G3 Normal vs Superfine

[Selmorott]

Hi there,
I was wondering if anyone can tell me, or even better show me, what the difference in quality is between having your G3 set on Large Normal, to Large Superfine? There is a huge difference in the number of pics you can hold on a card between these, and I want to know if the difference in quality is worth it. I am travelling o/s for a couple of months and the extra space would be handy. Although, if I take a great pic and want to blow it up, is it going to be noticeable if I have it set on Large Normal?

thanks in advance
Selmorott

[Bryan Bedell]

Take two photos of the same object, one in each mode, and view them in photoshop at 200% or so, you'll likely notice more "compression" in the photo taken at "normal." (you'll see artifacts, pixels that seem blurry or out of place, odd colors, especially on edges where there's contrast, and large areas of even color might be smoothed out. If you don't see the difference, look in one of the RGB channels, it's usually more obvious.

here are some examples, you can download them and compare them up close:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page12.asp

The G6 seems to have pretty good compression compared to some cameras, and if you're making 4x6 prints from 7mp images or posting them on the web or just looking at them on-screen, and you want to save hard drive and card space, and you're more interested in quantity than quality, you'll probably be OK in "normal," but be warned that in some photos it might be noticeable and if you're planning on having any large prints made, or color separations made for 4-color offset printing, your photos are not going to look the best they can. But for that matter, "Superfine" isn't the best, it's still a tiny bit compressed, "RAW" is the only uncompressed format.

Why not split the difference and at least shoot in "Fine"?

[S45_fornow...]

Hi there,
I was wondering if anyone can tell me, or even better show me, what the difference in quality is between having your G3 set on Large Normal, to Large Superfine? There is a huge difference in the number of pics you can hold on a card between these, and I want to know if the difference in quality is worth it. I am travelling o/s for a couple of months and the extra space would be handy. Although, if I take a great pic and want to blow it up, is it going to be noticeable if I have it set on Large Normal?

thanks in advance
Selmorott

The compression setting really depends on the size of the pics you plan on printing and how much storage space you have.

I usually print 4x6's and 8x10's, but I always shoot at the highest resolution and the Superfine compression setting because if I manage to get a really fantastic shot and I want to go bigger than 4x6 or 8x10 with the print, then I will have that extra detail due to more information embedded into the jpeg. Granted, I shoot RAW nowadays, but I think you'll understand where I'm coming from with my reply...

[Lagged2Death]

I believe most (or at least many) camera shops can copy memory cards to CD-R for you, for a fee. If you're travelling somewhere where camera shops are common, this option could ease your storage constraints without spending a bundle on memory cards.

[Mannytkd]

Hi there,

I'm still fairly new to digital and was first shooting in "superfine" on my new G6 but was disapointed with the appearance of poor quality RAW compared to the superfine, what am i doing wrong, i use photoshop cs and paintshop pro 9, but after using the unsharp mask to sharpen the RAW and adjust the colour i thought it was rubbish and this puts me off RAW but so many people talk about it, For my own piece of mind i have gone back to "superfine". E.G. i have recntly took some shots of a single Bluebell stem with a few flowers on them and they came out perfect but in Raw i probably would have been disapointed?

Can anyone enlighten me please about raw or is my camera, surley not!!??

Thanks.

[Bryan Bedell]

Hi there,

...but after using the unsharp mask to sharpen the RAW and adjust the colour i thought it was rubbish and this puts me off RAW but so many people talk about it, For my own piece of mind i have gone back to "superfine"....


Not sure about the G3 but the G6 saves a preview JPEG attached to the RAW file,which can be set in the in-camera menu to be whatever size you want, but by default it's small, so maybe somehow you're opening that and not the actual CRW (Canon RAW) format file. Until I switched to iPhoto05 and found a plugin for Photoshop CS, I wasn't even able to download or open the actual CRW file (Unless I used the Canon Software, but who would do that?). Now it's cake, and the RAWs look great.

If it's opening in Photoshop and not opening the "raw import" menu with all the RAW options, you're not working on the RAW file. Check that your import utility is importing files with a ".CRW" extension, and that you're opening those and getting the options to open/modify a RAW file (much more extensive than a regular file)

Bb.

[Mannytkd]

Hi Bb,

I have downloaded the raw plugin for PS cs and have been loading the raw shot from the camera, and it does say "CRW" but i still think that they are very grainy, and now that it's sunny i keep the iso at 50 and shoot at F8 for even more sharpness and still get what appears to be unsharp and grainy. But when i use superfine, "wow" what a difference in quality, detail and above all sharpness.

So, could there be a problem with teh camera or is it like that till i mess about with it in PS cs to get it right.......? please can you enlighten me about raw, evrybody's talking about it but i'm not impressed YET?!

[Bryan Bedell]

Dunno, that's weird... Do you get the "Open Raw File" menu (or whatever it's called) when you open it that gives you all the options to change the exposure and all that? If not, it's probably not opening the CRW file. correctly.

Also, maybe look at the file size and see if they're the appropriate size.

And try opening them with the Canon software, but only as a last resort, ha.

For me, the RAWs don't look radically different than the superfine JPGs, but if you really look, you can see the compression in the JPGs. The bigger benefit IMHO is the ability to modify the camera settings to the uncompressed file.

Bryan