RAW and JPG (settings on 20D)???

[rmjanzen]

Hi All,


I'm wondering something (i haven't got a 20d yet)... I hear people here that like raw... this so they can still post process their images and get the quality they want.. I also see people that want a kind off P&S camera with more flexibilty and high iso shooting. I'm somewhere in between...

What i heard is that you can also shoot raw and the best quality jpg at the same time.. So the image is stored in two files. This would open the possibility of using the JPG normally and if you want to make a shot better ... go back to the raw file and use that one.

I have a few questions on this:
- is this a method that somebody uses here ?

- If you adjust the in camera sharpening, saturation etc etc... will this effect the jpg and not the RAW image (making it a kind off P&S camera and prof use camera at the same time)

- Not taking into account the Storage size.... isn't this the best of two worlds ??

regards,

René

[alan sh]

Yes, it is the best of both - but it takes extra time to store the data.

Personally, I still shoot in best jpg - I find the quality is fine and I can still post process in PS CS if I need to (I generally look at the levels and then apply some USM).

[Jesper]

You can also do this with a 10D or 300D / Digital Rebel, but the JPG will be embedded inside the CRW file - you get one CRW file, and you can get the JPG out with software on the computer (note that this is *not* the same as converting the RAW data to a JPEG). So I wouldn't consider this as an important advantage of the 20D over the 10D and 300D.

[dhbailey]

I will respectfully disagree with Jesper's take on the RAW/JPG comparison between the 20D and either the 10D or 300D -- if you think you want both RAW and JPG, it is far more convenient to be able to save two files of the same shot, one RAW and one JPG. That way, all you have to do is download to the computer and you're ready to go with either RAW or JPG. Otherwise, you have an extra step to extract the JPG from the RAW file in the .crw files.

On the 20D you can shoot JPG in any of 6 different sizes (large, medium and small in either fine or coarse) and you can combine any of those 6 with the RAW files, so you can end up with jpg files which may be just perfect for what you want such as e-mailing or printing, with no extra effort or post-processing.

I will agree that this alone shouldn't be the only deciding factor in choosing the 20D over the 10D or 300D but it is in my opinion an important difference which might tip the balance in favor of the 20D.

[TomC]

Does anyone know what the file size is for Raw + Jpeg Large/Fine is on a CF card?? How much space (average) will each shot take up??

[poke]

About 9-10mb from memory... been a bit since i used it though, could be wrong.

(sorry, thats for the 10D... 6.3mp, 20D will be a bit larger than that)

[donlavange]

I get around 7 meg per Raw and around 300K for a low quality Jpeg

[DaveG]

Hi All,


I'm wondering something (i haven't got a 20d yet)... I hear people here that like raw... this so they can still post process their images and get the quality they want.. I also see people that want a kind off P&S camera with more flexibilty and high iso shooting. I'm somewhere in between...

What i heard is that you can also shoot raw and the best quality jpg at the same time.. So the image is stored in two files. This would open the possibility of using the JPG normally and if you want to make a shot better ... go back to the raw file and use that one.

I have a few questions on this:
- is this a method that somebody uses here ?

- If you adjust the in camera sharpening, saturation etc etc... will this effect the jpg and not the RAW image (making it a kind off P&S camera and prof use camera at the same time)

- Not taking into account the Storage size.... isn't this the best of two worlds ??

regards,

René

I used the large jpeg approach for a long time. I had it in my head that RAW would be complicated and time consuming, with me having to do a lot of the work that the camera could be set up to do. I had to be very careful about not having enough storage space on my one and only 512 meg card. And of course the Canon RAW conversion software was awful.

Then I got Photoshop CS and decided to re-visit RAW. It is actually simpler to process an image in PSCS in RAW than it is to do the same to a jpeg. The RAW screen is pretty simple and intuitive. I adjust the exposure with the sliders and make any other changes that I need. The image goes over to the regular part of Photoshop where I sharpen (unsharpen mask) the shot, and it gets saved.

Then I go into File Browser and select the next .cr2 image which takes me back into Camera RAW. I now have the option to choose "Previous Conversion" and it will take the adjustments I made to the first shot and apply them to the second. I find that my exposures are consistent in bunches. These six shots are the same, then I change something and now these four shots are the same, so this "previous conversion" works well. Even if I have to make say an exposure change then a lot of the white balance, saturation and so forth will stay the same.

In any case it's a lot faster to use RAW than jpegs. There is really no way to automate the regular part of Photoshop to achieve the same effect. Making an Action would take forever and would still need some hands on tweaking. I'm surprised that the is not a "Previous Conversion" command in the regular side of Photoshop since it would be very useful for jpeg users.

Subsequently the adjustments (levels, colour balance, etc.) in the regular part of PS have become a thing of the past for me and my workflow.

I, like everyone else I should think, have added more storage capacity in more and larger CF cards so I don't have to be so concerned about not having enough "film" to do the job. The Canon RAW files are remarkably small compared to say Nikon or Fuji. A 6.5 to 8 meg file isn't all that much bigger than a large jpeg, but of course it does take more card storage space.

But after it's all over I see what kind of benefits RAW gives me. I don't have to make any on site white balance decisions. If I guess wrong and use a jpeg then it'll be a lot of work to fix. With a RAW file I could select "Daylight" in Camera RAW and it will change the image. If I don't like the results I can choose another setting. It's EXACTLY like I did it in the field but RAW means that any changes are fully reversible and without any loss of information. And with RAW I can also choose to use the superior 16 bit "decoding".

I'd say shoot RAW and nothing else. Once it's in Photoshop - or the cheaper Elements III - you can make jegs to your hearts content and need not give up the storage space in the field.

[pcasciola]

I have a full 1Gb CF card in my reader right now that was shot in RAW+Large/Fine JPeg, mostly at ISO 200. 94 shots total, so the average is almost 11Mb per shot.

I also second what DaveG said. His process is nearly identical to how I've been working lately, and the main advantages I find are not having to worry about white balance on the camera, and using the "Previous conversion" feature when I convert a batch of RAWs. The only difference is, outdoors when shooting sports I switch to Large/Fine JPEG because I need the speed, and in that mode the 20D can fire off close to 40 shots at 5fps with no delay, and also because white balance is not much of a concern then.

[merrrrjig]

I dont use raw on my 20D I just use the highst JPG, I think the RAW+JPG at the highest quality is like 12.3MB!

[DaveG]

I dont use raw on my 20D I just use the highst JPG, I think the RAW+JPG at the highest quality is like 12.3MB!

OK but why?

I can see the value of shooting RAW (duh) and I can see the advantage of shooting large jpegs if speed and card space is an issue. But why both?

[dhbailey]

Because you can work with the jpg immediately (emailing it, printing it, putting it in an electronic photo album) if you like it, but if you don't like it you've got the RAW to work on to improve things.

Also some folks like to see what they can do to make things better than a computer's pre-programmed decisions, so someone with both RAW and JPG can see if they can improve on the JPG. If they can, they're all set and can delete the JPG from the camera. If they can't, they still have the JPG, which for some newbies may be better than their RAW adjustments.

But I don't think anybody has suggested that anybody SHOULD do anything (RAW alone, JPG alone, RAW+JPG). People should do what they are comfortable with and which gives them the results they are happy with. While I don't plan on shooting RAW +JPG I am glad that the camera gives me that option should I need it.

I can think of times it might be handy -- send off a CD of JPGs out of the camera to give some client an idea of which pictures they might want you to prepare for them, then you work on the RAW files to give them the best possible results for the finished product.

[KonaFan]

I have read through this thread and am left scratching my head. Unless the images you shoot you plan to use solely for Web/Email, why NOT use RAW? Using RAW allows you to work in a 16-bit color space, which gives you a much finer level of control over all aspects of the imaging process, especially if you are trying to pull a black and white print from your images.

RAW is a truely uncompressed format--it is the digital equivalent of a photo negative--all the information your camera captured is contained in this format. JPEG, regardless of the setting, uses compression, meaning some information is lost. What's more, JPEG can deteriorate over time depending on how you (mis-)use the original file.

If what you are capturing through the lens are memories you wish to keep for a lifetime, use RAW.

[DaveG]

Because you can work with the jpg immediately (emailing it, printing it, putting it in an electronic photo album) if you like it, but if you don't like it you've got the RAW to work on to improve things.

Also some folks like to see what they can do to make things better than a computer's pre-programmed decisions, so someone with both RAW and JPG can see if they can improve on the JPG. If they can, they're all set and can delete the JPG from the camera. If they can't, they still have the JPG, which for some newbies may be better than their RAW adjustments.

But I don't think anybody has suggested that anybody SHOULD do anything (RAW alone, JPG alone, RAW+JPG). People should do what they are comfortable with and which gives them the results they are happy with. While I don't plan on shooting RAW +JPG I am glad that the camera gives me that option should I need it.

I can think of times it might be handy -- send off a CD of JPGs out of the camera to give some client an idea of which pictures they might want you to prepare for them, then you work on the RAW files to give them the best possible results for the finished product.

It's a pretty rare image that can come right out of a camera and into a client's hands without any post-production work. If I thought that unprocessed jpegs would do the job then it would make sense, but they do not. If I have to work on the image, and I always do, then I want to be working on a RAW file. Processing a RAW file, at least in Photshop CS is QUICKER than working with a jpeg and levels so I actually save time processing RAW.

I also think that a beginner will have a lot more luck in Camera RAW than with curves, color balance and so forth in the regular part of Photoshop and Elements III. I think that there is a fear of RAW as being some kind of an experts tool (and if they mess with Phase One maybe there's some truth to it) but RAW processing in CS is dead easy and as I say quick.

Straight out of the camera these large jpegs aren't very useful for emailing. They are reproduction size and I email very small files until the clients picks out the ones they want specifically for reproduction. I don't want to jam up their email - and very few clients have FTP capability - and I sure wouldn't want them to use an unprocessed image.

I once had a client publish a shot of mine that she scanned from a contact sheet! She just thought it was they way it was done! I just think that it would be too easy for an unprocessed large jpeg with a happy green colour cast to get used by an amateur client.

I just don't think that there is any upsize to the large jpeg file saved along with RAW. Maybe there are amateurs out there who want a jpeg to compare to RAW but I don't know of any.

The downside of this practice is that is reduces card capacity and write speed. If Canon offered me a choice that went, "No more Jpeg/RAW capability. You'll have to pick one or the other. But the ISO will be always visable on the top deck and in the viewfinder." then THAT feature would have some utility.

[DaveG]

I have read through this thread and am left scratching my head. Unless the images you shoot you plan to use solely for Web/Email, why NOT use RAW? Using RAW allows you to work in a 16-bit color space, which gives you a much finer level of control over all aspects of the imaging process, especially if you are trying to pull a black and white print from your images.

RAW is a truely uncompressed format--it is the digital equivalent of a photo negative--all the information your camera captured is contained in this format. JPEG, regardless of the setting, uses compression, meaning some information is lost. What's more, JPEG can deteriorate over time depending on how you (mis-)use the original file.

If what you are capturing through the lens are memories you wish to keep for a lifetime, use RAW.

Actually the Canon RAW format IS compressed. It's a lossless compression and won't hurt the image like jpeg compression will, but it is compressed.

[Reminisce]

For me, the ONLY reason to shoot RAW+JPG WAS for easy browsing on my computer. I could shift through all my photos really fast and then pull up the RAW of the one I wanted to work on. But with the program someone listed where you can see your RAW files from anywhere in windows, i have not needed to do that. Matter of fact, I actually despise shooting in JPEG now, and dread the day that I dont have enough space on my card to do a full shoot with just RAW.

As for size, it all depends. A lot of people dont realize but the more color in your image, the larger it will be. The more Whiteness in your image, the larger it will be. Also the higher the ISO, the larger your file will be. Colors use more bits of data than colorless (black) areas. White uses the most colors obviously, so something overexposed will take more space than something underexposed, for example.

A RAW file on my 20D will take anywhere from 7 to 10 megs for me. More if I need to bump the ISO in the high end.

[alan sh]

. The more Whiteness in your image, the larger it will be. Colors use more bits of data than colorless (black) areas. White uses the most colors obviously, so something overexposed will take more space than something underexposed, for example.


Are you sure about that ? A pixel uses 3 bytes of data, one for red, one for green, one for blue. Each has a value 0 to 255 - for black all are 0, for white, all are 255. But the SIZE remains the same - 3 bytes.

Alan

[DaveG]

For me, the ONLY reason to shoot RAW+JPG WAS for easy browsing on my computer. I could shift through all my photos really fast and then pull up the RAW of the one I wanted to work on. But with the program someone listed where you can see your RAW files from anywhere in windows, i have not needed to do that. Matter of fact, I actually despise shooting in JPEG now, and dread the day that I dont have enough space on my card to do a full shoot with just RAW.



I find that I can browse effectively with File Browser in Photoshop CS. If you were using an earlier version of PS or a program that doesn't support a integrated browser then the jpeg would be useful. But I'd want - at best - tiny jpegs to be made, not 3MP versions.

[Reminisce]

Actually the Canon RAW format IS compressed. It's a lossless compression and won't hurt the image like jpeg compression will, but it is compressed.

yep, TIFF isnt however, if im not mistaken. But then TIFF files are usually many times larger than your average RAW file.

[robertwgross]

Many times? No.

A 24-bit TIF is generally about 2.5 to 3 times as large as a RAW.

Maybe a few times.

---Bob Gross---

[edsarkiss]

Are you sure about that ? A pixel uses 3 bytes of data, one for red, one for green, one for blue. Each has a value 0 to 255 - for black all are 0, for white, all are 255. But the SIZE remains the same - 3 bytes.

Alan

remember that the RAW file represents the data as recorded by the sensor, so the "pixels" in RAW don't represent a full-color pixel as is displayed on your monitor, but rather a red, green, or blue "photosite" (a more accurate term than "pixel" in this case).

the photosites are laid out in a striped in RGBGRGBGR... pattern (twice as much green because that' s most important to our eyes). each photosite is represented by 12 bits of data in a 300D/10D/20D/etc RAW file.

the compression algorithm will essentially discard "high" bits with a zero value, along with certain repeating patterns. that is why RAW files are not all the same size -- some compress well (dark, low-ISO [due to low-noise]), while others do not. Reminisce is correct in his observations.

RAW converter software looks at the RGBGRGBG... photosite data and interpolates a full color value for every photosite based on its surrounding photosite values/colors. a 6MP camera really can only truly deliver 2MP worth of non-interpolated full-color data. the interpolation algorithms are quite good though, that's why we're happy calling them 6MP images ;-)

[DaveG]

yep, TIFF isnt however, if im not mistaken. But then TIFF files are usually many times larger than your average RAW file.

But if it comes out of a Canon 20D it starts out as some type of a compressed file whether it was a jpeg or RAW. Later in Photoshop you can open them and make a non-compressed .psd or .tif file.

I believe (but if someone knows differently, please correct me) that Nikon's and the Fuji S2 & S3 WILL make .tif files right in the camera. The price that you pay are very large files on your CF card.

[Reminisce]

But if it comes out of a Canon 20D it starts out as some type of a compressed file whether it was a jpeg or RAW. Later in Photoshop you can open them and make a non-compressed .psd or .tif file.

I believe (but if someone knows differently, please correct me) that Nikon's and the Fuji S2 & S3 WILL make .tif files right in the camera. The price that you pay are very large files on your CF card.

Yeah this is true. At least on my older Nikon CP 5700, you could save in TIFF format, and it was pretty ridiculous, lol. I could only get 1 picture on the card that came with it. :)