Digital Photography

RAW vs. JPEG: Is One Better Than the Other?

I think RAW is demonstrably better, but you must do you.

Edited from a micro-sensor JPEG-only point-and-shoot in 2007 — All photos herein ©Charles G. Haacker, Author/Photographer.

I shot only JPEGs for many years, too many, really, but I was content; I knew what I was about and was nestled snugly in my comfort zone. RAW* capture intimidated me, as perhaps it does many of you. Several of my friends, not least of whom is GE McKerrihan, who can work in RAW, instead shoot only JPEG with minimal processing (GE sparingly uses Snapseed). The quality of GE’s work is impeccable, and inasmuch as I was a happy JPEG man for more years than I have been a RAW shooter, I stayed with it.

* You may know that I resisted all-caps RAW for years because it is not an acronym. “Raw” always meant simply raw, uncooked, like a steak — the unprocessed data straight from the sensor. Late last year I finally succumbed: RAW capture instead of raw capture. Sixty-million Frenchmen… ¯\_(ツ)_/

When I converted to digital in 2007, my starter camera was a tiny point-and-shoot that only output JPEGs. I was impressed with the SOOC results, but coming from a professional background in analog and many years pottering about in dark rooms, I was never going to be an SOOC guy. I already had a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 and the Dummies book to go with it. I excitedly dove in pike position into digital post-processing; it was my beloved old darkroom without the nasty odors and stained shirts.

I was a digital freak from the first exposure. I’ve never looked back nor exposed a single frame of film since.

One of my very last shots on film, 2006, on Fujichrome 400, from a CD of small JPEGs made at the time of processing.

The year before making the switch, I shot my last-ever rolls of film in my Canon T90. You can see from the truncated frame of the original that it was THE last frame on the last roll, so I had one shot when the train was at the right spot, regardless of what else was in the frame that I didn’t want; like those two jokers that rooooned my only shot, except, (thanks to the Miracle(s) of Digital and Adobe,) now I could restore it!

Two comedians ruined my only shot, except, (thanks to Digital and Adobe,) now I could restore it!

Guess what Photoshop tool was the very first [pssst; clone stamp] I ever used?

I quickly discerned that for maximum success with JPEG, best practice was to slightly underexpose (less than a stop) to retain detail in the brightest highlights. I called it “Expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows,” a play on the old black-and-white film mantra that was just the opposite.

My first digital camera is a 2007 micro-sensor point-and-shoot JPEG-only Nikon L12, which sold new for $100 USD. I made the banner photo at top with it. Full disclosure: that banner picture has been reprocessed in Lightroom Classic.

Happily ensconced in my comfortable JPEG nest, even despite stepping up to high-end performance-grade RAW-capable point-and-shoots (P&S), I ignored RAW until someone on a forum issued a challenge. The challenger was a fanatical dyed-in-the-wool SOOC guy who never, ever processed anything; he demanded that someone graphically SHOW him, PROVE that RAW was superior.

Crickets.

Call me crazy (most do), I picked up his gauntlet.

Now, why in the wide world of wonderment would an unqualified tyro who had never even shot, much less processed any RAW captures, essay to prove to somebody else that RAW was the cat’s pajamas, the duck’s whiskers, Gaia’s gift to digital photographers?

Quit looking at me like that.

Restored Galena trolley tourist bus conversions

I even tried a black-and-white conversion

Wearing the guy’s challenge glove on my left hand (or was it right?), my bride and I drove to Galena, Illinois, in search of suitable photo ops.

Galena is a small town in northwest Illinois known for its well-preserved 19th-century buildings like the 1826 Dowling House. The Italianate Ulysses S. Grant Home was a gift from local citizens to the Civil War general who later became a U.S. president. Horseshoe Mound, on the outskirts of Galena, offers views of three states. Other mounds, thought to be ancient ceremonial sites, can be seen at Casper Bluff. ― Google

We knew the town was a photographer’s paradise, but Mother Gaia decided that, given my purpose, she would helpfully “light” the scene with dun-heavy overcast. (She likes to muck about with photographers, but it’s still not nice to fool Mother Nature.)

This was a deliberate, gross overexposure meant to show that RAW could handle it in post. It’s the only one of the original DNG test shots I can find.

I am not especially patient. There I wuz, with no character to the light, hardly any shadows, but I wanted to press on. Light, shmight.

I’d heard about ETTR (Expose To The Right), which many RAW shooters recommend to dampen noise in the shadows. This is because the important highlights hold better detail and can be fully recovered in post, exactly what you cannot do in JPEG because the original data have been irrecoverably trashed — deleted in the camera.

Overcast, deliberately over-overexposed—I went too far. The 2015 examples here have been reprocessed in Lightroom Classic and Photoshop 2024 because my original results were embarrassingly unconvincing.

I failed to convince my challenger, but I emphatically convinced ME.

Compare and Contrast RAW and JPEG captures.

The below pictures were made a few years ago. When I decided to write this piece, I dug them out since they still do a pretty good job of showing the differences (or lack thereof).

Look at the trees and grass; the RAW capture on the left has slightly better greens and detail. There is a subtle difference in overall “punch” — color contrast.

The pair above seems not to prove or disprove anything at a glance. I set the camera to make simultaneous RAW and JPEG captures, put it on a tripod, walked to the corner, and began experimenting. These were all made at the identical, metered exposure. The DNG on the left looks overall only slightly better than the JPEG; both are perfectly acceptable snapshots.

After normal post-processing in Lightroom Classic, there is hardly any discernible difference between the RAW (left) and the JPEG (right). I prefer the more nuanced RAW on the left because the colors, especially the greens, are modestly richer.

I have been post-processing JPEGs since I started; it is routine and does not require any more time than processing RAWs. I only occasionally show an unprocessed “SOOC” (Straight Out Of Camera) JPEG as an example. To me, a pitcher t’ain’t finished ’til it’s finished, if you catch my drift.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. Click on these to enlarge. On the left is the unprocessed RAW, with its unprocessed companion JPEG. Being shot simultaneously, they each received the same “normal” (metered) exposure. Neither picture shows any detail in the sky.

But in fact, there was a sky there, easily brought out in rich detail in the processed RAW (left). On the right, the identically processed JPEG could not hold detail in its sky because it was blocked, “blown,” and irrecoverable because the camera’s algorithm preprocessed it as programmed and discarded those brightest highlights. The RAW capture delivered ALL the RAW data to be brought out in post.

RAW on the left, JPG on the right, identically exposed and processed. The upper pair was exposed for the foreground subject, which overexposed the sky. The lower pair was exposed for the sky, effectively underexposing the main subject. Note the difference in the skies.

Expose for the highlight, develop for the shadow (JPEGs).

I got away with shooting JPEGs successfully by following that advice. I would spot meter the brightest area where I wanted to retain detail — often that would be the sky — then pull up the shadows in post. That increased contrast and noise, but I paid the price for good highlight detail.

JPEG spot-metered for the waterfall, and processed to raise detail in the shadows.

The areas circled are highly enlarged below to show another benefit of RAW over JPEG.

The profound difference in contrast, noise, and resolution between the RAW on the left and the JPEG on the right should be easily discerned even on a phone. I should have shown my doubting challenger this years ago.

As good as many camera-created JPEGs are, at a pixel-peepin’ level, RAW blows the doors off. I now regret that RAW so intimidated me that I didn’t try it sooner. 🫤😕😫 Don’t be like Chuck.

📸As always, gratitude for looking in. I sincerely appreciate it! Questions in the comments will be answered promptly, so please ask.😊👍