New to RAW

[chase237]

Hi folks, my 10D is kinda new to me, but I LOVE it so far. Have shot several jobs w/ great results. I usually shoot on large fine then have the lab print from there. The 8x10's look just like film. How big can I go?(at 100asa)

Wht's the benefit(if any) of shooting RAW then having to convert them( w/ Cannon software) for the client to view. Seems like just another reason to have post production work to do. Will Large fine JPG's give me the same or optimal results? Thanks for your response's and I'm glad to be here!

Sean

[RichardtheSane]

Without starting a RAW vs JPEG debate, here are my opinions on RAW.
I shoot RAW.
I don't use the Canon RAW converter, I use Capture 1 LE.
I shoot RAW because I like to press the shutter knowing that when I download the image to the PC what the sensor captured is what I will get. I like to be in full control of all the post-processing that goes on, and I don't want the camera doing any of that (not even compressing the image - as a jpeg does)
I like the ability to easily fine tune the exposure/white balance. Also by shooting RAW if the white balance is slightly off I can correct the white balance on one image and then apply the new settings to the rest in my batch.
I like being able to work with all the information captured by the sensor during the developing of my images, not just what the camera believes is enough.

I am not saying that JPEG's are low quality, just that a well developed RAW file will produce a better final result. OK, it takes a bit more time but IMHO spending time developing the image is as important as spending the time composing/capturing the image in the first place.

I wouldn't know how big you can go on the JPEG setting, but I have recently had a 27x18 print done from a converted raw file and the image quality is superb.

At the end of the day you need to make the choice, I would highly recommend the RAW format as it is the best quality you will get from the camera.

[w10d]

There have been plenty of RAW/JPEG threads on this forum, if you do a search you'll find plenty of useful info on the subject.

To follow on from Richard's post: RAW is often compared to shooting neg film, you have to carry out a final process before getting your image, and this can be done repeatedly, producing different results if required.

About the only advantage to shooting JPEG is speed: If that's what you need then JPEG is the way to go. Of course you can carry out corrections/adjustments/retouching with JPEGs, (ideally carrying out any interim saves in a non-lossy compression format). But, you can never go back to the original data captured by the sensor.

[eric1]

hi chase,
i have plenty of storage cards, so i take 2 pics. one raw,
one jpeg. this way when i try (and i mean try!) to convert to raw i still have the pic (jpeg) if i screw it up!
all the conversion software i have used sucks, i'm
not an artist. i just want something to do what
Richard describes without spending hours and hours to figure it out. oh yeah, i got some very good 11x17s
with my G5 in jpeg. i've not had anything blown up yet
with my 300D.


richard,
could you tell me how you use C1LE? i was thinking
about buying thi rebel only version, its cheap. is the LE
version worth the xtra 70 bucks?

thank you, eric1

[defordphoto]

w10d wrote:
But, you can never go back to the original data captured by the sensor.

That's why you never overwrite the original file. Both JPEG and RAW have their uses. JPEG for speed and ease of getting photos ready quickly and easily. Canon's algorithm is excellent and even re-saving, and re-compressing, as JPEG the results are most excellent.

If you enjoy photo manipulation then you'll love RAW. It's incredible what you can do with a RAW file. Also remember that if you are working with large prints that a RAW photo will make a much better enlargement than a JPEG because the RAW file contains so much more information.

The nice thing about shhoting RAW is that you also shoot a JPEG file at the same time, so you have the best of both worlds! Camera operation is also a bit slower with RAW as the file size is twice the size of a JPEG. But many times it's worth it.

The main thing is to not be intimidated by RAW files. There's tons of info here on this forum and others, and there are many great tools out there to assist in your digital darkroom: Capture One, Photoshop's RAW plug-in or the new Photoshop CS, BreezeBrowser, just to name a few.

Good luck and have fun!

[w10d]

RFMSports wrote:
w10d wrote:
But, you can never go back to the original data captured by the sensor.

That's why you never overwrite the original file.
(snip)
The nice thing about shooting RAW is that you also shoot a JPEG file at the same time, so you have the best of both worlds! Camera operation is also a bit slower with RAW as the file size is twice the size of a JPEG. But many times it's worth it.


The point I was trying to make is that with RAW you always have the original data 'straight from the sensor' to work from - with JPEG your 'original' has been processed and compressed according to your settings for WB, sharpness, etc - the untouched senor data is unavailable. If you want to modify the WB, sharpness, etc., you have to manipulate your 8 bit data in PS or whatever.

Re- the RAW + JPEG capture: I have to admit I don't get this at all. If you are saving RAW you can easily process into a JPEG if you want one. As it is you have to 'extract' the JPEG from the RAW file using software, so you might as well process, no? I could understand if you were capturing a RAW and a seperate JPEG, but that doesn't seem possible, unless I'm missing something. As you can't capture a RAW without the embeded JPEG, I leave the setting for the embedded JPEG at smallest/high compression (default).

[defordphoto]

w10d: I get what you were getting at. Just offered another opinion. ;)

It's faster to extract the JPEG from the RAW than to process the RAW into a JPEG. The nice thing about the JPEG is that it is processed and ready to fly -- usually to a web page -- without too much to do to it.

It would be nice to have the option of turning the JPEG-trailer off to save CF space though wouldn't it?

It is sure nice to have these options to fit different people's shooting needs though. When I'm shooting sports stuff I shoot JPEG only. When shooting landscapes, portraits, etc. I shoot RAW.

[w10d]

RFMSports wrote:
It would be nice to have the option of turning the JPEG-trailer off to save CF space though wouldn't it?


Absolutely.

I know there are situations for pros where JPEGs are the best option, but re-reading some of this thread made me realise that for many digital camera users JPEGs are an obvious choice - because they are so easy to deal with. A sort of digital version of taking your film to a lab and getting a set of machine prints done. Nothing wrong with the pictures, just one way of working. I guess there's no reason for someone to HAVE to learn various software packages, etc, just to take digital pictures...

Must admit I hadn't really thought about it from that angle before.

[CyberDyneSystems]

One note on post processing speed.

I have to disagree with some of those that state that working post process with jpegs is faster.

In fact I have found that once you become familiar with the RAW tools,. the opposite is true.

It has been my expeirience that working with jpeg is only faster if you DON'T post process your jpegs.

I have found that ,anipualting with raw files such things as color balance/saturation, levels, curves, and getting just the right amount of USM goes much faster with a RAW file than a jpeg. If I have a jpeg that requires any kind of post processing I find that as the jpeg is less "agreeable" to manipulation it is mauch harder and much more time consuming to get the results I am looking for using the same tools I would on a RAW file.

I do not know the reason for this. But I have a theory.
For a jpeg to be 1/10th the size of the RAW file,. it needs to toss out 90% of the information that was taken by the CCD/CMOS.

I feel that though we may not be able to see the 90% information loss imediately,. that missing information drastically hampers the amount of information that is availble for further manipulation in a photo editor.

I have taken over 10,000 jpegs with my 10D and I will tell,. the best images are the RAW files, and the RAW files I am post processing faster than the jepegs even though I have much less eperience with RAW when compared to those 10,000 plus jpegs.

[AliasMoze]

Using C1 to process RAW is at least as fast as working in Photoshop with a JPG. I'd say the typical work I do on a RAW file is about a minute or so. C1 lets you put the images you want to output into a batch and then output them at once.

The point being: what kind of lifestyle do you lead that you can't spend a few seconds per photo tweaking your RAW output? I can understand if you just don't want to, but the idea that RAW is difficult and/or time-consuming is just inaccurate

To each his own.

[defordphoto]

Personally, I just spend more time on my RAW photos than my JPEGs as they are more important shots and I want them perfect. My JPEGs are important too, but I just give them a quick white-point and black point if needed, two clicks of saturation, USM and I'm done. If I'm shooting full sun then the white/black point is usually not even needed and many times I just run them through BreezeBrowser's gallery creator and my photos are online with no post-processing other than BB's USM.

Now, if a print is ordered then I'll spend more time on the photos and yes, I'll agree then JPEG can actually be more time consuming sometimes as it's more difficult to deal with funky lighting than with RAW. Mainly because the information needed is not there and then you have to use some pretty cheezy techniques to achieve the result you're looking for.

My preference would be to shoot everything RAW and the speed issue I was referring too was mainly camera operation and not post-processing, and you're not switching out cards as often as when shooting RAW.

And when it comes to JPEG vs. RAW, there is no right or wrong. It's just what fits your personal needs.

[AliasMoze]

I agree. It's personal preference. The only thing I don't like about RAW is the size of the files. From the extra card space that's needed to the extra space needed for permanent storage, RAW is harder to deal with.

[openspace]

In a nutshell, RAW gives you options. When I'm shooting RAW, I don't have to worry about whether I'm using the correct white balance, if my tones are correct or if my exposure value (EV) is dead on. I can set all this later, back in the office.

I realize you can do many of the same things with JPEGS (to a degree) but - and this is a very important point - when you post-process a JPEG in any program, you do degrade the file, even (ever so slightly) if you use adjustment layers.

But with RAW, I can change the white balance, tone, contrast, EV, some sharpening and much more without inflicting any damage because I do all these things before I even generate a JPEG or TIFF.

Basically, RAW lets me go back and "take" the shot all over again.

[Canuck]

Hi!
I shoot RAW as well, and in Adobe Photoshop Deluxe Home Edition, It says that the image is 42.667inches by 28.444 inches natively. I had this one set to large fine as the JPEG capture along w/ RAW pic. On some of these I could look at them at 200% effectively meaning you could have roughly a 85.334inches by 56.888 inches picture, I should think. Now, that said I use pro glass, the Sigma EX series, and Canon L glass. I would NOT reccommend it any other way! I saw in the beginning what cheap glass does to the pics. Those were seriously rubbish compared to what I have been shooting recently there is NO comparison!!!! I was looking at one that was taken earlier today and blew it up to 200% and it shows ever so slightly that it was blown up 2x normal size. I recon most people wouldn't notice or care if they were like 2 ft away from it. You would almost have to be on top of it and know what you're looking at to see it and then possibly some seasoning to taste of USM, or sharpening might help and no one is the wiser. Just my 10 pence...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think that 42.667" by 28.444" is at your screen resolution of 72 dots per inch,.. which would not be a very good print resolution. If you print at 200 dpi then your print would be less than half the size,.. around 15 x 12" or so.. (bad math)

[chase237]

Thanks for all of your information guys!!! I guess I'll keep experimenting. Hey.. can I turn a jpg into a Tiff and still have good quality?

[robertwgross]

There are JPEGs and then there are JPEGs, and all are not saved alike.

When you save a JPEG in the camera, did you notice that you don't get any choice of the compression ratio? There are different resolutions, but no choice of ratio.

In some image editing programs, you save JPEGs and are given no choice of compression ratio.

However, in some better editing programs, you are given the choice, either as a quality setting of 1 to 10, or as a percentage of compression, like 20%, and sometimes with other parameter choices.

Although in my camera I aways shoot RAW, I start converting those to TIF in the computer. Eventually, they might end up as TIFs and JPEGs and anything else.

If I save as a JPEG with Zero compression and Zero smoothing, then it saves the image in the JPEG format, but with very little data lost. It saves a hell of a lot of disk space that way. I can convert it back to TIF if I have to, and it is ALMOST as perfect as what I had started with. Not perfect perfect, but almost.

Experiment!

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

chase237 wrote:
Thanks for all of your information guys!!! I guess I'll keep experimenting. Hey.. can I turn a jpg into a Tiff and still have good quality?

Yes. If you convert your JPEG into a TIFF, then as long as you edit the TIFF and re-save as a TIFF there will be NO loss of quality no matter how many times you edit it. That will preserve the original data and quality forever.

[CyberDyneSystems]

chase237 wrote:
Thanks for all of your information guys!!! I guess I'll keep experimenting. Hey.. can I turn a jpg into a Tiff and still have good quality?
]
As Bob and RFM state,. you certainly can,. but the original jpeg is "compromised" as it is allready compressed to some degree.

Not that I am arguing right or wrong,. I just don't want there to be confusion as to whether the tiff made from an original jpeg is the same as a tiff made from a RAW file. (or in some cameras you can even shoot in tiff files)

[defordphoto]

Very, very good point CDS. The data that was missing from the original JPEG will still be missing in the TIFF that it was converted to. That data can NEVER be restored.

This is kinda how I look at it: If you're out shooting 'snapshots' or shots that are just kinda for fun, or just for the web and you have no intention of blowing them up over 13x19 then JPEG is fine. However, you must remember that if your lighting and WB is off it's harder to recover, you just have to jump through several more hoops to make it happen.

One thing when I was out shhoting a motorsports event, one of my first with a dSLR, I aksed one of the seasoned dSLR pros and he said they ONLY shoot JPEG. He said that, "...if you're that far off, then you sholdn't be out here."

Good point. If you don't have the experience to sense the lighting, or make the quick fix in PS, then go home. RAW is too time consuming (slow camera writes) and takes up too much room (also in the camera) he said.

I watched this guy work in PS and he was amazing. He'd spend just seconds on each photo. He knew by experience what each photo needed, or didn't need and his pointer was a blur on the screen. I learned a lot in the time I spent with him.

Now, if you're out and about and after The Shot, for work or for play and are shooting to possible make enlargements later on, then RAW is the only way to fly. If you're shooting that portrait of Grandma that will be a lifetime shot, do not shoot JPEG. You'll kick yourself on down the line when you're trying to tweak it and it's major pain cause the WB is off due to some freaky lighting you didn't notice. And you can NEVER get that shot back.

And again, when you get your workflow down to a science, RAW can be just as easy as JPEGs. If you batch process it's just matter of a few clicks and let the computer do it's thing.

I like both formats (JPEG really isn't a format, but we use it as such) and use both formats.

[Canuck]

CDS,
I was messing with the latest pics and used the TIFF from JPEG and at 180 DPI it is 17.067 inches by 11.378 inches. That sound a little more reasonable? Speaking of which, even the 1/2 moon pics I took Saturday are 1.6 MB when cropped to 3.6 in by 3.6 in at 180 dpi. Makes me glad I invested in 2x 120 GB HDs, in RAID setup on a 2.2 GHZ Athlon w/ 512MB 333MHZ DDR SDRAM! I have seriously bogged it down whilst transforming pics from RAW to TIFF. All of the sudden I'm getting 36-37 MB TIFF files. Speaking of which, the Canon RAW file is awesome as it is a 6MB file that turns into a 36 MB TIFF. That's really impressive!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Canuck wrote:
All of the sudden I'm getting 36-37 MB TIFF files. Speaking of which, the Canon RAW file is awesome as it is a 6MB file that turns into a 36 MB TIFF. That's really impressive!

Don't forget that it's 12-bit data from raw files padded to 16-bit, so it's really only a 27mb TIFF with wasted space.

Regards,