This is a very common question, so I thought I’d post an answer. Sometimes people think JPG images are lower “resolution” (megapixels) than RAW, but that’s not the issue at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
JPGs shrink file size by throwing away valuable light and color information\u2014not by reducing the dimensions or total pixel count of the image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both JPG and RAW can capture the exact same pixel dimensions. \u00a0For example,\u00a0a 45 MP photo shot in RAW and a 45 MP photo shot in JPG will both contain 45 million pixels, but the image qualities are different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\u00a0real difference is in color “bit depth”, the range of colors represented, and how the images are processed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n JPG files<\/strong> record “8-bit” images. That\u2019s 8 bits of red, and green and blue, yielding 256 different shades of red and green and blue<\/strong> for each pixel. \u00a0JPGs also undergo in-camera processing, applying automated sharpening, contrast, noise reduction, and compression algorithms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n RAW files<\/strong>, for example on my Canon R5 are “14-bit”. That\u2019s a huge difference, and the main point of RAW mode. That translates to 16,384 shades of red, and green, and blue<\/strong> for every pixel. \u00a0Combining those colors, that yields over 4 trillion different colors for each pixel.<\/strong> That’s the significant value of RAW.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a very common question, so I thought I’d post an answer. Sometimes people think JPG images are lower “resolution” (megapixels) than RAW, but that’s not the issue at all. JPGs shrink file size by throwing away valuable light and color information\u2014not by reducing the dimensions or total pixel count of the image. Both … Continue reading RAW vs JPG – What’s the difference?<\/span>