RAW vs JPEG

[FotoPhreak]

First of all,

I think I read from you CyberDyneSystems, that you cannot swap between JPEG & RAW using the 10D ... is this correct?

Also, is it possible to shoot RAW with the 300D?

The real reason for this post is to learn the major advantages/disadvantages of shooting RAW vs shooting in JPEG.

If you shoot RAW, please tell us of your experiences, why you shoot in that format, what advantages/disadvantages you know of.

And dito for JPEG.

Cheers all!

[Canuck]

FotoPhreak wrote:
First of all,

I think I read from you CyberDyneSystems, that you cannot swap between JPEG & RAW using the 10D ... is this correct?

Also, is it possible to shoot RAW with the 300D?

The real reason for this post is to learn the major advantages/disadvantages of shooting RAW vs shooting in JPEG.

If you shoot RAW, please tell us of your experiences, why you shoot in that format, what advantages/disadvantages you know of.

And dito for JPEG.

Cheers all!

Fotophreak,
Here's the lowdown on the 10D: You're incorrect...
You can swap between JPEG and RAW. I have my set button to change quality from Small/Medium/Large Fine/Normal and RAW in shooting mode. Next, there is a JPEG imbedded in the RAW image, and can extract it with the Canon software.

Next, you can shoot RAW with the 300D, but you're confined to one setting as the JPEG as I understand.

Shooting RAW rocks! It makes all the difference in the world in your pics. I know CDS as can I tell you that JPEGs are crap compared to RAW. JPEGs are usually compressed; RAW is the all out capability of the camera.
There isn't a way in the world to compare them, it is night and day difference. CDS even made a post whilst shooting bird pics that he wished he'd had been shooting RAW all the time. It is somewhere on the Share Photos section of this forum, about 5-10 pages back, I recon.

As for shooting JPEG vs RAW, well JPEG saves a lot of space, but is much like lenses, you get what you pay for. JPEG also, isn't the 100% capability of the camera. Seems like a shame to me not to use it like it was designed to be used. Think abou it this way, you get a sports car that can do into the hundred+ MPH very easily, and all you ever do is 60MPH. What a shame to waste that sports car! Ok, now for the flip side, RAW takes up 6-7MB/pic and eats space on CF cards like snacks. I can only get about 72 RAW pics/512 MB CF card. However, that quality is more than worth it IMHO.
You start with a much better product and finish with a much better product. I'm wowing my friends left and right with the 10D and lenses I have whilst shooting RAW. I rarely shoot JPEG anymore. I shot JPEG on Friday as this was just for fun and wanted to show friends what the bare minimum this camera can do. It made me sad on some levels as I know what it is capable of. However, these friends aren't too bothered other than it is a pro looking pic. I told them that it is only 1/3 the capability of the camera! Now why I shoot RAW is to be able to have the max flexibility when manipulating the pics. Be warned, that converting RAW to TIFF can make that 6-7MB pic 36-37MB at 16 bit colour depth. So, from what I have heard, the 10D is only 12 bit so there is some fluff in there. My experince shooting RAW solidified when the first time shooting pics of Concorde, I went JPEG and then the next week I went RAW and the difference between large-fine and RAW is unreal! I couldn't believe my eyes, and was in disbelief that I took that pic. It takes a hell of a lot to impress me, especially the pics I take. I really don;t like commenting on my own pics. Idunno, I much rather let the pics speak for themselves. I think this stems from me being over the top anal about them. Who knows???

Although, it stands to reason that the computer monitors we have today really can't handle the 6.3MP that the 10D/300D put out at full resolution. However, the printers are getting there, if not already. Idunno about that.

Hope this answers what you were looking for!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[FotoPhreak]

Canuck,

Thanks a lot for your detailed input.

I remembered reading an article somewhere over the advantages shooting RAW over JPEG, and your comments have confirmed what I can remember of it.

CDS, when you get online I would appreciate your input.

And any additional comments would be fantastic!

Keep up the good work.

And btw Canuck, I had actually only just finished viewing CDS's bird pictures when I refreshed the browser and found your reply.

Aren't they amazing -> especially the first one.

And yet he/you say he only shot in JPEG ... RAW must make the screen melt they would be so darned 'HOT'!

[CyberDyneSystems]

RAW kicks the $#!^ out of jpeg!!! :D

Yes I try to shoot in RAW.

With both the 300D and the 10D you can pick either of several quality and resolution setting for jpeg, and RAW (only one size for RAW and thats the full resolution with no compression)

The difference between the 300d and the 10D here is quite minimal.

With both, when you shoot RAW you automatically get a jpeg at the same time. With the 10D you can decide what size jpeg is shot with the raw,. with the 300D you can't change it.

The jpeg quality is fantastic,. but the RAW quality is where these cameras really shine.

It is hard to explain the difference in "feel" of working with a RAW Vs. working with a jpeg,. but it is there that you will truly see the difference. Displaying photos shrunk down to fit on a forum is almost meaningless,. it is the flecxilbility while post processing that is a real eye opener. And the end result at full size is mind blowing!

Here is a thread where I had been kicking myself for not laving my camera on RAw,. along with links to the Heron pics that I am guessing you are referring to.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19084

[Canuck]

FotoPhreak wrote:
Canuck,

Thanks a lot for your detailed input.

I remembered reading an article somewhere over the advantages shooting RAW over JPEG, and your comments have confirmed what I can remember of it.

CDS, when you get online I would appreciate your input.

And any additional comments would be fantastic!

Keep up the good work.

And btw Canuck, I had actually only just finished viewing CDS's bird pictures when I refreshed the browser and found your reply.

Aren't they amazing -> especially the first one.

And yet he/you say he only shot in JPEG ... RAW must make the screen melt they would be so darned 'HOT'!

Fotophreak,
First of all, you're welcome! I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but am willing to share what I have learned. I have been shooting since '96 with a 3 yr gap, then got the Canon EOS 50E in Dec, 99. I used that until and still do, very seldom now, until I got hte 10D, end April, 2003. I can go into the intial frustrations which were due to crap lenses, but that has already been discussed. I went to pro lenses and haven't looked back. It will make the difference! Just trust me!
I'm not saying necessarily to get Canon L glass, just spend the exrta $$$ to get high quality lenses, like Sigma EX. You get what you pay for!

Talk about timing, eh?

Yes, that 500mm Sigma is unreal. All of those pics are unreal. i think I her Audobon callin CDS from over here. LOL! I just can't imagine toting around a ton of primes, so I comprimise and go with zooms. I have seen what it can do in my experience w/ the 10D and the monster 120-300 Sigma lens and it is unreal! To find out how he shot, go back and reread his post. I think he did one JPEG and one RAW, after realising he was shooting JPEG if I'm not mistaken. .

I travel an awful lot with my job, too! Since being here in England, I have been to Turkey (no pics), Greece, with the 35mm (gasps, but had the 10D and was asked why I didn;t bring the digital one. I replied that the 35mm was feeling neglected.), Austria x2 w/ 35mm, Wales x2 w/ 10D and All over Southern/Central England as far south as Bristol on the west side and thru Hastings/Battle and on to Dover/Deal on the East and Brimingham to the Northwest. I have yet to go to Dorset/Cornish coast/Devon. I really want to do that, but it is winter and rain is amung us. I'm looking to go North next, but not sure where though.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[hmhm]

FotoPhreak wrote:
The real reason for this post is to learn the major advantages/disadvantages of shooting RAW vs shooting in JPEG.


It basically boils down to 2 points.

The first is that JPG involves lossy compression, so when the camera converts its RAW image to a JPG in-camera, the result is an approximation to the original image, with some small image degradation. If you then post-process the image, and produce yet another JPG image, you'll introduce further degradation due to the additional compression cycles. You want to do compression as seldom as possible

The second point is that JPG only uses 8 bits per color channel per pixel, whereas RAW contains 12 bits. You can think of the conversion from the original 12 bits captured by the sensor to the 8 bits that JPG can hold as being similar to "rounding error". Post-processing of the image, particularly changes to contrast via "levels" or "curves" tend to result in a larger number of different pixel values being mapped to a smaller subset. If the number of different values gets too small, you can get noticeable "banding" in the image at edges between different values. The more of your editing you can do in "wide bit depth", the less information you lose due to "rounding error" (e.g. ideally you shoot in RAW, convert to 16 bit, and do all your post-processing in 16-bit).

RAW also provides some conveniences in post-processing, e.g. you can override your selection of image parameter settings or white-balance settings, etc., applying those params normally set in the camera at RAW conversion time. Obviously these are all things you could do in post-processing (e.g. Photoshop), but there's some added convenience to being able to select from some of the presets at conversion time.
-harry

[Motorsports Photo]

BUT...

Can your customers tell the difference between a printed raw and a printed jpg image?


-Pete
(Still experimenting, but uses high jpg)

[theoldmoose]

Motorsports Photo wrote:
BUT...

Can your customers tell the difference between a printed raw and a printed jpg image?


-Pete
(Still experimenting, but uses high jpg)

"That depends." How's that for an answer? 8-)

Point being, if you do practically no post-capture manipulation of a JPEG image, you are probably OK, as long as you don't exceed reasonable limits of enlargement when printing, and don't try to 'res-up' your JPEGs.

And a lot of P & S cameras do a lot of in camera manipulation of the image, by enchancing the contrast, color saturation, and sharpness a bit, to make the image 'printer ready'. That's why you can frequently get by just plugging your camera into a printer, and printing out snapshots, particularly to smaller 4 x 6 prints.

If you wish to do any kind of post-camera work, though, you will be much better off shooting RAW and converting to 16-bit TIFF files. As pointed out above, manipulating 8-bit files will quickly lead to image degradation, due to round-off and overflow issues. Many image processing operations involve multiply and divide operations (shift left/right bit-wise, if you will) on the image data, and so a short image word size (8-bits) doesn't give you much overhead to work with. Also, repeatedly opening a JPEG file, making a change and re-saving it in JPEG will quickly degrade the image, so if you must post-process a JPEG, at least do an initial conversion to a lossless format, and save all your intermediate results in that. If the reason you are running JPEG is to save disk space, it doesn't make any sense if you are doing post-processing, because of this.

If the reason you are running JPEG is because your camera media is too small, get bigger cards. They are pretty cheap these days, with 512 MB cards running under $100.

If the reason you are shooting JPEG is becuase your camera doesn't support it, that's OK. Just realize the limitations of the camera system you are working with, and operate within those boundaries.

If your camera takes RAW images, and you are still shooting in JPEG, stop it 8-). Life's too short to shoot in JPEG, when you have RAW available. The single biggest win for me in RAW mode, BTW, is the ability to salvage an underexposed shot (which seems to happen all too often with today's 'advanced' exposure metering and flash systems) by up to 2 stops, using RAW conversion software. It seems that even though RAW supposedly only contains 12-bits of image info, there is about 2 bits of overhead built in to the file format. This may stem from using a 14-bit A/D convertor on the sensor (I don't know that for sure, but I know that you don't just invent two bits of image from nowhere, either).

[CyberDyneSystems]

RE: Exposure and RAW,. I heartily second the flexibility of RAW files on this issue.

I have found that (partly due to a lack of a true spot meter) the 10D will over expose my subjects under certain condtions if left to its own metering choices (partial of centerweighted)

So when my back is to the sun on a bright day I dial in 2/3 underexposure compensation... by using RAW files this works extremely well. Most of the time the 2/3 under is spot on on these situations,. but If it is a bit dark,. I can boost the exposure back up without fear of blowing out the highlights (which is what a metered "correct" exposure would have done)

[BobbyC]

If your exposure and white balance is dead on, I don't think you could tell the difference in either file in side by side prints. If you want the ability to make exposure/color changes after-the-fact then RAW is the way to go.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. I personally don't agree that fixing exposure is the only advantage to shooting raw,. in fact not by a long shot. I was just agreeing that that was one of the strong points.

In addition, you get potentially sharper photos with much better color saturation etc.. as the files are manipulated in the native 12 bit they are far more flexible in that manner than a jpeg.

Further,. with Digitals limited dynamic range,. (even with film) there are times when there is no such thing as perfect exposure unless you have time to set up a bunch of ND split grad filters etc. Not very likely in a lot of action oriented situations.

Therefore, I don't agree that with the argument that RAW's exposure flexibility is only an advantage if you can't expose properly, nor that it is RAW's only advantage.

[BobbyC]

Let be clear on one thing, I didn't say that exposure adjustment is only for those who can't get it right, that's not what I was saying at all. I only meant if you want the ability, RAW is the way to go. I also never said these were the only advantages to RAW.

I do stand by the fact that one could not tell the difference in a properly exposed, white balanced jpeg print next to a RAW converted to TIFF print, I've tried it with an 8x10 and it's true. Even if there is a difference, I doubt a person could tell the difference without a loupe or magnifier and I just may be the pickiest person alive.

That being said, I do use RAW for just about everything.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sorry BobbyC,

I didn't mean to come off as snippy as that :)

I think I must be hanging around Belmondo too much... :D

I'm actually just getting the hang of a RAW workflow now in the last 4 months or so,. so I am just being BLOWN AWAY by the improvement I am seeing in the final product. I allways had intended that RAW would be the end result when I purchased the 10D but at first I was to overwhelmed by all that was new to me on the Camera end,. that coupled with the amount of time I was taking actually shooting,. that I kept putting off the neccesary step of working with (and shooting with) RAW.

Oh how I regret that now. There are a number of images out the thousand or so jpegs I took that I am really proud and happy with... and I am kicking myself for not shooting them in RAW to begin with.

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Sorry BobbyC,

I didn't mean to come off as snippy as that :)

I think I must be hanging around Belmondo too much... :D

I'm actually just getting the hang of a RAW workflow now in the last 4 months or so,. so I am just being BLOWN AWAY by the improvement I am seeing in the final product. I allways had intended that RAW would be the end result when I purchased the 10D but at first I was to overwhelmed by all that was new to me on the Camera end,. that coupled with the amount of time I was taking actually shooting,. that I kept putting off the neccesary step of working with (and shooting with) RAW.

Oh how I regret that now. There are a number of images out the thousand or so jpegs I took that I am really proud and happy with... and I am kicking myself for not shooting them in RAW to begin with.


CDS,
Join the club! It took me many, many pics before I started shooting RAW, and seeing the difference firsthand! Speaking of which, I shot some more RAW pics this morning of Concorde's last flight. It is such a shame! I'm waiting to look at them on computer. Again, the 10D w/Big Ed and 120-300 lens is a magnet. I got asked a lot today if I was pro. I said that I was a very keen amateur. Some people wanted me to send them the pics and I was like, no way! I'm gonna try to sell them. I am not going to give them away like that!

Cheers,
Canuck

[AndrewEllinas]

i find that the difference in quality is just so large that i always shoot in RAW.

the photoshop plugin is fantastic and really does let you make a huge number of fundamental changes to the image with miminal degradation.

why run the risk and shoot as a JPEG. its sods law that the one pic you take as a JPEG is the one that you really should have taken in RAW.

[BobbyC]

I understand what you're saying about the ability to make adjustments but I still say, under identical conditions, I challenge anyone to show me a "drastic" difference netween the 2 side by side.

There are many pros a lot bigger than me that use jpg only.

I'm still not saying one should not use RAW, because I use it too, but there is in no way a drastic difference in quality from the camera, only with what can be done after-the-fact. I've done weddings and other events where I've used both and there just is not a noticable difference out of the camera.

[AndrewEllinas]

i agree, sorry i possibly didn't express myself clearly.

its the ability to manipulate the image with the minimum loss of quality that makes the difference to me.

[theoldmoose]

BobbyC wrote:
There are many pros a lot bigger than me that use jpg only.


Then either they don't know any better, or they care little for the quality of their digital work product. Anyone that calls himself 'pro' will be shooting in RAW now, unless they are the same guys that have always shot slide/tranparency, and never, ever did any exposure bracketing, or used any darkroom techniques (dodge, burn, mask) to correct a problem image after the fact.

Of course, you don't see any easily discernable differences between JPEG and RAW-based images, when seen at a normal viewing distance. JPEG is designed to look just the real thing, where your eye normally doesn't notice all the missing bits. It's similar to MP3 audio, where psycho-acoustic techniques are used to fool the ear into thinking that all the sound is there, in spite of the fact that it's a lossy compression technology, just like JPEG.

However, folks that know what they are doing with audio, would never encode to MP3 first, and then fool around with equalization, or other mastering effects. It's the same with shooting JPEG. If you take a perfect shot every time, then no problem -- I wish I was that perfect. But why stick a lossy filter upfront in your digital workflow if you don't need to, if you may need to do some digital dimroom work after the fact?

[BobbyC]

theoldmoose wrote:
Then either they don't know any better, or they care little for the quality of their digital work product. Anyone that calls himself 'pro' will be shooting in RAW now


That is an uninformed and ignorant statement. You may think I'm not very good, you can look at my website and decide that for yourself but to make such a statement is one of the most ignorant things I've seen on a forum in a while. You have no idea the efforts I put into the quality of my work and I'd be willing to bet you don't put the same amount as I do.

Just so you know, I've shot a lot of slide film, I HAVE bracketed and I HAVE spent hundreds of hours in the darkroom dodging and burning and making prints as well as developing all my own film because I couldn't get the quality I demand.

I'm going to look around and give you some names of some of these photographers that you say don't care about quality. I've got a few people in mind but don't want to get it wrong without verifying.

[Cordell]

theoldmoose wrote:
BobbyC wrote:
There are many pros a lot bigger than me that use jpg only.


Then either they don't know any better, or they care little for the quality of their digital work product. Anyone that calls himself 'pro' will be shooting in RAW now, unless they are the same guys that have always shot slide/tranparency, and never, ever did any exposure bracketing, or used any darkroom techniques (dodge, burn, mask) to correct a problem image after the fact.

Of course, you don't see any easily discernable differences between JPEG and RAW-based images, when seen at a normal viewing distance. JPEG is designed to look just the real thing, where your eye normally doesn't notice all the missing bits. It's similar to MP3 audio, where psycho-acoustic techniques are used to fool the ear into thinking that all the sound is there, in spite of the fact that it's a lossy compression technology, just like JPEG.

However, folks that know what they are doing with audio, would never encode to MP3 first, and then fool around with equalization, or other mastering effects. It's the same with shooting JPEG. If you take a perfect shot every time, then no problem -- I wish I was that perfect. But why stick a lossy filter upfront in your digital workflow if you don't need to, if you may need to do some digital dimroom work after the fact?



theoldmoose, I must say this comment/way of thinking can upset soooooo many photographers. How can you possibly figure don't know what they are doing because they do it different than you? I know of a PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL photographer forum where many of them use JPEG. They use it because of choice, the ABILITY to capture shots that need little post processing, and the ability to maximize space on their cards. These are people who have been photographers for decades using several different formats of equipement. The shots that need more post processing is minimal. Why because they have learned the craft of photography.

Know, the issue of JPEG vs RAW can be viewed in many ways, however, in my opion the greatest value of RAW over JPEG is workflow. NOT always a better image do to pixel capture, range, other, etc. If you take two images that are captured only close to perfect with one in JPEG the other in RAW, do your post work. You can not tell the difference unless you shrink yourself down to a pixel and walk around the photos with a lupe. Sure, there is the dinamic range issue, lost pixels, and whatever other technicallity you want to bring up. BUT the bottom line is can your "really" see the difference just by picking the printed pictures up. In other words, you can not walk into a room and say "that was shot in JPEG, and that was shot in RAW".

It is a matter of finished product and knowing your craft.

[hmhm]

I'm an amateur photographer (i.e. a professional something else), so I'm hardly an expert on what pros do, but I'll point out that professionals in a field are often far more pragmatic than the amateurs. A pro says "do gig, get check, do next gig", and needs to get his work done quickly enough to appease customers and make enough money to support himself. An amateur, such as myself, may have more time to labor over his meaningless shots, tweaking this and that in Photoshop until it's a perfected version of what was probably a mediocre shot to begin with. :)
-harry

[hodad66]

Always shoot raw! The only downside is needing larger compact flash cards / storage.

[shadowsongs]

Hi all,
This is my first post so a brief introduction first.

Photographer proffesional & semi-proffesional for 40+ years. Now working as a tutor in digital imaging & digital photography for a local college here in Wales. I am totally convinced regarding digital photography and have used no film for over three years.

I shoot RAW or JPEG depending on the job in hand. I dont see this as an either or situation and I would agree that unless you examine a finished print at a magnifcation that no average person would use it would be very difficult if not impossible to see the difference. I use this as part of an exercise with my students and have yet to find anyone who is able to tell the difference.

Best wishes

Sid Frisby
Blaenau Ffestiniog
Wales
website: www.shadowsongs.btinternet.co.uk

[debonair]

What processing software are you guys using to work on the RAW image with?

[defordphoto]

I agree Shadowsongs. Both formats have their place and this horse has been beaten dead several times before and will no doubt be beaten dead time and time again.

It's great to have all these choices with these cameras and you can use what settings and formats that work for you. If a photographer wants to shoot only RAW then go for it, but that does NOT mean that JPEG is inferior or wrong method.

There are advantages to both formats and it's up to the photographer to select what method suits his/her shooting practices. I use both formats. Sometimes on the same card. It all depends on what I am shooting.

Just like sometimes I use AWB and other times I select it. Sometimes I use custom settings and sometimes I don't It totally depends on the conditions and what I am shooting and it does not make what anyone else shoots wrong.

When I was first shooting motorsports digitally I asked one of the longtimers if he shot RAW or JPEG. He said always JPEG. As we discussed the advantages of RAW and being able to adjust exposures, etc. after the fact he then said, "If you're that far off (to have to shoot RAW) then you don't belong out here."

[Canuck]

shadowsongs wrote:
Hi all,
This is my first post so a brief introduction first.

Photographer proffesional & semi-proffesional for 40+ years. Now working as a tutor in digital imaging & digital photography for a local college here in Wales. I am totally convinced regarding digital photography and have used no film for over three years.

I shoot RAW or JPEG depending on the job in hand. I dont see this as an either or situation and I would agree that unless you examine a finished print at a magnifcation that no average person would use it would be very difficult if not impossible to see the difference. I use this as part of an exercise with my students and have yet to find anyone who is able to tell the difference.

Best wishes

Sid Frisby
Blaenau Ffestiniog
Wales
website: www.shadowsongs.btinternet.co.uk

Hi!
I've been to Wales twice now and it's great! I really like it. Sure beats the Fens that I'm stuck in. I have one cool bit to say: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch. It still cracks me up. We had someone say it at Carew Castle, Wales. I wish I knew some Welsh, it seems like an interesting and very difficult for non-native speaking people. It's all banter, that's it!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[theoldmoose]

First, let me apologize, if I hit a raw nerve with any professionals on this forum. I let the hyperbole and polarization over this topic get me excited to the point of making some rather strong statements.

At the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth once again, I'll try to re-iterate my point (hopefully, with less forceful verbage 8-):

For someone that wants to get the most out of their picture taking process (that is, wants to produce that 'perfect' print), shooting initially in JPEG simply hobbles that process. Trying to make adjustments, after the fact, to a lossy compression, is essentially starting from under ground zero. It just gets worst, the more you fiddle with it. There are some really good filters that can help knock out the JPEG jaggies, mosquitoes, ladders and other interesting artifacts that tend to creep into those photos, but they are not perfect, and assuming that reverse entropy doesn't exist in this universe, will never be able to recover the original pixels, as shot.

This is not to say that you can't hold up a JPEG and a RAW based image at normal viewing distance in a double-blind test, and fool most viewers. As I stated earlier, that is exactly the whole point behind the JPEG compression algorithms, and are based on typical human visual perception.

I'll also recognize that RAW processing (at least for the near future) involves slowing down a busy photographer's workflow. I've also known busy photographers that have resisted buying, learning, and using tools that might take most, if not all, of that extra 'dimroom' time out of a RAW workflow. For that reason, I have my suspicions about anyone that insists that JPEG post-processing produces identical pictures to RAW, and brings nothing to the party. I'm not sure that we are arguing the same points at that point.

The argument then becomes a matter of 'good enough' (and timely) versus 'perfect' (but later), in many folks' views. I believe that as RAW processing becomes more the norm, and the available tools improve, that JPEG-only pros will turn more and more to the tools that will give them better ability to control the process, when required.

For pros that do museum-quality fine art prints, I still find it hard to believe that any of them are shooting in JPEG, if they have RAW format available to them.

[BobbyC]

theoldmoose wrote:
Trying to make adjustments, after the fact, to a lossy compression, is essentially starting from under ground zero.....

I have my suspicions about anyone that insists that JPEG post-processing produces identical pictures to RAW, and brings nothing to the party. I'm not sure that we are arguing the same points at that point......

As I stated, for images that NEED after-the-fact processing, RAW is the way to go. You threw in that phrase "jpeg post-processing" which I stated would not be ideal.

There are some event situations (The large quantity events I shoot are motorsports) where if exposure and white balance are on the money, I won't be doing any post processing other than maybe cropping, RAW is just a waste of disk space in this situation. (I do save the jpegs to tiff so as not to further degrade the file)

theoldmoose wrote:
I've also known busy photographers that have resisted buying, learning, and using tools that might take most, if not all, of that extra 'dimroom' time out of a RAW workflow.

Unfortunately there is no program that takes "all" the extra time out of processing RAW's. If you think there is then I would question your commitment to quality. There are no "press a button and walk away" programs out there. There are some good ones showing up in the market, but not any that really take away the processing time to any real extent other than faster converting speeds. I know this very well, because as I said, I shoot RAW almost all the time (except in situations described above). I do retouching that could never be automated because it is too specific to each image. (Nor am I complaining about the time it takes) I don't miss doing it in the darkroom at all though!

[theoldmoose]

Capture 1 DSLR has a nice feature that allows you to overlap 'developing' (converting from RAW) with treaking conversion parameters for the next photo. You can essentially queue them for background processing while forging ahead. The program also has a nice, interactive preview that lets you see the effect of what you propose to do, without waiting for a RAW conversion each time, like the bundled Canon software does.

The professional Capture 1 software lets you batch process an unlimited number of RAW conversions. The non-pro versions are crippled in this respect, and only let you batch convert a handful at a time. It's a reasonable tradeoff vs. cost of the software. If you're a pro, and time is money, you'll shell out for the pro version, so RAW conversions are never a bottleneck.

Not that doing RAW is really as fast as doing JPEG (and not needing to do any post-processing except crop), but C1DSLR at least makes it a lot less painful (and you still have control over what you are doing -- it's not just 'push a button' type stuff). I find, in particular, that I always like to 2nd-guess the camera's exposure metering, and the auto white balance tends to be off, except for the most mundane full daylight shots. The eye-dropper type of white balance correction (point to something in the scene that should be neutral) is really valuable, and makes what could be a tedious process a snap. It made it very easy for me to correct some night-time shots of Niagra Falls, that are lit by some funky halogen lighting, which seems to be anybody's guess what the apparent color temperature is.

[FotoPhreak]

I remember reading somewhere that with the 300D you cannot save in RAW in the pre-programmed commands (i.e. Sporting mode cannot, whereas Tv can!?!?) ...

Is this correct?

[theoldmoose]

FotoPhreak wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that with the 300D you cannot save in RAW in the pre-programmed commands (i.e. Sporting mode cannot, whereas Tv can!?!?) ...

Is this correct?



Unfortunately, that is true. Canon purposely 'dumbed' down the 300D, by pulling a lot of programmable options, to avoid gutting their 10D sales. Most of the missing features of the 300D are due to firmware crippling.

That said, you can do quite well by pretty much ignoring the pre-programmed modes, and just setting the camera on something like P or Av and select RAW and AdobeRGB. This will provide you with the most latitude in exposure and colorspace. You will also be able to set your preferred ISO. It actually won't matter what you set the white balance to, since you will get the chance to set that to any temperature you like, in the RAW conversion program. I find that most camera's auto-white balancing systems mess up more often than I care for, anyway. Better to make a color balance correction before/during RAW conversion, than later, to a JPEG image, since large color excursions can 'blow out' one or more color channels.

For non-flash modes, the only thing I really miss is the ability to force AI Servo focusing, which was reserved for the pre-programmed Sporting mode. Someone on dpreview.com forum came up with just plugging a plain 2.5mm stereo plug into the remote control jack, which shorts the remote control contact for 'half-pressed-shutter'. You then wave your hand in front of the camera (or whatever) which triggers the AI Focus mode into AI Servo, which will persist as long as you keep the plug in the jack. Kind of funky, but I guess it works. For one thing, the pre-programmed Sporting mode shuts off the flash. There are times when I want AI Servo and flash, and this is the only way I know of to force it.

For flash, the 300D also tends to cripple a number of useful features. If you are serious about flash photography with the 300D, get the 550EX flash, which will restore most of the missing flash options, like 2nd curtain sync, hi-speed sync, and FP sync. The 420EX flash works with the 300D, but like the pre-programmed modes, doesn't let you set anything.

[GenDEM]

The answers you seek can be found by

1. Searching this forum
2. Downloading the product manual PDF from Canon and reading

[BobbyC]

The best thing to do if you want the features of the 10D is to buy the 10D. To say the 300D is dumbed down because it doesn't have the same features as the 10D is just goofy. It's a less expensive camera with fewer bells and whistles that's it. Shorting the remote control contact? Are you serious?

And to shooting RAW and not worrying about getting WB right until later? That's just lazy, wait until you get home with 500 to 1000 pictures to correct and see how smart that method is.

There are a lot of new people getting DSLR's because of the lower prices of the 10D and 300D and I can't just sit by and let this kind of bad information be passed on to all the new guys coming in, I'm not just trying to argue.

[theoldmoose]

BobbyC wrote:
The best thing to do if you want the features of the 10D is to buy the 10D. To say the 300D is dumbed down because it doesn't have the same features as the 10D is just goofy. It's a less expensive camera with fewer bells and whistles that's it. Shorting the remote control contact? Are you serious?


I would agree with you, if most of the missing features were really due to mechanical limitations of the 300D design, which they aren't. With the possible exception of the mirror mechanism (and that is doubtful, since the sensor clean command is perfectly capable of holding the mirror in the 'lock-up' position indefinitely), I can't think of a missing feature (custom functions, etc) that wasn't already in the 10D firmware (i.e. already developed and paid for), and was subsequently omitted from the 300D version.

Now, I understand that the 3 or 4 separate chips that formed the 10D guts were merged into a single "super-chip", and perhaps the I/O addresses and memory maps might have been changed, but as an embedded software jock from way back, I can assure you that Canon had to go to no trouble at all to leave out things that had already been featured (and programmed for) on the 10D. And, considering that any porting costs for moving those software features over to the 300D would be amortized over a *lot* of units, the development cost approaches zero. The only remaining reasons would be 'product placement' (more power to them, I suppose) and 'opportunity cost' which would have occurred if porting those features would have delayed introducing the 300D, say, until after this year's holiday season.

Mind you, I'm not really complaining, seeing as I get an almost equivalent set of sensor electronics, etc. for a much better price point, (in fact, the 10D owners should be miffed at having to pay so much for for mostly firmware features) and as long as I'm willing to sink more money into a better flash (the 550EX), which I can use on a "better" body later, I can get back many of the flash functions that were omitted from the 300D firmware.

At the moment, I'm not motivated enough to hack the camera firmware myself (I'd rather shoot pictures with it, instead of hacking it), but there may possibly be such folks out there. There is already a pretty decent description of the internals of the way the firmware files are arranged on the virtual flash-resident 'drives' in the camera on the dpreview.com forum. If someone does manage to re-add all the missing functions to the firmware, then I wouldn't shed a tear for Canon, since they left the platform open enough for some folks to do so. It's all a matter of economics, both on the part of the consumers and the part of the camera makers. C'est la vie.

Oh, and 'shorting' the remote control contact is not as whacky as it sounds. The remote control does exactly that. It has two contacts, each emulates pushing the shutter button halfway, and all the way. Normally a stereo plug (tip, ring, and sleeve) is used, providing two contact closures to ground. If you insert a mono plug, it shorts the ring contact to the sleeve, which happens to correspond to the 'half way down' contact. The camera then behaves as if you are constantly holding the shutter button halfway down. No harm, except that the 300D won't write any images to the CF as long as you are holding the shutter button halfway down. You will have to release the button/unplug the plug, to let the image buffer empty into the CF card. Admittedly it's hokey, but it beats paying $600 to get that feature on the 10D. Not of any interest to pros, I'm sure, but to the penny-pincher crowd that the 300D is attracting, it's kind of cute.

BobbyC wrote:
And to shooting RAW and not worrying about getting WB right until later? That's just lazy, wait until you get home with 500 to 1000 pictures to correct and see how smart that method is.


Not lazy, but smart. It's just a question of software. Using C1 DSLR Digital Rebel edition ($49), I can highlight as many RAW previews as I like (click, shift-click) and then click 'apply this white balance setting to all selected images'. Poof! 500 or 1000, it doesn't make any difference. If I took a ton of photos all grouped together under similar/identical lighting, once I get the white balance figured out for one of them, I can propagate it to all the others. Worked like a charm with my night-time Niagra Falls pictures. They rotate a set of colored lights, of unpublished color temperature (some kind of Xenon lighting) on the falls. One of them is 'white' (to our eyes). By balancing that shot for neutral, and propagating that color temperature to the other colored frames, the colors all come out 'right'.

Come to think of it, that beats the socks off of 'auto' white balance, where the camera is constantly juggling the white point for *every* exposure you make. I don't think I'd care much for that, anyway. It would be hard to get a consistent look to a grouping of photos, under even slightly varying lighting conditions. I don't use auto white balance with my video camera either. I shoot a piece of something white, and set a custom white balance. Beats the alternative (orange or green faces, etc.)

And we all know how goofy the 10D and 300D auto color correction is for tungsten and flourescent lighting. You will have to adjust those photos, not matter what. Why sweat it during the shoot? When you aren't shooting film, it just doesn't matter any more. I used to carry the full complement of color filters in my Olympus OM bag. I don't need any of them any more, now that I shoot digital, and the color accuracy is astounding, compared to color-corrected film shots.

BobbyC wrote:
There are a lot of new people getting DSLR's because of the lower prices of the 10D and 300D and I can't just sit by and let this kind of bad information be passed on to all the new guys coming in, I'm not just trying to argue.


No offense taken, I'm sure 8-).

[GenEOS]

A jpeg is a jpeg is a jpeg. It is a compressed file, no matter how you look at it. Why damage a file before you even get it out of the camera? Why not start out with the BEST you can get?

To say a person shooting RAW is lazy is the most absurd thing I have heard. How can that be lazy? I see shooting jpeg's as being lazy.

Digital workflows are part of digital phtography. If your workflow is not quick enough to handle a ton of images quickly, than you need to learn more about how to handle your files.

Shooting RAW allows the educated digital photog the ability to capture a moment with the most detail and in a way that a jpeg shooter cannot.

Just my 2 cents....not here to make any enemies...

[theoldmoose]

GenEOS wrote:
A jpeg is a jpeg is a jpeg. It is a compressed file, no matter how you look at it. Why damage a file before you even get it out of the camera? Why not start out with the BEST you can get?


A slight clarification, if I might. JPEG and RAW are both compressed formats. RAW, though, is designed (among other things) to be lossless, as opposed to JPEG which is lossy (but only a little bit [or a lot -- depending on the compression level set]).

Also, within limits, the camera does no razzle-dazzle processing on a RAW image, except to encode the sensor data into something more easily handled by the typical raw conversion software. I say, within limits, because there has been a interesting thread over on rob galbraith's forum with Chuck Westfall concerning default sharpening that is apparently being applied to RAW images, in spite of setting the raw conversion software sharpening to 'off'. All other settings are just used to tag the RAW file, so that the raw conversion software can use them when converting to TIFF or JPEG, or you can override those choices during conversion (they are not additive). In other words, setting a +2 sharpness in both the camera and the raw conversion software does not create a +4 sharpened image.

JPEGs, on the other hand, are massaged by the camera, depending on what is set in terms of contrast, white balance, sharpness, etc. Once the camera has done these things, it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to undo some of them without producing detectable artifacts.

In any event, let's just say that RAW is the closest practical thing you can get to 'unsullied', when extracting shots from a camera. In the case of the 1D and 1Ds, it turns out that TIFF is even more 'unsullied', but that choice is not available on any of the other models produced by Canon.

GenEOS wrote:
To say a person shooting RAW is lazy is the most absurd thing I have heard. How can that be lazy? I see shooting jpeg's as being lazy.

Digital workflows are part of digital phtography. If your workflow is not quick enough to handle a ton of images quickly, than you need to learn more about how to handle your files.

Shooting RAW allows the educated digital photog the ability to capture a moment with the most detail and in a way that a jpeg shooter cannot.

Just my 2 cents....not here to make any enemies...


I believe the original quote was that someone that didn't bother to set white balance on the camera when shooting RAW was being lazy. I don't believe that folks that shoot RAW in general were being targeted.

In defense of those that shoot JPEG, it does make it easy to use the pictbridge capabilities of some cameras (the 300D included) to snap shots and then plug the camera into a printer and print them on the spot. And there can be very valid reasons for doing just that. Consider photographing kids on Santa's knee in the mall. If you are doing that for a gig, you really don't need to spend time messing with RAW workflow. But you can probably use the control over DOP, flash handling, tethered operation, and lens selection that using a digital SLR can get you.

I'm sure that folks here can come up with lots of similar circumstances where shooting JPEG and using the camera's default 'punchy' settings to produce print-ready shapshots would be amply justified. I surely don't mean to condemn all JPEG shooters to P & S hell. 8-)

[BobbyC]

To say a person shooting RAW is lazy is the most absurd thing I have heard. How can that be lazy? I see shooting jpeg's as being lazy.

Yeah, if you took the time to read what I said you would have noticed that I said it was lazy in response to "don't worry about the WB, just set it later" I'm not fortunate enough to shoot everything under the exact same lighting conditions so it would be unprofitable for me to take that time consuming approach. A custom white balance for each lighting condition, takes less than a minute for each one, and virtually eliminates color problems for me. Why take the long road?

Digital workflows are part of digital phtography. If your workflow is not quick enough to handle a ton of images quickly, than you need to learn more about how to handle your files.

After about 4 years of being digital, I have my workflow down to about 2 hours processing time for an entire portrait session, including retouching, vignetting, everything. If you put the time into perfecting your portraits as I do, then I would be impressed to see you do it quicker than me.

Shooting RAW allows the educated digital photog the ability to capture a moment with the most detail and in a way that a jpeg shooter cannot.

As I said, if you had read any of my posts, I use RAW almost all the time, I have only tried to make the point that jpg is a viable method. What is absurd is to demand that there is only one way to do things, what's even more absurd is implying that anyone that doesn't agree with you is too stupid to get the job done and uneducated.

[GenDEM]

I would agree with you, if most of the missing features were really due to mechanical limitations of the 300D design, which they aren't.


Irrelevant. By this you are saying that if a device is capable of doing something then it should, or the company is somehow cheating you. Do you insist that your car be capable of very fast speeds because another model is so capable? No. Same with the 300D/10D.

"But the 300D is based on the 10D and so must have the same features, except they ar disabled!" Yes, and? This is very common is just about every other product in your house, and is called product positioning. Should your TV have all capabilities of the top end model because they share a board and case and tube? No. Should your hard drive have the max capacity for that family just because it can? No. Are either of these products "dumbed down"? No. Sub in any other product in your house that has aother, higher price/more features model, and you'll see my point quite easily.

What comments like the ones you made translate to is this : "I don't want any choice." That is, if it's not the best it can possibly be, don't make it. Did you buy the 1D when it came out and the 10D was just a rumour? No. Why? Too expensive I bet. So Canon comes out with the 10D. Did you buy a 10D when the 300D was just a rumour? No. Why? To expensive I bet. So Canon comes out with the 300D, a product that fits your budget, and now you complain that it doesn't have the same features as the higher end model? What did you expect? Do you see now the fallacy of this discussion?

It has nothing to do with amortising costs. It has everything to do with product placement.

Honestly, I've not heard so much whining about a product since the 10D focus testing flurry. If you're really interested in why Canon produces the products it does, pick up a book on introductory marketing.

[theoldmoose]

My point is that software development and hardware development (and production) are two completely different beasts. You can't expense them the same, nor account for them the same way on an engineering/production or sales budget. Once you've developed a software module, production costs are very near zero. The same cannot be said of hardware, even though the price of embedding processors in products is asymptotically approaching zero these days.

There are companies that make a ton of money off of selling copies of software-only products, but that business model is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain, and tends to tee off your customers (Microsoft comes to mind).

Product placement of a hardware item by manipulating the software contained in it, is (as has been widely commented on) fairly transparent, at least to fairly educated consumers. That is why there is so much 'whining'. Marketing folks may not like the whining, but they ignore it at their own peril.

In any marketing book, there should be a rule of "Don't attempt to outsmart your customers by using artifical product placement schemes. They will make you look like a fool."

[Rich Ehrlich]

I photgrapher 5 to 10 thousand children a year. Jpgs make beautiful 16x or 20x . If I want to do portraits I can shoot raw if I do schools I use jpgs. I love the versatility. Wddings JPgs.


Rich www.ehrlichphoto.net

[RichardtheSane]

Sorry I missed this discussion, I was out taking photographs :D

Here are my views.
raw vs jpeg :-
Shoot what pleases you. I shoot raw because I like it. If you like jpeg then use that. If you don't know then get a good raw convertor and play with both formats to see which you prefer - you'll prabably also see that there is a time & place for each format.

300D is just a nobbled 10D?
Nope, 300D is a 300D. It does everything the sales brochure does, and a few more things too. It may not do a few things that you would want it to do (often because the 10D does it) but hey, it is a Rebel and I don't see many other rebel bodies with these missing features. If I have spent £700 on the DR with lens then I would be well pleased with it, even though it is silver... :D

Now I am going to sit back and chill out. Sems to be too many heated debates going on round here, I've said my bit. I might even do a bit more photography :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. this was an old thread too :)

Seems it was originally about the benifits/disadvantages of jpeg Vs. RAW... now we have 300d Vs. 10D thrown in,.. to white balance, or not to white balance... etc... :)

Back to the original question;
Why RAW or jpeg?

Many opinions and facts have been proferred for the advantage of RAW,.. but oddly even those that use jpeg have not seemed to fully explain the enifits of using jpeg?

Perhaps by doing so,. it will help a little.

Here are the only advantages of using jpeg that I can percieve.

1. It is a smaller file,. and thus you can fit more onto your card.

2. You can use the files straight out of the camera with the aid of the in camera processing.

3. Along with smaller files also comes faster burst rate recycling.

Thats about all that can be said for the advantages of jpeg.

Now,. I won't go back to reitierate the many benifits that RAW offers,. but suffice it to say,. for most of us,. there should be very few situations where the 3 benifits of jpeg outweigh the over whelming benifits of RAW. But for some of us,. they can in fact balance out to jpeg.

If $$$ is the primary concern,. then memory may be a larger issue. This may be reason enought to stick with the jpegs smaller file.

If sitting in front of a PC post processing is of no interest.. again this one factor may be all one needs to stick with jpeg (of course in the case of the Canon DSLR where you get RAW + jpeg in one file,. the circumstances are little bit mitigated by that fact, however,. extracting the jepgs from the raw files still requires some PC time)

Bottom line,. the argument for jpeg 99% of the time resorts to the statement "it's good enough" for large prints,. to my eyes,.. etc...

If "good enough" were exceptable,. most of us would not be eyeing those 400mm f/2.8 L lenses at the photoshop! :D

So why settle?

[chris.bailey]

The RAW vs JPEG debate is one that will always crop up from time to time and some people will always staunchly defend their preference.

One reason I use RAW most of the time (JPEG for the extra burst speed for action shots can be handy) is that with RAW you can always go back to the original shot. I file my pictures by month and each month have a RAW inbox. I only process the shots I want into PSD or TIFF's but know I always have the original RAW if I want it. How many times have I cropped and then saved, overwriting the file rather than saving as a new file name. If using the JPEG that would mean you have lost the original image. If you have the RAW you can always start again. Hope that makes sense.

With storage being so cheap I dont see too many arguments for using JPEG as the primary image source but that is only my opinion.

[BobbyC]

The few times that I do use jpg, I still keep it as an untouched original. I immediately open the jpg and save it as a tiff or psd for retouching. Again, if you are on with exposure and white balance, you just can't tell the difference in the print. Not becuase it is good enough, because it is just as good.