DaveG
8th of December 2003 (Mon), 08:24
This may well be the wrong site to ask about this but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.
I've just gotten Photoshop CS and I've been very pleased with the RAW converter and the effect it's had on a couple of commercial jobs I've done. In my excitement I mentioned this to another pro who uses a Fujifilm S2.
He does almost exclusively studio tabletop work, with his computer about four metres from his camera. It occured to me that shooting RAW wouldn't have the downside - filling up the CF card - that a location shooter would have. I can see quality improvements for him with no downside.
In spite of this he has just discarded any notion of using RAW, mostly basing his decision on his concerns that the RAW files are much too large on the S2. He also says that the RAW files buffer too slowly. He uses a 1 gig microdrive.
Now I've had a hard look at the actual RAW file sizes that my 10D makes and they look to be somewhere between mid 4 meg up to high 5's. These sizes surprised me as I thought that they'd be bigger, but that's OK. I also don't notice much shooting time difference with the RAW and 10D. There does seem to be a period of time AFTER I've shot where I can see that the camera is still processing the image, but it hasn't been a shooting concern at all.
What I'm wondering about is the S2's files size. I have no doubt that he's telling me the truth about the size of his files, and that does seem to be a problem. But is there a difference in quality between the 10D's smaller image file and the S2's? Does the S2 camera interpolate the image to give a bigger file? And to what end? Is he and Fuji just kidding themsleves with these big files, or is there some improvement gained?
Kind of under their breath there's a implication that the S2 gives 12 megapixel quality and I know that it's only a six MP camera.
Can someone add to this?
I've just gotten Photoshop CS and I've been very pleased with the RAW converter and the effect it's had on a couple of commercial jobs I've done. In my excitement I mentioned this to another pro who uses a Fujifilm S2.
He does almost exclusively studio tabletop work, with his computer about four metres from his camera. It occured to me that shooting RAW wouldn't have the downside - filling up the CF card - that a location shooter would have. I can see quality improvements for him with no downside.
In spite of this he has just discarded any notion of using RAW, mostly basing his decision on his concerns that the RAW files are much too large on the S2. He also says that the RAW files buffer too slowly. He uses a 1 gig microdrive.
Now I've had a hard look at the actual RAW file sizes that my 10D makes and they look to be somewhere between mid 4 meg up to high 5's. These sizes surprised me as I thought that they'd be bigger, but that's OK. I also don't notice much shooting time difference with the RAW and 10D. There does seem to be a period of time AFTER I've shot where I can see that the camera is still processing the image, but it hasn't been a shooting concern at all.
What I'm wondering about is the S2's files size. I have no doubt that he's telling me the truth about the size of his files, and that does seem to be a problem. But is there a difference in quality between the 10D's smaller image file and the S2's? Does the S2 camera interpolate the image to give a bigger file? And to what end? Is he and Fuji just kidding themsleves with these big files, or is there some improvement gained?
Kind of under their breath there's a implication that the S2 gives 12 megapixel quality and I know that it's only a six MP camera.
Can someone add to this?