Shoot Raw Or JPEG ?

[CJMORGAN59]

So I shot some images in Raw and then the same images at the largest JPEG setting, and on later inspection, I'm having a hard time visually seeing any
difference as I review them in Photoshop. What's the real appeal of shooting in Raw mode if I'm visually not seeing any difference? What am I missing here?
Thanks In Advance,
CJ

[Mike K]

see
http://www.colorshots.com/cs101e/html/tipps_raw.html

http://home.austin.rr.com/g2darkroom/advantages_of_linear_modes_.htm

[pvdiamon]

RAW sounds great. How would you change settings like the white balance AFTER taking the shot? Is this done in photoshop/paintshop software, or can you do it while the shot is in the camera?

[Mike K]

Hmm, I thouhgt those articles were more explicit. When you shoot RAW, white balance, etc are not yet set. With the camera come software (or several aftermarket or freeware choices exist) that converts the RAW to TIFF (8 or 16 bit) or JPEG (you select). During the conversion process you can select any of the preset white balance or use the picker to pick on any white, gray or black pixel in the image. The preview lets you try as often as you like to your taste. During the software conversion you can also vary contrast, sharpness and saturation. So these processes are carried out in real time when saving JPEG in the camera, but shooting RAW lets you carefully choose these variables after the fact in your computer.
Here is another very concise description:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_Image_Format_01.htm

The 16 bit linear conversions are a whole 'nother issue, but help to increase the dynamic range by utilizing the maximum 10 or 12 bit data (depending upon camera) generated by the camera before it truncates it to the 8 bit typical of JPEG.
Mike K

[2new]

Excellent information! Thanks for the post & Reply

[pvdiamon]

I understand that the RAW photo has no white balance applied, but the confusing aspect is that the G2 in P mode still allows white balance settings while in RAW format. That implies that you are altering the image.

[Don Ellis]

pvdiamon wrote:
I understand that the RAW photo has no white balance applied, but the confusing aspect is that the G2 in P mode still allows white balance settings while in RAW format. That implies that you are altering the image.

Think of the settings you make in P mode as icing on the cake. If you set Tungsten icing before you shoot and you convert your RAW image (the cake) "As shot," you will end up with Tungsten icing. But if you set Tungsten icing and realize you were shooting outdoors and would like Daylight icing, you can ignore "As shot" and choose "Daylight" before you convert your image from RAW to another format.

All of your P mode settings are like a layer or filter floating above your RAW image. You can use it or change it or peel it away. If you choose "As shot" during the conversion, all the settings in your imaginary layer will be the ones you chose when you took the picture. If you want to modify one or all of these settings, you can do this before you convert by choosing different values for saturation, constrast, sharpness, white balance, etc.

I hope the "icing" example isn't too confusing, but it's how I think of it.

Don

[pvdiamon]

That was real helpful. Thanks.

[mjordan]

I have a question about the Jpeg file that comes out of the G2 that stems from a friend of mine that has a G2 (I have a D30). He says that the jpeg images come out just like sRGB so that is what he does all of his processing in. I think that it's a wider gamut than sRGB and that he's losing some information by doing everything in sRGB. As I'm no expert, I'm trying to educate myself, so thought I'd ask in here. Does the extra pixels in the G2 make up for any loss that might happen by using a narrower gamut like sRGB or are the losses so little that it doesn't matter?

Thanks,

Mike

[pvdiamon]

I am starting to experiment with RAW, and lo and behold, Zoom Browser won't show it in a slide show. And Jasc Paint Shop didn't want to open it either. Is BreezeBrowser better for RAW, or what do you do to view and edit?

[RichardSimon]

My normal workflow for images from my Canon is the
following:
- Nearly ALWAYS shoot in RAW mode
- Use a card reader to move images to disk (not ZoomBrowser!), including both the .CRW and .THM files
- Use ThumbsPlus 5 to preview and manage files. TP5 has .CRW preview and conversion, using a free add-in
- Use PaintShop for processing of the image, after a RAW conversion.

ThumbsPlus will do the RAW conversions in batch mode, which is convenient; for important images, I use the RAW converter supplied by Canon to control white balance, contrast, etc.

TP5 has excellent slide show facilities, but I haven't experimented much with slide shows of RAW images. For a quick slide show, one woould want to use the jpeg preview images embedded in the .RAW, rather than a full conversion.

[pvdiamon]

Do most people do their own printing on inkjets? The RAW files seem to be > 10meg in size, and that is not uploadable to Ofoto etc. for printing. I'm also wondering if using an inkjet, the difference between RAW and JPEG is noticeable. Thanks, I'm new to this, and obviously haven't gotten into the printing part yet.

[Mind Socket]

I've also been contemplating the cost/benefit breakdown of doing my own printing vs getting a photo lab to do it.

I do know however, that most labs accept JPG and TIFF file formats. RAW is good for processing the image, but not something you'd send for printing. Once you've done your RAW processing, it's usually no problem to save as a high quality JPG for printing purposes. And, of course, you should always keep the original CRW file to go back to.

[dn7elson]

pvdiamon wrote:
I'm also wondering if using an inkjet, the difference between RAW and JPEG is noticeable.

Since most inkjets are CYMK (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, Black) and limited in the number of colors that can be overlaid in the grid during print, you end up with a different sort of "compression" as the total effective number of rendered colors is limited.

This is different, but the same issue, of JPEG file compression. The file compression reduces the number of effective colors by making all similar colors the same. With limited ink cartridge sources, the inkjet does much the same. I would therefore anticipate that you will not recognize much, if any, difference between printing an inkjet rendered RAW image vs. its moderately compressed JPEG counterpart.

[pvdiamon]

If you convert a RAW file to JPEG for uploading to print, is it a larger (and I guess better) reproduction than just shooting in JPEG? Am I correct to assume you would then send Ofoto or others a close to 2mb file instead of the usual smaller files shot with JPEG? Also, if inkjets don't print all that well, and certainly the computer screen is limited in resolution, how else are you utilizing the benefits of RAW then?