RAW to RAW.... RAW to JPEG.... RAW to TIFF to JPEG....... What's lost?

Consider the following scenarios.........

Work Flow #1

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Post process the Raw photo
d) Convert Raw photo to Jpeg


Work Flow # 2

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Raw photo converted to Jpeg in computer
d) Post process the Jpeg


Work Flow # 3

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Raw photo converted to TIFF
d) Post process the TIFF in the computer
e) TIFF converted to Jpeg


If a photo is taken in RAW, it contains the maximum available data. If that photo is converted to JPEG after being downloaded into the computer, is the RAW data changed, or lost?

I understand that data is lost if you shoot in JPEG, but I was wondering if shooting in RAW and then converting to JPEG, the quality will be better.

I was hoping one of our experts could clarify this situation. Thanks.

TedG954 said:

..............If a photo is taken in RAW, it contains the maximum available data. If that photo is converted to JPEG after being downloaded into the computer, is the RAW data changed, or lost? ...........

Click to expand...

If it's still a raw on the card, then you still have all the data in the raw image located there. If you transfer the raw to a computer, edit it, and save it as a jpeg, then you still have the raw file on your computer.

TedG954 said:

..............I understand that data is lost if you shoot in JPEG, but I was wondering if shooting in RAW and then converting to JPEG, the quality will be better...........

Click to expand...

Shooting raw doesn't guarantee 'better' quality. It merely allows you to edit the image with a heavier hand than you could a JPEG.

480sparky said:

If it's still a raw on the card, then you still have all the data in the raw image located there. If you transfer the raw to a computer, edit it, and save it as a jpeg, then you still have the raw file on your computer.



Shooting raw doesn't guarantee 'better' quality. It merely allows you to edit the image with a heavier hand than you could a JPEG.

Click to expand...

So, if two photos are taken, one in RAW and one in JPEG, and no editing is done, the photos would be equal in quality, detail, etc ?

And, the main question I have, is would an original RAW photo being converted to JPEG in the computer, still contain the data and detail of the original RAW? Does converting, in a computer, destroy data and detail?

RAW is always better for editing. After the edit then save as a JPEG. I actually have three copies of each photo the I edi

1. Shoot in RAW and transfer to computer
2. Edit the shot and save as TIFF in full size for later printing
3. Save the TIFF as a small JPEG for social media.

Editing the RAW file gives you more information to work with than if you converted to JPEG and then edited You would have thrown away part of the photo then. You might as well have just shot it in JPEG to begin with

Don Kuykendall said:

RAW is always better for editing. After the edit then save as a JPEG. I actually have three copies of each photo the I edi

1. Shoot in RAW and transfer to computer
2. Edit the shot and save as TIFF in full size for later printing
3. Save the TIFF as a small JPEG for social media.

Editing the RAW file gives you more information to work with than if you converted to JPEG and then edited You would have thrown away part of the photo then. You might as well have just shot it in JPEG to begin with

Click to expand...

Don, that is more of what I'm looking for. So, in fact, if I shoot RAW, convert to JPEG, and then process.......... the results would be the same as shooting in JPEG originally? And you send photos in TIFF to be printed, not JPEG? That's big news (helpful) to me.

TedG954 said:

So, if two photos are taken, one in RAW and one in JPEG, and no editing is done, the photos would be equal in quality, detail, etc ?

Click to expand...

If you toss both up on the screen side-by-side, they most likely will look identical. It's rare for people to have monitors that are capable of displaying anything more than 8-bit images anyway.

TedG954 said:

And, the main question I have, is would an original RAW photo being converted to JPEG in the computer, still contain the data and detail of the original RAW? Does converting, in a computer, destroy data and detail?

Click to expand...

No. A 12-bit raw file has the ability to save 4,096 distinct color hues for each pixel, for each color channel. So each pixel (even though in a rendered JPEG) is able to draw upon (4,096 x 4,096 x 4,096 =) 68,719,476,736 different colors for editing. Up your camera to to 14 bit, and you have 16,384 distinct hues of each of the red, green and blue channels, or (16,384 x 16,384 x 16,384 = ) 4,398,046,511,104 colors for each pixel.

JPEGs, which by definition, are 8-bit images. Meaning, they can only record 256 distinct hues of each of the red, green and blue channels, or (256 x 256 x 256 = ) 16,777,216 colors for each pixel.

Probably i do it all wrong but for me, shoot raw, edit raw in ACR then as i don't want to save an edited version in raw I often convert to jpeg to do any final tweaks, then save unedited raw and edited jpeg, often two jpegs one small file for posting and sometimes one large file for if i want to print, I don't think it ever gets opened though.

TedG954 said:

Consider the following scenarios.........

Work Flow #1

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Post process the Raw photo
d) Convert Raw photo to Jpeg


Work Flow # 2

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Raw photo converted to Jpeg in computer
d) Post process the Jpeg


Work Flow # 3

a) Shot in Raw
b) Raw photo downloaded to computer
c) Raw photo converted to TIFF
d) Post process the TIFF in the computer
e) TIFF converted to Jpeg


If a photo is taken in RAW, it contains the maximum available data. If that photo is converted to JPEG after being downloaded into the computer, is the RAW data changed, or lost?

I understand that data is lost if you shoot in JPEG, but I was wondering if shooting in RAW and then converting to JPEG, the quality will be better.

I was hoping one of our experts could clarify this situation. Thanks.

Click to expand...

To be clear, work flow #1 is only valid if the processing is limited to Camera Raw/Lightroom or a similar Raw processor that stores adjustments with the Raw image (as a sidecar or extension to the file) as opposed to changing the base file information in any way.

Otherwise #1 and #3 are the same thing, though you can replace TIFF with PSD or whatever proprietary file type the software might use (my use of TIFF moving forward assumes any of these image types). Essentially they all provide access to 100% of the light information available in the Raw file. A Raw file can only be extended and not necessarily "changed" by post processing which is why the conversion is necessary.

At this point what must be considered is how you process the file in the editor. If you limit your processing to adjustment layers then you are essentially editing in a non-destructive manner since all the light information exists in the base layer and can be recalled. However once you perform any alteration to the base layer you have changed data irreversibly (outside of what can be undone thru saved history). This includes flattening the layers. Still, while editing a TIFF you have access to far more light information even after modification.

Simply put, a JPEG is a single interpretation of available light information. Think of it as a snapshot of what the TIFF/Raw image looks like at the moment. In the TIFF/Raw file each pixel has a wide range of light information (assuming it's not completely black or white) and while processing you have access to all of it. When converting to JPEG you essentially hard code every pixel, throwing away all the "extra" information. Once you've done that all you can do is tweak the pixel values, which may or may not result in a pleasing effect. Even if you have a "hi-resolution" JPEG you're still missing real light information that you had in the Raw or TIFF file. For this reason I would posit that Workflow #2 is ridiculous as it assumes no adjustment of the Raw file before conversion, or worse yet an improper adjustment by the conversion software (i.e. applying a different profile to the Raw file than what you shot with). If you're going to process JPEG then you should just be shooting in JPEG in the first place