Raw vs S Raw

I know that this has been discussed many times so I don't want to run this into the ground but I have a question. I have been playing around with jpeg, raw, m raw, and s raw. I really don't want to take up the space to post the pictures but everything was taken under the same conditions using a tripod, timer. and so on. They were all processed the same from dpp to elements 6. I had the pictures printed and mixed them up so I did not know which was which. I picked the s raw as best followed by m raw and raw (which could have gone either way) and jpeg last. I asked my wife to pick them out as well and she had s raw first and jpeg last as well. What am I missing, does a person need to do more post processing in raw than s or m raw to get better results? Thanks in advance. Also let me say that the average person just looking at the prints would probably say they all looked very much the same.

What size prints? Bet 'ya didn't make 4 20x30s.

All S RAW does is makes the file smaller and easier to work with. Thanks for reminding me. I'm shooting for a photo studio now and they require I shoot in S RAW 1 for my 5D Mark II.

tzalman wrote in post #12876887
What size prints? Bet 'ya didn't make 4 20x30s.

4 by 5. Since I rarely go over 8 by 10 would s raw make more sense?

Yes. S RAW should be fine if all you're doing is 8 x 10's. What camera are you using and what's the megapixels at S RAW? On my 5D Mark II S RAW 1 is 9.9 Megapixels. S RAW 2 is 5 Megapixels.

CameraMan wrote in post #12876954
Yes. S RAW should be fine if all you're doing is 8 x 10's. What camera are you using and what's the megapixels at S RAW? On my 5D Mark II S RAW 1 is 9.9 Megapixels. S RAW 2 is 5 Megapixels.

I have a 7d so s raw is 4.5 megapixels. I guess my next question would be is it better to shoot in s raw than in the highest quality jpeg? Based on my picture quality I would say yes. I know that raw is the best but for just average shooting I am thinking s raw may be the way for me.

I always shoot RAW (or S RAW). I convert to Jpeg so I can post the ones I like on line and TIF for those that I want to print.

Well since it has been around 104 degrees with a heat index of 122-124 I think I will do a few more test. The first test really showed a noticable difference between jpeg and s raw so I want to make sure it was not me. It seems as though high quality jpeg should be better than s raw.

Not necessarily. You're dealing with a lossy type format with jpg. I would take one of the S RAW files and convert it to a non compressed TIF and compare that with your Jpeg.

CameraMan wrote in post #12877888
Not necessarily. You're dealing with a lossy type format with jpg. I would take one of the S RAW files and convert it to a non compressed TIF and compare that with your Jpeg.

I will give that a try this afternoon when I get back home. It would seem as though the tif would look even better than the jpeg?

Yes. Because it is uncompressed. Same as RAW or S RAW. They are non compressed.

all depends on if you anticipate needing to crop. my 7d files take longer to render/edit than the 5D but I can crop the hell out of my 7D files and the 5D files show obvious loss in quality with only a bit of cropping.....i would love to shoot with smaller 7D files but I'm skerred I may need to crop and not have the headroom.

I got into photography in the 60's, film. Shot 35MM, all sorts of film sizes were available down to 110, how many of you remember those "compact" cameras with the tiny film cartridges? My point is, I sure never would have switched to a smaller negative? You can always down size, much more difficult going up! You never know when you are going to get that capture that screams for a big print, again I am showing my age, to me photography is about prints. IMO

CameraMan wrote in post #12877926
Yes. Because it is uncompressed. Same as RAW or S RAW. They are non compressed.

Actually they are compressed but the compression is not lossy. Tifs can also be compressed without loss using the LZW, Zip or jpg-style compression methods.

ralff wrote in post #12878259
I got into photography in the 60's, film. Shot 35MM, all sorts of film sizes were available down to 110, how many of you remember those "compact" cameras with the tiny film cartridges? My point is, I sure never would have switched to a smaller negative? You can always down size, much more difficult going up! You never know when you are going to get that capture that screams for a big print, again I am showing my age, to me photography is about prints. IMO

I'm with you, man.