JPEG vs RAW

[DieselGirl]

Ok boys, this is a total newbie question.

Tell me what should I shoot in and why.

I shoot mainly portrait type stuff, mostly of my family and friends for now.

I know there is a ton of stuff on the web regarding this topic, but I wanted to hear from those that actually use these formats.

Thanks.

[sGu]

Tell us what u want to do with the pictures, online gallery, prints(small? large?), or possible exhibition?

In general, Jpeg is enough for personal use, such as gallery, albums and to a reasonable size print(depends on camera) without lose any quality of images. Raw is more of a format for pros/serious amatures, it's much more flexible and much more complicated for image manipulation, in order to achieve the results u want, and of course, u'll be needing suitable software to process RAW data.

I've been primarily using jpeg on my 10D, and lately i've started to play with RAW. Give it a go, see which one suits u the most, u might find jpeg is a lot more straightforward tho'.

[abel]

i shoot in raw exclusively because i like the control that format provides me.

once i get a 10d (almost there) i will most likey shoot in RAW with jpgs just for easy emailing sake....

shoot a couple of pics in raw and give them a go... u might not want to go back to jpg

[Digital Prophet]

Since I had gotten my 300D I have shot the vast majority of my pictures in "large/fine". And I have been pleased with them since most of my stuff is for online display.

However, after reading the hoohaw around here about Raw I deicded to give it a go for print work. And I was not impressed. It seemed like a waste of memory space on my already too small card and added work. Then I got the tip that you can set your output resolution during the conversion from RAW to TIFF.

Man have I seen the light! RAW is an AWESOME tool that affords you all the creative ability that you will ever get out of an image. With the raw you can produce any resolution image you need, you can adjust the image's contrast, tone and color temp and lots more. Sounds like PS? Well what photoshop can't do with a 4 meg JPG is use every single bit of information that the 6.3 pixels on the sensor pick up!

This is the RAW file. It hasn't been compressed, compiled or altered by the camera the way any level of JPG is. This isn't the meat and potatoes, it's the frigging cow! This is the all that the image will ever be. No JPG will ever have as much information or be able to be pulled as extremely in any direction as a RAW file can. Why? Because in order to get from RAW (which every image starts as) to JPG the image goes through the compression algorithm. So what you get as "large/fine" is really "moderate/compressed".

Since I started to shoot RAW I have been getting better results with the final images. Do I still shoot JPG? Sure! Any image that is for "fun" or practice or meant only for the web is JPG baby! But if it is gonna go or even might go to print, then it is RAW for me all the way.

And it doesn't god bad if you don't cook it!

- Digital Prophet -

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240


http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm


But the best reason to shoot in raw is here;

http://www.kleptography.com/b-index.htm

[CyberDyneSystems]

Digitl Profit.. I LOVE your post! Now that's enthusiasm! :mrgreen:

[CanonUser]

Please pardon me for cross posting. However, I do read and participate in various forums because each has it's own character and resident experts. I just posted my own experience of RAW in a wedding photography forum. Instead of retype the whole thing, here is the link.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=240731&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Regards,
Alan

[drisley]

I only shoot Raw.
The main reason is because I never have to worry about setting White Balance when shooting. I can do it all (and do it much better) later in software (C1 Pro).
Software exposure compensation is very nice too!

[Lamplight]

After learning how to process my RAW images, I shoot in that format almost exclusively now. It allows me to fix my screw-ups easier (which happens often!), and allows me to molest the colors and contrast with no decline in quality. :D

[Canuck]

I recon it really comes down to what you want to do w/ the pics you take and if you want to tweek them a lot or a little...

You might want to read these:
From Canon, their point of view:
http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240

Another Forum...Rob Gailbraith...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=202436&page=3&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Roger Cavanaugh's ideas...
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm

[DieselGirl]

YOU GUYS ROCK!

OK

Looks like I have some work to do tonight. Reading and shooting everything in site in RAW.

[Canuck]

YOU GUYS ROCK!

OK

Looks like I have some work to do tonight. Reading and shooting everything in site in RAW.

Yes, you have some homework...there will be a pop quiz in the near future!
:lol:

[Saturn]

Hello:

Not to sound snooty, but given that you're starting out, I'd suggest that you go for the best, which is the RAW format. Get into the habit of shooting raw now. Other's have mentioned the higher level of file control, which I agree with completely. Even if our client's end need is a jpg, we still shoot raw, and then convert the sharpened tiff to a jpg. You will notice the difference versus shooting jpg's natively. In my opinion (the snooty part! :wink: ), anyone that tells you otherwise is just plain not into the best quality that their camera/files are capable of producing. People have lots of reasons for shooting jpgs natively, even some high-end wedding shooters do it. I don't buy any of it. Shoot raw, get used to the workflow and enjoy the great quality your equipment is capable of produucing!

[cutter]

Okay--another newbie question.

To shoot in raw, is there anything special I need to do other than to switch it under the menu?

I've only shot in jpeg and only had the Digital Rebel for a couple of weeks.

And...I'm shooting an outdoor wedding with digital for the first time this weekend, any idea on how many images I can expect in raw on with a 512mb?

Thanks--great forum.

[Digital Prophet]

All you have to do is convert them from RAW to TIFF in the Canon software after you download them.

As for the capacity I have a 256 meg card and I get about 40 RAW's per card. Man I need a new card. RAW's average about 7 megs each as opposed to about 3.5 megs per JPG in "large/fine" mode. So whatever you were getting cut it in half. I would guess-ti-mate about 75-80 images.

As for the software just read the manual. That or you can pop for that C1 software that some people here use. I would but I am strapped for cash. I need a second job to support my camera habit.

Crack would have been cheaper.

- Digital Prophet -

[DieselGirl]

Crack would have been cheaper.

- Digital Prophet -


......and how do we know this????........

:wink:

[ron chappel]

Can anyone recommend a free raw editor?
Or maybe a plugin for elements?
Basically all i think i need to do for the moment is colour balance.I'm curious how the interface works for that.....a simple cool-warm silder or a more advanced control like curves so as to correctly adjust discontinuous spectral light from certain flouro's,etc
:?

I don't even know if the canon software can do it-must check sometime

[sdommin]

And now for an alternative view...

DieselGirl - Since you described yourself as a "total newbie" and you say you shoot mostly friends and family shots, I would recommend that you stay with JPG for awhile. :shock: There are about 647 things (give or take a few hundred) that a "total newbie" needs to learn about cameras and photography. RAW format is way down on the list. Don't be intimidated by the "Cult of RAW" folks.

Disclaimer to the "Cult of RAW" folks - I'm a card-carrying member. I like RAW, I use RAW, I recommend RAW for the best image quality. But I think it's best that someone who's just starting out knows the simple joys of photography, and not get bogged down too soon in intricacies and technicalities.

[Digital Prophet]

You know, I think that SDommin has a point. If what you are doing works for you, why rock the boat? Like I said I still shoot JPG. I still shoot ALOT of JPG. Mostly because most of what I shoot belongs in the "something to shoot" and "total crap" categories.

It really is all about what you intend to do with the image. The right tool for the right job and all that hooha. And if JPG is the right tool, then by all means shoot it. Just keep in mind that sometimes RAW is an even better tool.

Man I didn't even realize that I was in a cult. Can we get a tax break for that? Are there dues! :shock:

- Digital Prophet -

[Whaler]

DG,

The last 2 post sum it up very well. I too am a newbie (5 months) and have just now started to shoot RAW. Learn and experiment with your new gear, when you know it inside and out (my owners manual is all dog eared) then go for it, RAW that is.

[sdommin]

Man I didn't even realize that I was in a cult. Can we get a tax break for that? Are there dues! :shock:

Oh yes! You should be getting your chant book and robe in the mail. You can send your dues to me. 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't forget the secret handshake...

I have to say I agree as well.. despite being somewhat of a high preist or Bishop in the "Cult of Raw"

Like all things of any complexity.. it is best to wade in slowly... and jpeg can certainly help with the growing pains...

That said.. I would recomend taking your frst RAW images asap.. and "toying" with it now.. it may "take" very quickly and it will help you avoid any regrets in the future .. who knows.. deiselgirl may be a RAW Guru in the making.. just born that way like a lama... :)

Also.. consider this.. even while shooting jpegs.. if you happne upon a scene or situation where you
A: Think this is definately a "keeper"
b: Have time to take both....

..go ahead and shoot some RAW pics too.

Even if you don't tackle the Post processing this month.. some time down the road you may be thankfull that you took the time to grab a RAW file f that trip to Niagra, Egypt, Cleveland .. etc... :wink:

[BobbyC]

I shoot RAW almost all the time but there are those who shoot only fine/jpg. I know of several nationally published photogs that only shoot jpg. I spent some time with one that has been shooting for chrysler for 2 decades and she stictly shoots jpg. Check out the magazine Digital Photo Pro, there are a lot of them in there. They are the types that get the shot exactly how they want right from the camera and it can work. I have refined my workflow to the point that I don't have to do a lot of post processing, but I still shoot raw just in case. Don't get too hung up on the "I can fix it later in PS" attitude because you will find yourself becoming discouraged at the amount of time you spend in front of the computer. (Unless you like it)

I have had 16x20 prints made from a jpg original that looked just as good as a converted RAW. The main thing to remember is to save those untouched jpg's as tiff or psd files before you do anything to them.

Cheers,
Bobby

[theoldmoose]

I spent some time with one that has been shooting for chrysler for 2 decades and she stictly shoots jpg.

Yeah, now if she (or one of the other photogs in that bunch) would learn how to clean their sensor before an important shoot, they woudn't end up with dust specks in the sky on that nice '04 Durango shot out in the country... :wink:

Sometimes a little Photoshop is useful, even if you always shoot in JPEG because you never fluff a shot... :P

[cutter]

I must say I love this forum.

Okay--I have a small outdoor wedding on Saturday and have never shot in RAW. The advice I received was to definitely shoot in RAW.

Anyone want to talk me back into JPEG, all my other weddings were in 35mm.

They want it in digital, and now I'm torn.

JPEG or RAW?

[Digital Prophet]

If you are accustomed to JPG then I think you should use it. Weddings are very important events. And you only get one shot at it. And alot depends on the photographer. That is why I have never had to the nerve to do it. Plus angry brides will and do sue.

But you know all that.

However, if you aren't comfortable with the JPG settings I say go RAW. Why? Because you will have more control over the image to correct white balance and exposure in post. Sure it might take a little longer to post process the bride walking down the isle pic. But look at it like this: A JPG will not give you all the raw pixel info from which to get the best possible image. And whats most important you don't get a second chance. So start on the best foot and let yourself have all the room you can right from the start.

But that is just my opinion.

- Digital Prophet -

[donniep]

Digital Prohpet sumed it up perfectly. I can't see spending this much money on a camera and not using every bit of information it gathers.

[RonS50]

troll,er,duh 8)

[BobbyC]

Yeah, now if she (or one of the other photogs in that bunch) would learn how to clean their sensor before an important shoot, they woudn't end up with dust specks in the sky on that nice '04 Durango shot out in the country... :wink:

Sometimes a little Photoshop is useful, even if you always shoot in JPEG because you never fluff a shot... :P

Well, I don't think it was her because she only shoots racing, but I would like to see the one you are talking about, where? I'll ask her about it.

I didn't say one shouldn't use PS, I was only trying to offer advice based on my own experience. As I said, I use RAW almost always and I don't think "don't worry about exposure and color balance because you can fix it later" is very good advice.

[theoldmoose]

It was posted on a site for internal and press use only, so I can't repost the image. But, if you (or your friend have access) the picture in question is the one with the black '04 durango, shot in the country, with blue, hazy mountains in the background. Even in the reduced-size 1024x768 'desktop background' version, you can see dust motes on the left rear window, and several places in the nearby green hills background.

If you view the full-size digital original (it was taken with a Canon DSLR, although I forget the model -- it's in the EXIF information that is still attached to the original JPEG posted), the dust motes start to show like boulders all over the sky region, in particular. I was kind of surprised. For print publication, I would think they would show up quite easily.

For as much trouble as they went to, to set up the shot, you'd think they would have remembered to check/clean the sensor, or at least touch up the shot afterwards, before offering it for publication.

[BobbyC]

I would think before it was put in public they would clean it up, but we are talking about chrysler. :D

I don't think that negates the use of jpg though.

Douglas Kirkland (http://www.douglaskirkland.com/) is another that comes to mind, I doubt you'll find any dust spots on his work. He said in an article I read that he just hasn't seen enough difference in the quality to warrant the extra space and labor involved, but he is one of those types that has perfected getting it in the camera. He does admit to using it occasionally in difficult or tricky lighting situations though.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to beat up on RAW because I use it, but just because some don't, doesn't mean they don't care about quality, that's my only point.

[theoldmoose]

I guess my point is why buy a camera with a 12-bit sensor, only to take 8-bit photos, compress it with a 4-bit algorithm and display it on 2-bit monitors? (I know, the last one is a stretch, but it seemed so poetic, somehow :lol:)

I think that by the time one 'graduates' to a DSLR, they need to be thinking seriously about RAW, or else wondering why they wasted all that money on a glorified digicam. Note that I will concede speed issues to those sports photographers that don't have cameras yet that can take large back-to-back buffer-fulls of RAWs. That situation is slowly being rectified. And I certainly sympathize with those that have picked up one of the new crop of 8 MP digi-wonders, only to find out that RAW mode is pretty useless on them, due to buffer hangs during the CF card write process.

[BobbyC]

I guess my point is why buy a camera with a 12-bit sensor, only to take 8-bit photos, compress it with a 4-bit algorithm and display it on 2-bit monitors? (I know, the last one is a stretch, but it seemed so poetic, somehow :lol:)

I guess I'd say becasue sometimes, you just can't tell the difference. I totally agree with you from a totally technical standpoint but when I bought my 10D, it was because 1st I wanted the extra megapixels that I wasn't getting from my D30, secondly it was the digital SLR that had the shooting features I wanted, thirdly because the quality was as I desired.


I think that by the time one 'graduates' to a DSLR, they need to be thinking seriously about RAW, or else wondering why they wasted all that money on a glorified digicam. Note that I will concede speed issues to those sports photographers that don't have cameras yet that can take large back-to-back buffer-fulls of RAWs. That situation is slowly being rectified. And I certainly sympathize with those that have picked up one of the new crop of 8 MP digi-wonders, only to find out that RAW mode is pretty useless on them, due to buffer hangs during the CF card write process.

There are many differences between a 10D and a P&S digital other than just RAW. I don't think I need to go into all those, but implying that somehow someone has wasted their money for not using RAW, is just wrong.

I've shot 6 jobs since this thread started and have used RAW on all of them, I have shot plenty of other jobs where I have shot both RAW & JPG and my cutomers did not suffer for quality in any of them. All the techno-speak in the world will not change the fact that you can get just as high of quality in print from either format, and that's what really matters, the final print. RAW is good if you need to do a lot of post work or are not sure about the lighting, exposure or color balance, if you are confident everything is right in that regards and you simply just make a print straight from the file, you will likely not see a difference.

This is only my opinion and though it may differ from others, that's all it is, just an opinion.

[theoldmoose]

It sounds suspiciously like we are in violent agreement... :lol:

I like the idea of simultaneous RAW + JPEG capture, specifically because I don't wish to spend a lot of time on raw workflow processes, unless it is necessary. If I like the JPEG as is, then I'll go with that, instead, and keep the raw as an archive, "just in case".

As my skill with this camera increases, the number of keeper JPEGs has been steadily increasing, as well.

[jonnyhorizon]

one of the earlier posts to this thread referred to changing the resolution of the RAW file.
I there any difference in uping the resoulution of the RAW file vrs. changing it in photoshop?
assuming that is the only change made and saving as TIFF
...

[hmhm]

I guess my point is why buy a camera with a 12-bit sensor, only to take 8-bit photos, compress it with a 4-bit algorithm and display it on 2-bit monitors?.

The answer to this question is "because all digitally 'output' images are 8-bit images any way, and humans really can't perceive much more than this". (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "4-bit algorithm...")

Images captured with 12-bit precision are always converted down to 8 bits before a human views it (either in print or on screen), the advantage of the extra bits of precision comes when doing manipulation of the image. An image survives "extreme" post-processing better with the 12-bits of data intact. An image that isn't heavily edited in post-processing will really not display perceptible advantages from RAW capture. In some environments, that ability to do drastic post-processing may not be valuable, and the cost of missing a shot while changing flash cards might be high, or the cost of extra labor in post-processing might be high, so it may make more sense to shoot jpg.

There are plenty of reasons for shooting in RAW or in JPG, it's really not as cut 'n' dry as many people on the boards try to make it out to be.

All that said, I always shoot in RAW unless I'm worried about flash capacity, but then I tend to shoot low volume, purely as a hobby, and with a big, honking flash card.
-harry

[BobbyC]

one of the earlier posts to this thread referred to changing the resolution of the RAW file.
I there any difference in uping the resoulution of the RAW file vrs. changing it in photoshop?
assuming that is the only change made and saving as TIFF
...

I think you are asking about upressing a RAW vs. a JPG? For either, it must be done in software such as PS. (Assuming using LG/Fine jpg)

If so, I do believe there is a point to which there is a difference. I've had beautiful 16x20's made from rezed up jpgs, but have had some that started to show jaggies, it really all depends on the picture. Portraits seem to fair better in jpg than say a landscape. If you're shooting for really big enlargements, I would stick with RAW, even if it doesn't always make a noticable difference, that fact that it may is reason enough IMO.

[nosquare2003]

RAW provides flexibility at a cost of memory size. "Usually", it needs more time to process RAW files. However, it is much easier and better to correct RAW than problematic JPEG file.

But if the photo is properly shot, I don't see much difference in JPEG vs RAW.

The presence of JPEG and RAW should have their reasons.

[theoldmoose]

one of the earlier posts to this thread referred to changing the resolution of the RAW file.
I there any difference in uping the resoulution of the RAW file vrs. changing it in photoshop?
assuming that is the only change made and saving as TIFF
...

Assuming that you don't mean 'uprezzing', there is some confusion about the 'resolution' setting in image files. In essence, it really doesn't mean a thing, other than if you have a 500 x 700 pixel file at 100 pixels-per-inch (PPI) resolution, that you intend it to cover a 5 x 7 inch area of the screen.

This, of course, will only happen if your screen is running 100 PPI. If it is running 72 PPI, then the picture will appear larger on the screen, since the same number of pixels will be spread over a larger area. Changing the resolution of the image won't change the size on the screen, only changing the number of X,Y pixels will do so. That is because display screen are strictly pixel-oriented devices. If you don't match the resolution of the image to the display resolution, then you won't get the size you expected on the screen. Unfortunately, everyone seems to set up their displays with different PPI settings, and since the current of OSes don't do scaling of images for you 'under the covers', you are stuck at assuming that everyone has a 72 PPI display, and put out with the idea that at least you won't overflow their display area, and the folks with higher resolution displays (100 PPI or higher) can just go pound sand, and use a magnifier to see your images.

Now, other devices may care what the PPI setting of the file is, but typically only because some application like PhotoShop is interpreting the ratio of image PPI to printer DPI (which is a completely different beast) to fit the image to the paper size, but when resizing for printing and other dispositions, you will be better off paying attention to the actual final size, and check that as the PPI is re-calculated as you fit an image to a larger format device (such as a 13 x 19 print) that the calculated resolution doesn't drop much below about 180 PPI, or else you will get a poor print.

At that point, you might consider 'uprezzing', which actually increases the number of PPI without increasing the size of the output, by interpolating neighboring pixels with various algorithms. There is an art (and a science) to uprezzing images effectively, since you are trying to create something out of essentially nothing (just hints about might be appropriate given the pixels surrounding the one that you attempting to create).

What does this all mean? Well, for instance, a Digital Rebel with 6 MP sensor produces about 2048 x 3072 (I forget the exact numbers) pixel images. I believe the default resolution is 300 PPI, but you can essentially ignore that.
If you want to post the image for the web, commonly a maximum width of 700 pixels is chosen, so PhotoShop or whatever would need to downsample (throw out about 2/3 of the pixels) the image.

If you want to make a print with about 180 PPI, then you could make an approximate 11" x 17" image, before objectionable pixelization could be seen at normal viewing distances.

If you want a 16 x 20 from a 6 MP image, you will need to uprezz. You can get away with maybe up to about a 50% increase or so by uprezzing, but there are limits. You'll know when you hit them. :lol: QImage is mentioned a lot in regard to uprezzing photos, but you can do it with PhotoShop, but you should do it in small incremental steps, using the bicubic algorithm. The results are fairly decent, I've heard.

[BobbyC]

Just to add to the above excellent information:

I've tried QImage, Photoshop, Genuine Fractals and Extensis Smartpixel and I believe they all do a fine job. (Really couldn't see much of a difference in anyof them) C1 does a good as well when you uprez at conversion time.

I like Qimage because it does it automatically when you print only and leaves the file untouched. That way you don't have to make different versions of the same pic for different print sizes. Plus you don't have to store all these big files for print either. (But if you want to you can save them in QImage as well)

[jonnyhorizon]

Assuming that you don't mean 'uprezzing', there is some confusion about the 'resolution' setting in image files. In essence, it really doesn't ...

great explanation
i suspected the basic concepts but did not fully understand them
as i think of my post processing steps there remains some need for further clarification

1) i assume unprez and photoshop term resample are the same thing

2) the rebel JPG max defaults to 180@3072x2048 and RAW 240@6144x4096
i assume these are std defaults not something i set in photoshop
seems like the RAW are 5 times as large
is that due to a) JPG compression or b) "extra" RAW data re: RAW not presumeing any user preferences c) something else d) am i confused about these sizes

3) my workflow typically is to modify the image and save as uncompressed TIFF. I always resample to 300 pixels/in for prints. am i better off not resampling is at an acceptle size? What is that acceptable size rule of thumb? if i resamply what exactly is a "small increment"

well i am off to shoot some cyote kits living in a culvert behind my house. looking forward to any feedback...

[theoldmoose]

Assuming that you don't mean 'uprezzing', there is some confusion about the 'resolution' setting in image files. In essence, it really doesn't ...

great explanation
i suspected the basic concepts but did not fully understand them
as i think of my post processing steps there remains some need for further clarification

1) i assume unprez and photoshop term resample are the same thing

2) the rebel JPG max defaults to 180@3072x2048 and RAW 240@6144x4096
i assume these are std defaults not something i set in photoshop
seems like the RAW are 5 times as large
is that due to a) JPG compression or b) "extra" RAW data re: RAW not presumeing any user preferences c) something else d) am i confused about these sizes

3) my workflow typically is to modify the image and save as uncompressed TIFF. I always resample to 300 pixels/in for prints. am i better off not resampling is at an acceptle size? What is that acceptable size rule of thumb? if i resamply what exactly is a "small increment"

well i am off to shoot some cyote kits living in a culvert behind my house. looking forward to any feedback...

1) yes, unless you are 'downrezzing', but then that is still re-sampling. :lol:

2) you might be confused about the actual sizes, but the 300D saves only a medium-sized JPEG when recording RAWs, so if you extract the JPEG from the RAW, it will be a smaller picture. If you convert the RAW to JPG or TIFF, you end up with the same size pic as the RAW (in terms of X,Y pixels). The firmware hack for the 300D lets you set the embedded JPEG to large, which is a nice feature, if you want to be able to exyract full-size JPEGs from the RAWs without doing a RAW to JPG or TIFF conversion.

3) 300 PPI could be considered overkill for prints, but harmless. I wouldn't bother re-sampling an image at all, until you decide what you are going to use it for. In other words, make all your color/contrast/etc. corrections, and save the file off as .PSD with adjustment layers, including some amount of medium to light sharpening. Then, when you want to print or publish (to the web, etc.) open the file resize (and/or resample as needed), do a final sharpening, and save it out with a modified file name, possibly as a JPG, if you are publishing for the web. So, an original shot might be IMG_1299.CRW, the full-size TIFF conversion might be IMG_1299.TIF, the full-size .PSD file might be IMG_1299.PSD, and a JPEG resized/re-sampled and sharpened for web display might be IMG_1299_500X700.JPG, etc.

Keeping the original .CRW (with the C1 .work file that contains all the develop tweaks), the .TIF, the .PSD, and any/all destination device files can add up to several tens of megabytes for a photo. That's why I archive to DVD, instead of CD. Tons more space to hold all this stuff.

You want to keep all this stuff around, though, so you can retrieve/rework/revisit images later, when you change your mind about cropping, etc., or need to re-purpose an image. Re-working a JPG will produce posterization, etc. problems. JPGs are final file formats, never intermediate or working file formats, IMO.

[theoldmoose]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the question of RAW vs. JPG size.

RAWs contain 12-bit sensor data, and tend to be about 6 MB for a 6 MP sensor. The data is compressed, but using lossless compression, so no loss of quality results. Lossless compression, though, is not nearly as efficient, of course, if you aren't allowed to throw out anything you need. :lol:

JPEGs are compressed 8-bit images, so you've immediately tossed out 4-bits of sensor data for every pixel. On top of that, a theorectically perceptually lossless (but real in terms of data loss) compression is performed, which typically reduces the data by a factor of 8 for high quality images, or even more, if you can except some artifacts in the result.

As you can see, if you shoot JPEGs, you are best off nailing the exposure, etc. correctly the first time, and not attempting to make any post-shot corrections to the JPEGs. RAWs can be much more forgiving of white balance and/or exposure mistakes, but will typically take longer to write to the flash, take more flash storage space, and will take longer for you fiddle with during post processing.

But, if you aren't a 'deadeye' with the camera, RAWs can save your rear.

[jonnyhorizon]

not sure if you are a 300D owner or if these terms are common across Canon products but
it appears that in what is referred to as the "basic zone" RAW is not an option only in the other half "creative zone"
when creating a RAW there is also a small file created called a THM
i assume that is only useful for the LCD monitor
The "imbedded JPG" is not intuitively obvious as a file
not sure I care since i only need to interface with my computer/photoshop/CS
it appears the photoshop/CS RAW interface remembers what RAW settings you made the last time you opened and adjusted things it so i will need to write down the original default CS settings if I am curious what the baseline was - it appears at least temp and tint are unique for each pic
check me on what get done in what format
CS/raw - probably only adjust exposure and white balance then save as PSD
cs/PSD - anything else that needs done as adjustment layers
cs/TIF - save from flattened PSD - crop, resample if needed then print
cs/JPG - save from flatteded PSD if you need to publish to web or email or

comments?
thanks for your patience...
PS: got a few pics of the cyote kits this AM before they saw me and dove back into the culvert to stay
i will be setting up a motion sensor/shutter release this PM
thats another topic...

[Lunatique]

How come no one ever posts "proof" of how RAW gives more room for post processing than JPEG? Why not take the same picture in both RAW and JPEG, then try to push the image as far as you can without really destroying it, then post the results from the RAW and from the JPEG. IMO, that'll be the true test.

[roanjohn]

I only shoot JPEG!!!

Wow.........that was a lot of reading!!!

I have asked this question before and was almost convinced in shooting RAW exclusively but never really got into the habit of doing it. WHY?? you asked..........Let me explain:

1. I am not a pro and I do not get paid for what I do.
2. RAW files are huge - I only have 2 x 256 card and an 80G HD in my computer :-(.
3. I print mostly 4x6 with an occasional 8x10.

So there.........pretty much the big reasons why I haven't shot in RAW.

In the future though - when memory cards becomes cheaper and cheaper, I might get me a bigger HD for my computer and dabble in the world of RAW :-)

Ro1

[BobbyC]

I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference in a pic sized for the web. I have been able to save jpg's before that needed it, problem was, it took much, much longer to accomplish.

Would be a good experiment though, take 2 underexposed 1 raw, 1 jpg, with the wrong white balance and see how easy is it to fix the jpg. The only way I would judge the results is from a print, because that's what matters. An 8x10 should suffice.

I do know that if the 2 were both nailed correctly for exposure and white balance, you would not see the difference in the prints, maybe you would in a 16x20 or larger. That's been my point all along.

[defordphoto]

I just posted this over on FM forums. Someone was wanting "proof" that RAW was better than JPEG and wanted to end The Debate.

I also agree there is no debate which format is better, in the long run. If you handle JPEG correctly it would be pretty tough to tell on the web. Also pretty tough to tell the difference on say an 8x12 print. You start enlarging much more than than and JPEG will start showing its weaknesses quickly.

JPEG has its place, there is no doubt about that. Consider JPEG your digital transparency. Produces a nice photo but you are very limited what you can do with it in the darkroom.

RAW is your digital negative. The possiblities are almost endless what you can do with it in the darkroom. You have worlds more information available in a RAW file than a JPEG. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

JPEG is actually not a format. It's a compression routine, but these days it is treated as a format. It's 8-bit. It's lossy. It's compressed. It's limited.

[/debate]

[bdavies926]

>>...several nationally published photogs that only shoot jpg.<<

I'll agree that there certainly are advantages to shooting RAW, but here's some food for thought for those considering shooting jpegs.

I don't shoot for publication, but I do run a higher-end, low to mid-volume wedding & portrait studio. Don't mean to sound snooty here either, but last year we sold over $300,000.00 worth of weddings and portraits to our community, and almost none of them were shot RAW. We shoot large/fine jpeg, mostly because of workflow issues. I tested, made the comparisons and for our application, just could not justify the added labor expense for such a tiny difference in final print quality. If done right, we don't even really see a difference.

If you keep your exposure and color controls tight, the camera does a fine job processing images. We sell wallets to 24x30's (we always let the labs printer do the up-rezzing), and they're all coming out awesome--even the large wall portraits, and we sell a lot of them. Pretty amazing for starting out as a tiny little jpeg file.

The funny thing is that when I'm shooting presonal stuff (kids birthday parties, vacation photos, etc.), I shoot RAW (go figure), only because it frees me up to not have worry about exposure & white balance, and I know that I'll process the images myself in my leisure time. For me it's a "time" (or labor expense) thing--I just don't see it as a quality issue.

>>The main thing to remember is to save those untouched jpg's as tiff or psd files before you do anything to them.<<

Absolutely great advice--this makes all the difference in the world if you want great quality shooting jpegs.

[bdavies926]

>>I think that by the time one 'graduates' to a DSLR, they need to be thinking seriously about RAW, or else wondering why they wasted all that money on a glorified digicam.<<

OTOH, by shooting only RAW on a DSLR, one wastes all the money spent on the processors & software put in the camera to process jpegs :wink: . I even paid for 2 processors in my 1DM2 :shock: ! I guess I paid for all that processing power in the camera so that I wouldn't have to pay someone else to do it later.

I know there are many valid reasons on both sides, and with all things considered, one size will never fit all applications.

For me, I make my money only when I'm shooting or creating promotions for our portrait/wedding studio, NOT by spending time processing (or paying someone to process), or even printing images. With that in mind, keeping things tight and shooting jpegs just plain nets me more money--my first priority in any business.

I don't know if it's because of the process we're using (we won't print in-house), but quite frankly there's no practical quality issues for us shooting jpegs (vs. RAW), and large wall portraits are still our biggest profit center. Someone mentioned here that a jpeg will start losing it any bigger than 12x18. Geez, I've got 24x30 samples hanging all over the walls of our studio that would knock your socks off. Maybe us portrait guys have it a bit easier in this respect, because the expression & emotional impact of the image is far more important than it's _technical_ excellence--no woman I know wants to spend several hundred bucks on a portrait of themselves in which they can see every pore on their face.

Now, with all that being said, for the few times that we don't get it prefect when we shoot it (we normally trash the bad ones so that the client never even sees 'em), I'm really starting to eye up the RAW + jpeg workflow...

[Pekka]

>>...several nationally published photogs that only shoot jpg.<<

If you need to deliver fast, view fast and you shoot in known places and conditions (fixed wedding hall, racetracks, studios) JPG will work probably just fine. That being said RAW will give you better quality in high ISO for example and of course exposure recovery. Big pro's are not so thick that they do not see this - they just determine what kind of quality is acceptable in current schedule and if there is time to massage the files on computer or not. One comment against RAW is card capacity - that is a problem in some cases. Also, burst speed and fast buffer recovery speed may be very important to some.

All this means only that choice of format should first be practical one, if both can do then you may dig into 16 vs 8 bit and other issues if they matter to you.

I'm seldom in hurry, and I prefer being able to do my own post processing so I shoot RAW (no one else has to). I'm also very fond of C1 workflow and quality and would like to reserve a possibility to reconvert my images when even better solutions or versions come in future.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/HV8O4230_small.jpg

[jonnyhorizon]

I'm also very fond of C1 workflow and quality

whats the C1 workflow?
thanks...

[jonnyhorizon]

(we always let the labs printer do the up-rezzing),

i am sold on RAW because most of my nature photo work involves long walks(and canoes) in spontaneously planned excursions with others
i do not have the patience for planning to be at a specific spot at a specific time
many of my shots are a quick shot at some wildlife with my 70-300 IS or some wildflowers with whatevers handy
i always seem to have a great shot that needs post processing help
i would love to be able to have bigger sharper enlargements
i wonder what the labs printer up-rezzing process knows that i do not
(probably lots)
i use photoshop CS and an epson 2200 and a 300D and have have a real need to have crisper 13x19s
my suspision is part of the solution is:
my lens
(add affordable suggestion here)
my workflow (")
and my aversion to lug and use a big tripod (")
comments appreciated...
(wonder where the spell chaeker is on this forum)

[mpkirby]

I use raw exclusively. In fact, not only do I use raw, but I up the size of the embedded JPEG so I get quick previewing to weed out the trash.

(see the SI Workflow (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821) for some reasons on why that is a good idea: )

In general I shoot 90% (probabaly more, but I think highly of myself :-) )"snapshot" style pictures. But I still choose raw because I want to preserve the original. I don't want to be in a position when I crop down of managing 2 JPG images.

Regarding card cost, your best bet is to by 2 256 mbyte and something like an xrite portable image disk (20 gbytes should pretty much cover it).

I use my 1gbyte microdrive and it holds pretty well, although a 1 week vacation is pushing it).

Check out my links:

for some of the same info from here and more on raw:

http://www.frontiernet.net/~mpkirby/Photography.html#Raw%20Converters

Mike

[The Photo Tuell]

Can anyone recommend a free raw editor?
Basically all i think i need to do for the moment is colour balance.I'm curious how the interface works for that.....a simple cool-warm silder or a more advanced control like curves so as to correctly adjust discontinuous spectral light from certain flouro's,etc

I don't even know if the canon software can do it-must check sometime

Yes, the Canon software (FVU or the newly released EVU) will do what you want and does a fine job at converting RAWs. They aren't as fast as other programs, but the picture quality is great.

Here's where to get EVU (needs FVU installed to install it, get FVU from the disks that came with the camera): http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/evu.html

There was a thread about EVU a week or two ago, I like it so far. Faster than FVU.

I've shot only RAW for awhile now (about a year), and I use EVU/FVU to convert them.

If you want a 16 x 20 from a 6 MP image, you will need to uprezz.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

Not going to try too hard to convince you because you either believe it or you don't, but you don't need 300DPI to get a good print. 6MP will make 16"x20" prints no problem (with a good printer, not a cheap inkjet).

Hanging on my wall right now is a 20"x30" print taken with a 4MP G2 and not up-sampled at all. Looks great.

Here it is next to a couple 11"x14" prints: http://www.pbase.com/image/20526187/original
Unframed: http://www.pbase.com/image/19864539/original

[Pekka]

I'm also very fond of C1 workflow and quality

whats the C1 workflow?
thanks...

Basically

- download images to computer (I use XsDrive II as card reader).
- open in Capture 1
- tag good ones (and move them to folder "ok")
- adjust WB and exposure if needed
- output to 16-bit TIFF

Doing WB and exposure adjusting in C1 is very fast and you can copy specific settings between photos very easily. Also, C1 sharpening is very good and I see no reason to use any other method now. I keep sharpening at 200/0 so when you open photos in C1 they are already set.
I also have some slightly altered color profiles (pro version has color editor), so if I need more "vivid" look I just change the profile inside C1.

[jonnyhorizon]

i have been doing a similar process using photoshop CS but it seems rather slow
the flag option in the browser is handy
i looked at C1 but it would have to be pretty special to justify the 500.00+ price tag
is there really a big advantage for using C1?

...

[Jmurman]

If youshoot in RAW the image has imbedded in it a JPEG file. You can extract the JPEG for web sites or email and still keep the RAW for enhancements.

[jonnyhorizon]

the value of the imbedded jpg eludes me
when you open the raw file you can save as tiff or jpg or whatever
why care about the size of - or the the existence of the imbedded jpg...

[dn7elson]

i looked at C1 but it would have to be pretty special to justify the 500.00+ price tag is there really a big advantage for using C1?...

Take a look at the C1 LE or C1 SE versions, depending upon which camera you have. At $99, the C1 LE is worth considering for 300D, DRebel or 10D.

[bdavies926]

>>i wonder what the labs printer up-rezzing process knows that i do not<<

To be completely honest, I still wonder the exact same thing.

We use Burrell Color (www.burrellprolabs.com), and I can't even tell you exactly which printers they are using. But, my Burrell rep tells me that the interpolation (uprezzing) software in their printers is the key, because it is much more sophisticated than Photoshop's or programs like Genuine Fractals. He's right, because after doing some tests uprezzing the same image in Photoshop (even in 10% increments), in Genuine Fractals and then just letting Burrell do the uprezzing (all on the same test images), their software gave me MUCH better results than Photoshop or GF did.

When we prepare files to be printed by Burrell, we just crop them to the desired print size (in Photoshop CS), but we leave the Resolution (Pixels/Inch) box blank (we even let them do the sharpening).

Now here's the bizarre part--if I send them a 6MP file to be printed to 20x24, the resolution at that size is only about 102 pixels per inch. Even worse, if I send them a 6MP file to be printed to 24x30, the resolution is only about 85 ppi!! I know--the math just doesn't work but despite this, the prints I'm getting back are outstanding up to 24x30, and it's completely beyond me how that's possible. (I've done a few and I'm definately not thrilled with 30x40's, but I'm hoping the 8MP files from my new 1DM2 will allow me to do 30x40's using the same process.)

So, it has to be their software. I sure wish it was available to us without having to spend a couple hundred thousand bucks on a high-end printer to get it! Who knows, maybe in just a few short years that will change, too.

[CanonUser]

RAW isn't just for exposure correction. It's for incredible speed when you need to correct a couple of hundreds images, normally 800-1200 for me, in a hurry. You can nail a 100% of your shots in term of exposure, but if Mr Murphy steps in, none of them will be usable straight off the camera. Recently, I have 3 events in a row held in tents. The color cast from the tranlucent tent and the spilled in day light created a mixed lighting scenario straight from hell. One of the event was at 6PM of an overcast day, the images were flat and muddy, in addition to the described mix lighting problem. Using C1 Pro, I corrected all of the RAW files and generated outputs for web JPGs, proof JPGs, and Costco ICC emlargement JPGs in 48Hr. The corrrection includes EV, curves, WB, sharpening, and output specific settings. In the case of the muddy images, I toned and added a custom contrast curve to make them look considerably warmer and better. That took probably an extra 30 minutes of my time but the customer was extremely surprised and happy with the end result.
This is just ONE in a long list of advantages when you work with RAW. To those who think the JPG workflow is faster, cast aside your bias and try C1 Pro, get to be efficient at it, then time yourself with a test project. You may see things in a different light.

Here is a link to what RAW is all about:
http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=26101&gal_col=7
Here is a link to an uncorrected image under a tent
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=4175628&a=31254972&p=68238553
Regards,
Alan