RAW Question please

[gjdagis]

I have just gotten my Canon D-300 today and would appreciate a simple (I hope) question being answered: If I import a RAW file to my drive, do I get a "better" picture if I extract the RAW and the Medium Fine JPG file that comes with it OR should I extract the RAW and produce a Large Fine (level 4) JPG and discard the normally extracted one? I guess "better" would take into consideration not only the size quality & quantity but also the possibility that I am DISCARDING some information from the EXTRACTED version of the JPG. Please help; as you can see I'm confused and prefer to save TWO files rather than THREE. FINALLY, in the same vein, how does the JPG that would be produced DIRECTLY from the camera match up; if I DON'T use RAW at all? Is IT better than the LARGE JPG I generate from the RAW file?

Thanks so much,
George J. Dagis

[Roger_Cavanagh]

George,

The eternal question: should I use raw or JPG? :)

Personally, I use raw exclusively and never touch the JPG. But if you do want to use JPG, then I would use the L/F setting in the camera and not bother with raw and the embedded JPG.

You will always lose information with JPG because it does not use lossless compression. By and large, the larger the JPG the less data lost with compression, but that doesn't always hold true. Pictures with lots of noise (usually taken with the higher ISO settings) will be bigger because the noise doesn't compress easily.

Do a search in the forums and you find several long threads arguing the toss whether raw is better than JPG. My potted summary of the situation:

- JPG takes up less space on the CF card, so if you are short of space JPG may be sensible.

- JPG are smaller and so written to the CF faster, so if taking lots of pictures (sports/action) quickly is important use JPG.

- Raw format uses all the images data captured by the capture (12-bits) JPG uses only 8-bit and throws data away in compression.

- You can't always tell the difference between the final pictures - raw vs. JPG. But there is NO WAY that JPG can ever give better results than raw (assuming you're not a Photoshop idiot :D ).

- Raw gives much more flexibility to adjust settings after the event: white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation, tone, exposure compensation can all be changed during raw conversion.

Regards,

[gjdagis]

Thank you for your reply; I appreciate it. The MAIN thing I am interested in is whether setting the Rebel to Large\Fine JPEG or taking a RAW image, discarding the Med\Fine JPEG after extraction and INSTEAD converting the RAW file to a level 4 (Highest quality) JPEG is better. In other words is the JPEG from the camera a better grade (Large/Fine) or a CONVERTED JPEG from RAW (NOT the lossy Medium Fine image that's NORMALLY extracted). Can anyone advise?

Thanks,
George

[The Photo Tuell]

If you have the space use RAW. Then you can adjust quite a few settings before converting, especially white balance and exposure compensation. The converted JPG might not be better quality than the in-camera JPG, but you have more options before conversion.

Like Roger said, if you are short on CF space then just use L/F JPG. If you use RAW then extract to full size high quality JPG (or TIF for best quality). The embedded JPG is only 2048x1360 (not full size) so it's not very useful.

[pukkita]

gjdajis, check http://www.insflug.org/raw for info on RAW conversion, have just set it up and it may be of your interest...