sunbeast Goldmember  1,034 posts Likes: 3 Joined Nov 2005 Location: Maryland More info | For wedding shoots inside and without flash I use raw as my safety net. I still utilize custom white balance and try to get the shots right the first time, but in real tough lighting it is comforting to know that I have more versatility relative to pp adjustments using raw files. Gear and Feedback
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rfreschner ishka bibble  2,576 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: Andover, CT...................... Go Red Sox! More info | JohnnyG wrote: First of all: Raw records the photo in 16 bits so it effectively records twice as much information as .jpg is 8 bits. Naturally, this is very important in regards to the detail captured. Actually, most digital cameras record a maximum of 12 bits per channel per pixel giving 4096 different levels per channel. At 8 bits per channel for JPEG there are 256 different levels (this is digital so each bit is another power of 2). So, you are effectively capturing 16 times as much information (4 extra bits = 2x2x2x2=16). Rick
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JohnnyG Worthless twinkle toes fairy  3,719 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Texas More info | rfreschner wrote: Actually, most digital cameras record a maximum of 12 bits per channel per pixel giving 4096 different levels per channel. At 8 bits per channel for JPEG there are 256 different levels (this is digital so each bit is another power of 2). So, you are effectively capturing 16 times as much information (4 extra bits = 2x2x2x2=16). I know my RAW files are 16 bits and you're right about how much more data. That's from a 20D of course. I don't know about the other cameras. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 100-400IS L, 24-105 L[COLOR=black][FONT="] IS, 50mm f/1.4, Canon 430EX/580EX II, Kenko 1.5X, Epson R1900, Manfrotto 679B Monopod, 3021BPRO tripod, 808RC4 Head, 486RC2 Ballhead
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JohnnyG Worthless twinkle toes fairy 3,719 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Texas More info | JohnnyG wrote: I know my RAW files are 16 bits and you're right about how much more data. That's from a 20D of course. I don't know about the other cameras. Now I've done it! I've confused myself. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 100-400IS L, 24-105 L[COLOR=black][FONT="] IS, 50mm f/1.4, Canon 430EX/580EX II, Kenko 1.5X, Epson R1900, Manfrotto 679B Monopod, 3021BPRO tripod, 808RC4 Head, 486RC2 Ballhead
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rfreschner ishka bibble 2,576 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: Andover, CT...................... Go Red Sox! More info | JohnnyG wrote: I went to the Canon web site and it says that it's always 12 bits, both RAW and .jpg. What I saw for the 20D on the Canon site was "Image Format : JPEG and RAW (12-bit)", which shows the RAW as 12-bit, not both the JPEG and RAW. Rick
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JohnnyG Worthless twinkle toes fairy 3,719 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Texas More info | rfreschner wrote: What I saw for the 20D on the Canon site was "Image Format : JPEG and RAW (12-bit)", which shows the RAW as 12-bit, not both the JPEG and RAW. Here's a couple of links that can explain this for you better than I can - the first from The Luminous Landscape  and the second from Ron Bigelow. Another great source of information is Bruce Fraser's book Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2.Thanks for the links! There is some excellent information on those. I really appreciate it. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 100-400IS L, 24-105 L[COLOR=black][FONT="] IS, 50mm f/1.4, Canon 430EX/580EX II, Kenko 1.5X, Epson R1900, Manfrotto 679B Monopod, 3021BPRO tripod, 808RC4 Head, 486RC2 Ballhead
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 12, 2006 17:53 | #37 Books look good. Having a bad day? Feeling down? Bantar Gebang Attitude Enhancement Images
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SuzyView Cream of the Crop  More info | Feb 12, 2006 18:01 | #38 I have the book "Camera Raw" and hopefully, I'll have enough nerve to shoot RAW this week with my 20D and 1gb card. I'm doing baby portraits. Got to love those beauties. Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rfreschner ishka bibble 2,576 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: Andover, CT...................... Go Red Sox! More info | Carzee wrote: Books look good. Definitely a good read! Rick
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2456 guests, 105 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
