a single photo. I never had such a problem, raw opened without any distortion. I tried everything I could, changed the monitor profile, tried other versions of the program, it takes a long time to list. Nothing helps. Once he loved to sit behind the photo processing, now all that remains is to dream.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2012/02/raw-and-jpg-battle/?replytocom=104468

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2012/02/raw-and-jpg-battle/?replytocom=104468