Another RAW question

[Johnnynf]

I was going to post this in another thread, but thought it might be better to start a new one instead. Let me start off by stating that I HAVE already been enlightened to the benefits of shooting RAW. I have found RAW to be invaluable when shooting HS basketball in a dark gym because of the exposure compensation. That being said, I have a few more questions about it.

I am going on a trip to Colorado this summer, and I was trying to decide which format to use (RAW or JPEG). Most of the benefits of RAW that I have found so far come when you can't be assured that your shot will be right coming straight out of the camera (like the example earlier of underexposed shots). However, when I am shooting a mountain shot in full daylight, I am pretty sure the shot will come out good straight out of the camera. So why would I want to use RAW? It just takes up more space on the CF card. I shot some pictures of my brothers track meet this weekend, and shot entirely in JPEG and didn't see much on any of the pictures that shooting in RAW would have helped. 99% of the problems I had were focus issues...something even RAW can't fix.

Also, when I shoot in RAW using my DRebel, is the camera using the contrast and sharpness "parameters" that it uses when I shoot in JPEG? This is just for personal information.

Finally, which format would be better to make high quality prints from. I bought my DRebel to basically replace film...so I am looking for the highest possible quality prints. Will shooting in RAW and converting to TIFF give me better final image quality than shooting in Large JPEG? Please note that most images will only be 4x6, while some may be blown up to a maximum of 8x10. Will I lose anything by shooting RAW and converting to JPEG instead of TIFF? This will help as I won't have to take 10+ CD's into the lab to get prints made.

Sorry for all of the questions, it just seems like when shooting scenery outdoors, shooting RAW might be overkill a bit, for me at least.

Thanks for all of your help? I appologize if these questions are repetitious or anything.

[scottbergerphoto]

RAW gives you the most flexibility after you take the shot. The camera records the numerical data from the sensor with a minimum of adjustment. There is a small, unknown quantity of sharpening occurring that cannot be prevented. None of the camera parameters are applied. You get to decide all the settings afterwards and can change them whenever you want. You can convert it to any Color Space available in your converter (Adobe RGB, sRGB, ColorMarchRGB, etc.) You set your White Balance as you need to. To a certain extent you can adjust your exposure. You can convert to 8 or 16bitt TIFF or JPEG. The choices are yours. You can edit in 16bitt tiff to preserve as much data as possible.
You cannot do any of theses things when you shoot JPEG. Now, that might not mean anything to you. That's fine. You get to decide how much flexibility you will have after the shot. Many people shoot large JPEG and are happy with it. I mostly shoot RAW and convert to Adobe RGB and do my own printing. It's what works for me. I also like knowing that I have the original data (RAW) file, so that as converters improve, and as I improve as an editor, I can go back as many times as I want and redo the conversion.
If you plan on sending your prints in for printing, stick with sRGB, as I believe that's all they will accept. But if you shot RAW, you could later convert it to AdobeRGB and print it out at home on an inkjet with a wider gamut then sRGB, like the Epson 2200.
Regards,
Scott

[PaulN]

Even in outdoor photography where the exposure is "easier" to get correct, a JPEG image is still a compressed image, and therefore you are throwing out some detail that a RAW image contains.

What you use depends on what you want to do with the final image. If you need to make a large print, use RAW. IF your exposure is perfect, and you only care about 4x6 prints, jpeg is fine.

-paul

[CanonUser]

When you work with RAW, you work with every bit of data that the CCD collected without any "parameter" or compression (discarding data for the sake of size by an algorithm, such as JPG) applied. All the conversion from RAW to a computer friendly format (TIF, JPG) will be done by a software (C1, FVU, PS-CS...) in your computer at a later time. The software's algorithm determines the final quality of the image. TIF will preserve the file with all the data intact while JPG will discard similiar data everytime you resave it. So, the point is do you want a chip on the camera or your software to do the conversion of the RAW file. By using your PC (or Mac), as the algorithm is improved by the software developer, you stand the chance of having a better version of the same image in the future. You can also push the envelope in term of being creative with the image. And, last but not least, taking landscape photo in bright sunny day means you have to deal with a tremendous contrast range from darker shadows to brighter hilights. RAW is probably the best format to use in handling the wider tonal range in this type of photos.

Regards,
Alan

[royalwolf10]

I am new to digital and the editing process. I like RAW better for it's flexibility but am having a horrible time with sharpness and noise. I am shooting a D Rebel, and using PS CS for editing. I have tried opening/converting the RAW files with the Canon software and PS. I have custom settings on the camera parameters set to 0 to make sure that I am the only one doing the editing.

I really think the camera can do a better job than I can.

I really want to get this right,.. what can I do the noise issue?

[Johnnynf]

I really want to get this right,.. what can I do the noise issue?


I am still learning this whole RAW thing myself (as evidenced by my initial posting), but I do have a suggestion for noise. I use Noise Ninja and have thus far been very pleased with the results. I have also heard that Neat Image is very good. Both have websites that offer free functional trial editions. These trial editions do not offer all of the functionality of the versions you have to pay for, but they do offer a great way for you to test the product before you buy it. Check them out and see what you think.