Which resolution to shoot in, and JPG vs. RAW?

[kevinma]

After 3 years with a Powershot G1 and years and years of Nikon SLRs before that, I now have a 20D with a 1GB card, and am delighted to be back with a serious camera.

Question: What are the rational considerations to be made when deciding on which resolution to shoot in? Does it matter how often one prints ones images and what size they're printed at, or should one always shoot at the maximum resolution (and get lots of computer storage room) "just in case" the perfect picture merits a big enlargement?

What do you all do?

Thanks. Kevin.

[dtrayers]

One can always go down in resolution after the fact, but it's hard to go up.

Disk space is cheap, so I always shoot RAW and large/fine embeded JPGs. That way I have both options. If the photos are snapshots of the kids to send to the grandparents, I just extract the JPGs and e-mail them or upload to Pbase.

I process and print with Photoshop CS so opening a RAW file is no more work than a JPG.

YMMV...

[tommykjensen]

I always shoot hight resolution. Because You never know, well I never know if I want to print the endresult and in which size so I would kick myself if I had a killer photo in the wrong resolution.

As for JPG / RAW.

On 300D I started to shoot only RAW, but with 20D I am not sure I will continue with that because the 20D is capable of producing very good jpg's directly.

[scottbergerphoto]

JPEG is easier but then I kick myself if the exposure is off because it's easier to correct in RAW, So I should shoot Raw, but sometimes I shoot JPEG.
Resolution is easier. Always shoot the highest unless you only plan to use the shots for the web.
Scott

[John_T]

Kevin, Jpeg vs. RAW is not a resolution question in essence.

Jpeg out of the camera has been processed for color and sharpness by the in-camera processor and it's parameters you have set. Jpeg can be any resolution you set under Quality in the menu.

RAW gives you the image right off the sensor with (almost) no processing at all. RAW resolution is always the camera maximum. Using RAW you would then process the image to your taste in EVU or DPP and then in PS.

Obviously jpeg is simpler, makes smaller files and will generally print fine on a good printer. Be aware though that jpeg is a compressed format and subject to deterioration when altered and saved repeatedly.

RAW on the other hand takes more work, more experience and a great deal more CF card and disk space. The advantages are do-it-yourself to your own satifaction and quite a latitude of options for use.

Of course you have the option to shoot RAW plus jpeg, but then you will eat up CF card and disk space even more rapidly. It is a good option if you are shooting something important you may want to have the option of both, or come back to the RAW image later when you are more familiar with RAW.

My suggestion would be to shoot jpeg L Fine until you know the camera and all aspects of imaging well, and then think about getting into RAW.

I personally shoot RAW and convert to 8 or 16 bit tiffs. When I shoot jpeg it's at L Fine.

[kevinma]

Thanks all; that's very helpful as usual. It does make sense for me to stick with JPGs in L-fine and then consider RAW at a later date after acquiring more experience. Kevin.

[dschwartz69]

pardon my question if quite obvious, but I've heard a number of references to shooting RAW+JPG and how you just quickly 'extract' the jpg for quick turn arounds when you don't have the time or don't have the need to fully process a RAW file to get a photo.

How exactly is this done with Photoshop CS. I'm familiar with using PSCS for RAW conversions but don't know how to find this mysterious embedded JPG that I"m hearing about.

Please enlighten me!!

Thanks,

[dtrayers]

To extract the JPG you can use the Canon software (Zoombrowser) that came with your camera or use a third party application like BreezeBrowser. I use BreezeBrowser. I also use it to RAW conversions en masse, like when I have the white balance set incorrectly, or for generating HTML pages for a gallery.

It also does renaming and you can see all the EXIF data. PS-CS doesn't show all the EXIF data.

[PhotosGuy]

2 points:
I just bought another 512 card for $25US, so storage is very cheap.

...and then consider RAW at a later date after acquiring more experience. Kevin.

I suggest that when you have more experience is when you need RAW least! I have 50 years experience & still screw up! Here's an example of how RAW saved me (again)!
Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=309542#309542

:wink:

[John_T]

I would agree with you Frank as an after-sight, but when you are getting back into the game, the learning curve on RAW and all it entails can be quite steep and daunting while trying to get the camera and more sophisticated shooting under your belt at the same time, remember?

BTW, the 20D gives you the option of jpeg + RAW side by side simultaneously when you download to your computer. No need to extract like on the 10D and others. Without any further ado, you can just proceed with the jpeg as if the cr2 wasn't there. The only thing is that it cuts down on the number of shots you can get on your CF card radically. Jpeg large fine plus RAW will total around 12MB a shot, off the top of my head.

What jpeg+RAW does give you is the opportunity to see what the in camera processing is giving you right next to the RAW, and an insight into adjusting parameters.

[daveh]

the learning curve on RAW and all it entails can be quite steep and daunting while trying to get the camera and more sophisticated shooting under your belt at the same time, remember?

I don't recall there being much to learn about raw. I just adjust things the way I want them (as I did with any digital shot anyway) and then export them to tiffs. I use Capture One DSLR for this. Perhaps it's easier than other RAW tools.

[John_T]

Well, if you are going to fully exploit RAW you are going to need to get pretty deeply into RAW conversion and the subtlies of PS or another good editor, color management and printing, otherwise there's not much point getting into RAW. Besides, jpeg will give you a much quicker and accurate feedback while learning the camera functions and characteristics, at least I do when I get a new body.

[daveh]

I guess I use RAW differently. In any case, if you're a beginner, there's no need to "fully exploit" any particular aspect at the beginning. There's time to grow into things. You can start with RAW as a way to avoid jpeg compression, and other additional processing, allow better/more flexible correction of exposure and white balance and worry about other stuff later.

[nosquare2003]

Two years ago, I shoot mainly JPEG with my D60. RAW was only used under difficult lighting condition. If I do everything right, JPEG is good enough to me almost all of the time.

Memory is much cheaper now and I shoot mainly with a 4 megapixel 1D1. I shoot only RAW. (However, the small RAW files are compensated by many more photos taken by a 1D1.)

My suggestion: Get at least one more CF card and an external memory storage (20GB Gmini 220 in my case). It will save some money and to allow you to shoot RAW or high resolution JPG.

[fdi]

Converting from RAW to JPEG is easy. Just select the picture and click convert. Now fixing or enhancing the picture is another story. If you shoot in JPEG you can never go back and fix that picture no matter how much you learn about RAW later on. I have RAW images that I shot a few years ago that I have reconverted and enhanced because I now have better RAW conversion software. If they were JPEG, I could never take advantage of the advances in technology.

The RAW images also have more data. RAW is 12 bits and JPEG only 8 (on most cameras). If the camera does the conversion, that extra data which is often additional exposure latitude is lost forever. That is why many people, including myself, always make sure they are shooting RAW in difficult lighting. Shooting in RAW also allows me to play with the white balance correction after the fact. Sometimes I shoot in tungsten and I wanted it corrected, others I prefer the warm glow of the uncorrected. In either case I get to sit at my computer and play around with it at my leisure as opposed to guessing on the spot.

I pretty much leave my camera set to RAW. If I am shooting some action and I am worried about buffer overrun, if I am worried about running out of space on my CF card, or am just shooting junk snaps and don't want bother with RAW, then I switch to JPEG. That is just me. Overtime you will figure out what works for you.

Mark Rogers
http://www.framedestination.com
http://www.pbase.com/lila161

[maderito]

I thought it odd that no one mentioned the fact that only with RAW images can you convert to a file format (e.g. TIFF) that permits working in Photoshop 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit mode.

I have not totally convinced myself that editing in 16 bit mode (12 bit image data) is better than 8 bit mode (in terms of final image quality), but the extra comfort level for making major image edits and adjustments is undeniable.

If you have appropriate software (e.g. Photoshop CS), ample disk space, adequate CPU processing power & memory, and the CF card capacity, there are few downsides to shooting in RAW, even if you convert all your shots immediately to 16 bit TIFFs for editing with "as shot" conversion settings.

Once I'm done editing a 16 bit TIFF image, I save the file as a JPEG (8 bit) and eventually delete the TIFF since it takes up so much disk space. If I want to do a major re-edit in the future, I'll go back to the original RAW file. The saved JPEGs are fine for minor edits, prints and for downsizing to web display size.

[fdi]

maderito wrote:
I thought it odd that no one mentioned the fact that only with RAW images can you convert to a file format (e.g. TIFF) that permits working in Photoshop 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit mode.

I have not totally convinced myself that editing in 16 bit mode (12 bit image data) is better than 8 bit mode (in terms of final image quality), but the extra comfort level for making major image edits and adjustments is undeniable.

That is very true. You can take better advantage of the 12 RAW bits if you goto 16-bit TIFF. That is what I always do when I plan on printing the image. Where you can tell the difference between 8-bit mode and 16-bit mode is doing color hue and saturation adjustments. In 8-bit mode you are much more likely to rail some colors and lose detail. For instance, say you have some pixels sitting at 240, 250, and 252. If you do a shift that adds 30 then they all will be set to 256 in 8-bit mode. In 16-bit mode they will remain unique and end up at 270, 280, and 282 (assuming a linear shift). It also leaves more dynamic range for things like curve adustments so that you can maintain detail longer when increasing the contrast. The detail may not be visible on the screen but might be visible in the print.

Mark Rogers
http://www.framedestination.com
http://www.pbase.com/lila161

[PhotosGuy]

I thought it odd that no one mentioned the fact that only with RAW images can you convert to a file format (e.g. TIFF) that permits working in Photoshop 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit mode.


I didn't want to confuse the issue with more info than seemed necessary at the time. 16 bit IS a big consideration, but Kevin said, "It does make sense for me to stick with JPGs in L-fine and then consider RAW at a later date after acquiring more experience.", which is just wrong!

He's used film in his Nikon, so he's not a beginner, & I'm sure that he didn't just shoot one brand of color neg film as a beginner should. (More exposure latitude, & the lab would try to fix his miStakEs).
RAW is like having every film in your cam at the same time, & I feel that only working pros like Kenny should shoot JPEGs 'cause that's what the client requires.

Kevin's "delighted to be back with a serious camera. ", & he should be using serious "film"! Otherwise he's just short changing himself, & we don't want him to do that, do we? :wink:

[kevinma]

Frank, you're right about my being somewhat experienced, including with different films etc and I do like your analogy i.e. shooting RAW is like having different films in your camera all at once - although right now, I don't know what this means (but I'm prepared to accept it). How do you suggest I learn about the capabilities of RAW? Right now, I know about JPEGs, I know how to do manipulation in PS. Books to recommend? Websites? Kevin.

[kevinma]

Well actually re my last statement about knowing how to do things in PS, that's not quite correct as you can see from my Avatar. I couldn't get a decent looking file at such a small size!

[PhotosGuy]

Did you get a disk with the Canon File Viewer Utility, or EOS Viewer Utility with your camera? That "Viewer" is also the RAW>Tiff/Jpeg conversion program.
If you have it, take 3 RAW shots. One on, one +2x, & one -2x. Then play with them in the viewer & you'll be able to figure it out in about 10 minutes.

PSCS has a RAW plug-in. Or,
If you don't have the viewer, you can get it from Canon:
EOS Digital Rebel Download Library
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=DownloadDetailAct&fcategoryid=314&m odelid=9430

You can get all the other trial programs here:
http://www.raw-converter.com/en/index.php?id=84

Then if you have questions, bring them to "Post Processing" & we'll help you out.
_______________
More:

My Canon RAW Workflow
http://www.mkwphotography.com/workflow.htm

http://www.ultimateslr.com/canon-raw-workflow.html

http://www.digitalfocus.net/sections/views/WhatisRAW/WhatisRAW_1.htm

Motivation > RAW processing tools: workflows, analisys, resources and tips
Welcome to my Digital Darkroom corner
http://www.insflug.org/raw/motivation/
http://www.insflug.org/raw/
dcraw vs FVU
http://www.insflug.org/raw/analysis/dcrawvsfvu/
http://www.insflug.org/raw/analysis/dcrawvsfvu/conclusion.php3
FAQ
http://www.insflug.org/raw/reference/faq.php3

Cannon RAW Workflow
http://www.ultimateslr.com/canon-raw-workflow.html
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm

[kevinma]

Thanks very much Frank; I will experiment this weekend. Kevin.