JPEG vs RAW

nzswift

Senior Member
Shot three or four shots today and camera is set up to record the same exposure as a JPEG and RAW.
Why are the exposures more "correct" with the JPEG's than the RAW's? Colors more vibrant and just better? I know it can be fixed post shooting, but why are they so different?
Picture Control is set to STD default.
Your ideas are welcomed...
 

Rexer John

Senior Member
Because RAW is what the sensor saw. JPEG is the cameras software representation of the image with Nikons processing, it makes the image look more as we would expect to see it but lots of information is thrown away.
Even with neutral JPEG settings, Nikon (and other manufacturers) optimise the picture.
Optimised doesn't mean the best it can do, it just means the best it can do with your settings and limited bit information.
RAW always has the best image just waiting for you to set it how you like it.
This takes time so there are people that don't want to shoot RAW, a correctly exposed average dynamic range JPEG is very good straight out of the camera.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
What are you viewing the RAW files in? As John says the RAW file has all the information from the sensor, which can then be adjusted as you like. A program light Adobe Lightroom has various camera profiles available to it, including those used by the D600, at the bottom of the Develop panel. If you set the profile to Camera Standard it should look pretty darn close to what the JPG looks like shot in Standard mode on the D600 (if you shoot in Vivid, choose Vivid). Adobe Camera RAW has this feature as well if you're using Elements or Photoshop. Shooting in RAW has the advantage of allowing you to apply any of these profiles to the image data after the fact. So, if you see the jpeg and say, "Darn, I wish I'd used the Vivid profile!!", with the RAW file you can just choose that one and now you did.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Because RAW is what the sensor saw. JPEG is the cameras software representation of the image with Nikons processing, it makes the image look more as we would expect to see it but lots of information is thrown away.
Even with neutral JPEG settings, Nikon (and other manufacturers) optimise the picture.
Optimised doesn't mean the best it can do, it just means the best it can do with your settings and limited bit information.
RAW always has the best image just waiting for you to set it how you like it.
This takes time so there are people that don't want to shoot RAW, a correctly exposed average dynamic range JPEG is very good straight out of the camera.

What he said.

In exchange, you can recover shadows and have more control using the RAW file during post processing so that you can tweak the image the way you envisioned it.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Image files are like cookies.

An image, saved as a .jpg, is Nikon's fully baked cookie handed to you on a platter. It's baked and ready to eat and composed of those ingredients that Nikon thinks a cookie should have based on the information presented to it at the time. These cookies are, generally speaking, pretty darn tasty too. Sometimes the flavor is a bit off, sometimes it can be way off, but that's too bad because Nikon baked the cookie and handed you the finished product. If it's missing all the chocolate chips YOU think should be there, tough noogies. You also have no idea, really, what went into the cookie because all that information was thrown away, so making changes to any particular cookie, while not impossible, is awkward and limited. Still, most of time, you get a pretty acceptable product when you go this route.

An image, saved as a RAW file, is the dough for making Nikon cookies. All the information about how to make it into a proper cookie is there and all the information you could want about the ingredients themselves has been preserved for you. Further, you also have all the basic ingredients that went into making this dough so if you want to modify the dough before baking you can. In short, with a RAW file you have everything you need and all the information possible to modify your cookies as much or as little as you want. Yes, it's more work to go this route but you wind up getting the EXACT cookie you want EVERY time. Your dough can be pretty whack and even that's okay because you have SOOO much more workable latitude because even the information about the ingredients that went into your cookie dough has been preserved and can be tinkered with. Taking this route you can get the exact cookie you want every single time. It's also why your .jpg files look better, generally, out of the box than your RAW files, do. It's a question of who is in control of your cookies.

Your RAW files are just that, raw... They're waiting for you to come along and tweak them to perfection because you've decided you're tired of simply taking what Nikon thinks is best. You want to be known, not as the guy with a great camera, but rather as the guy that consistently "Nails the Shot" and gets the oooo's and ahhh's. You're tired of hearing "Oh, nice picture"; you want to hear "Wow!" In short, you don't want to "take pictures" any more; you want to "create photographs".
 
Last edited:

nzswift

Senior Member
Thanks for your explanations everyone. Love the cookie analogy, makes it much clearer. I never realized the JPEG was doctored by camera software and believed the same image was just saved in different formats. Now I understand much better. The images were viewed in iPhoto because they were just basically snapshots. I have Lightroom but only use that with my RAW card on images that are important/creative, etc.
 
Top