Why no selectable RAW sizes!!??!!

[roanjohn]

8 MP RAW file is HUGE!!!

Why can't Canon give you a RAW file at maybe 4 MP. Just like different dimensions for JPEG, I want different dimensions for RAW.

Is this too much to ask for?? OR is this impossible??

Ro1

[Scottes]

It's counter to the principle.

RAW captures what the sensor "saw" when the shutter is pressed.

Changing the sharpness would no longer be what the sensor saw.
Changing the saturation would no longer be what the sensor saw.
Changing the image size would no longer be what the sensor saw.

RAW is RAW. Anything else is interpolated and/or processed etc etc.



If you think that's bad... My wife's Fuji S700 shoots "RAW" - but it automatically does a 2x upsize on the image, giving her a 16 megapixel so-called RAW file!

[roanjohn]

Shucks!!!

I was thinking that it would be a good idea to have a RAW file with smaller dimensions so it won't fill up your card that fast..........

I guess not.

:cry:

Ro1

[Spargo]

Personally I see hardly any difference (if any) between shooting RAW and the highest quality JPEG. Ok, there is 1 difference. It's 1/3 the size. :P

[tofuboy]

Shooting in RAW gives you extra room during post processing. Besides, what's a few MB these days when storage space keeps getting cheaper and cheaper? :)

[ssim]

Personally I see hardly any difference (if any) between shooting RAW and the highest quality JPEG. Ok, there is 1 difference. It's 1/3 the size. :P

When I first started out with my 10D I felt that way. Someone on here convinced me to try RAW and I've never looked back since. Even a mediocre CR? image can be salvaged because you have so much to work with. You may not see a big difference (other than file size) between a good CR? file and a good JPG file but just try and manipulate the JPG the way you would the RAW file and you can easily see the differences.

[Spargo]

I've heard before it's the post editing that makes RAW count, but could someone give a specific example?

[Scottes]

It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference. If the image is properly exposed and has good contrast and color then there will be little difference between the shot as JPG and RAW. This is because the image will need very little post-processing.

RAW shines when the photographer screws up (underexposes, etc) or when the scene is just too much for a camera to handle (bright sky + dark shadows for example). This is when the RAW can shine - it's possible to extract more good data from a RAW than a JPG. Extensive post processing can change an image so much that a JPG would just get damaged, whereas the RAW could easily survive the same treatment.

It also depends on the capabilities of the software and the capabilities of the person using the software. Anyone can screw up a RAW file, too. But a skilled person processing a RAW image will do less damage and will be able to extract more good info.

Then again, a person without "good eyes" for a color print might not notice anything different at all. I have done image editing in the past and have been astounded by the things that some people simply can't see - even after pointing out the differences.

If you give me a RAW and a JPG of the same imperfectly-shot scene I can guarantee you that I will make the RAW look better in the end. I can not guarantee that you will be able to see the difference.


My name is Scott, and I shoot RAW....

[roanjohn]

Personally I see hardly any difference (if any) between shooting RAW and the highest quality JPEG. Ok, there is 1 difference. It's 1/3 the size. :P

:twisted:

I try to get it right with the JPEG.........maybe if I have a faster computer, bigger HD, bigger CF card and more memory, I will take full advantage for RAW..............

Ro1

[drisley]

I always shoot Raw.
One of many advantages is that I never have to worry about white balance when shooting. And, since the 300D wb can sometimes have problems indoors, it saves alot of pics shooting Raw.
But yes, the money spent on CF cards for Raw is sad.

[Chazs]

I've heard before it's the post editing that makes RAW count, but could someone give a specific example? Spargo

I don't know if this is a great example, but here goes. I took two VERY underexposed photos of one of my dogs in the living room, one in JPEG, on in RAW. Both were shot in manual mode at ISO 400, 1/80 s, and f6.3.

The original is the black photo; RAW on the left, JPEG on the right, each with a detail of the white spot on his head. I spent about 5 minutes tweeking each photo, and just can't pull any more info out of the JPEG. The RAW was converted pushing the exposure up +3.5. The RAW definitely gave me more to work with.

http://members.isp01.net/snevetsc/photos/rawVSjpeg.jpg

[Steven M. Anthony]

i think the 20d offers different raw file sizes...

[roanjohn]

i think the 20d offers different raw file sizes...

...........different embedded jpeg sizes...............I don't think its the RAW data itself. That darn clunky thing remains constant.

Ro1

[jwhee0615]

Digital newbie here... what is the file size of a raw photo shot with the 20D? How big a CF card would one want to have just starting out?

[Spargo]

Chazs, thanks for the example I can really see a huge difference. Your location says NW Washington. Ever go on the ferries? You can get some great pics there. Was on them today but it was cloudy and not good for pictures.

[Dans_D60]

Shooting snapshots with JPEG is just fine. Canon’s JPEG compression and sharpening algorithms are some of the best out there. But, if the shoot is for commercial purposes and if there is even the slightest chance of exposure problems, then RAW is the only solution. JPEG files by design are compressed. This means a pixel is not a pixel but a mathematical representation of what the “real” pixel might have been. Or at least something close. The actual “real” 12-bit depth value (possible 4096 levels for each RGB color) is lost and cannot be recovered. RAW allows fine-tuning (to some degree) of these original data. Therefore, by design, RAW is much more flexible and forgiving especially with white balance and exposure. I shoot a lot of weddings. I always shoot commercial venues in RAW. In fact I’m backing up my CF cards from a wedding completed just a few hours ago as I write this thread. In the “old” days dozens film rolls would be ready for processing. No matter if the shots are good or bad I paid for processing. Now my electronic film is reusable and I don’t worry at all about the number of images. Typical wedding is about 1,500 images. Because it’s my business, I invested in memory and backup methods that reduce most issues with bad or corrupt images. Currently we take 16GB of CF memory cards with us. Most in the 2GB or 1GB size. At the wedding, we backup these CF cards to a disk tank. Back in my office I copy the CF cards and back the whole mess to DVDs. Doesn’t take all that long. About an hour to complete the copy and backup tasks. In any case generated JPEG or RAW have different audiences and workflow models.

Dan

[spearce6]

Having a 10D and not using RAW is missing a lot of the point of digital. Whilst I agree that the 10D does produce great JPEG results, the post processing possibilities of RAW are quite staggering and are where the true power of digital lies.

See my RAW vs JPEG article here:

http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com/rawshooting

also of interest could be the capture 1 DSLR software from phase one. If you have played with Canon's RAW handling software, then you probably have a bad impression of RAW. C1DSLR is a dream RAW processing workflow. You can get an impression from my review here:

http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com/C1dslr

There is also a link to phase one on my site and you can download a trial version of the software. Believe me, you will never look back!

Regards,

Steve