RAW vs JPEG, Myth or Fact? The Definitive Guide

Too much orange color? Hit the jump to know what's going on

Today I am going to wet my feet and discuss a much debated topic, RAW vs JPEG. This topic causes almost as much debate as the Canon vs Nikon does amongst fanboys, but this post is not about concluding which one is the best, but rather the strengths and weaknesses of each format and when to use either of them.

This post is intended for beginners and experienced photographers equally, I will compare both formats in 5 categories: white balance, highlight recovery, shadow recovery, noise and sharpness.

Hit the jump for the real showdown.

Lightroom Workflow Tip: DNG + JPEG

Lightroom is awesome and I can no longer imagine using any other app as my primary photo organizer and editor.  Nonetheless, because of the way LR3 handles files, it has a few differences with other post-processing programs.

SIDECAR FILES and DNG
When working with raw files, for example, the edits that you make aren't usually saved to the file directly.  Instead, they are saved as metadata in a sidecar XMP file.  The problem is that if the XMP file and the raw file are separated by accident (during file transfers or whatever), all your edits are lost.  There are a couple of workarounds to this.  One is to require LR3 to save metadata directly into the file all the time.  To my understanding, this will require additional processing power. 

Another solution is to use DNG files.  DNG is Adobe's raw format, and is supposed to be open source.  When you use DNG, the metadata are saved directly into the file.  One issue with DNG is that not all programs support it.  For example, once a raw file is converted to DNG, it can't be opened by View NX2.

MAKERNOTES
Another issue when working with raw files in Lightroom is that LR3 can't read makernotes.  Makernotes are special additional EXIF data that are proprietary to each camera manufacturer.  For example, Nikon records information such as flash settings (FEC, whether wireless is used, which channels were used and what mode each channel was in, etc.) and many other info.  None of that can be read by LR3.  That's a lot of lost and potentially valuable info.  Plus, there are a lot of users (me included) who like the way Nikon files are processed in ViewNX2 and Capture NX2.  To me, the images look the way they appear in the preview LCD of the camera.  An unedited raw file looks better to me than the 'flatter' rendition in LR3 or Picasa.

DNG + JPEG
Many DSLRs offer the option of capturing photos as raw + JPEG.  That's the option I prefer.  Specifically, I just choose to save photos as raw + basic JPEG, then convert the raw to DNG on import to Lightroom.

Benefits compared to saving files in raw format only:

• DNG files have the metadata embedded, so there's no chance of losing your edits
• You get to see the makernotes in the basic JPEG file if you need it.
• If a photo is not exactly junk that you'd delete, but not necessarily a keeper either or a shot worth editing, you can just delete the raw version and keep the basic JPEG, which won't take up too much space.
• The incremental additional space that the basic JPEG takes up is minimal.

Using Raw (vs. JPEG); Nikon's ViewNX 2

A few weeks ago, Nikon released ViewNX 2, the new version of their raw processing utility.  Here is the link for downloading it: http://nikonimglib.com/nvnx/ .  I finally got around to trying it out.  Comments on the previous version here.

BACKGROUND ON RAW:

If you're not familiar with ViewNX, it's Nikon's utility for processing .NEF raw camera files.  When the camera saves a photo in JPEG, what it does is use the raw data, apply processing to it (e.g. saturation, white balance, etc. etc.), then compress it.  Photos saved in raw format contain the unprocessed image information from the camera, with little or no compression.  Note: There is no single raw format for cameras (although Adobe made a format called digital negative .DNG which can be used as a raw format, and indeed is used as such by some cameras such as Pentax).  Each camera maker has its own raw format.

By saving the photo in a format before processing and with only little or no compression, using raw allows greater flexibility in adjusting the photo (especially white balance and exposure) while preserving the image quality as much as possible.  It's like the childhood game of "Pass the Message."  If you needed to change the original message, would you rather work from the original message directly, or one of the later messages that is a version of the original message?  This isn't only a theoretical advantage.  If you do any significant changes to white balance or exposure during postprocessing, the result will look a lot better with raw than with JPEG.

The main disadvantage of using raw is that files are much larger, and processing them takes a much longer time.

Because raw photos have no processing, the software we use to process them can have an impact on the results we get.  Some raw processors are simply better than others in terms of color, noise, etc.  I like ViewNX for Nikon NEF raw files because the image looks the same as what I see on the preview screen, and the images look punchier.  When I process the same raw files in Picasa, for example, the image looks bland.  (Adobe Lightroom 3.2 looks pretty good too, though there are a few differences compared to the ViewNX output.  I'm still checking it out.)

HIGHLIGHTS OF IMPROVEMENTS OVER VIEWNX:

• Simple movie editor.
• Improved editing.  Now includes a crop function (finally!), a straightening function, auto red-eye, auto lateral color aberration correction.
• Improved interface. 
• GPS and geotagging support.

Unfortunately, ViewNX2 still seems quite slow, just like ViewNX.  On my laptop, the first adjustment to a raw photo takes about 30 seconds.  Succeeding adjustments take about 10 seconds each.

Fortunately, ViewNX2 is still free to download.