RAW shoot. - DPChallenge Forums

12/26/2003 07:43:09 PM · #1

I have a question:

Can I take my photos in RAW format and make them jpg to upload to the challenges?

Because I have taked all of them in jpg, but I wanna take in RAW to have chance to make bigger prints.

It is legal?

Regards

vadvirag

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/26/2003 07:47:23 PM · #2

I don't know much about RAWs at all, so sorry if writing something irrelevant. If RAW has an exif, I think it would be okay.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/26/2003 07:48:55 PM · #3

Of course ... that is the recommended procedure. But keep that original RAW file intact for verification purposes, just in case someone requests disqualification.

Your entry MUST be JPEG. Your original can be any digital format your camera can capture.

Message edited by author 2003-12-26 19:49:49.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/26/2003 07:51:29 PM · #4

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Thanks for the answer.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

12/26/2003 07:55:34 PM · #5

cimarron98,

Unless I'm totally crazy (feel free to comment after you stop laughing), shooting in RAW mode doesn't help you any if you want to make larger prints. RAW format only stores more data about the image; the resolution should be the same at both RAW and whatever is the largest JPEG image you can take (at least it seems to be with most cameras I've seen). You have more control over how you edit the photo when its in RAW format. You can work with colors and the depth of colors, luminence, saturation, etc but the photo by itself is no larger just because its in RAW format. In my case both the RAW output and the Large/Fine jpegs are 3072x2048 and they both can be used to generate large photos. The difference is that as part of my workflow I have greater control over preparing the RAW photo than I do for the JPEG.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/26/2003 08:34:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

In my experience i can print larger photos when i took in raw format. I have a Canon G2, so i cant take raw+jpg in the same shoot.

And I agree with you when ypu say that raw let you take more control on your shot.

Thanks for your comments

Spanish_Grease

Olympus C-4000Z

12/26/2003 08:41:09 PM · #7

I believe the advantage of shooting in RAW format is that there is no compression of the photo, therefore allowing for a higher quality picture when loaded onto the computer. That's basically what the different 'qualities' of pictures means, even though they record the same resolution amount of image. More compression means less space, and less quality.

Don't quote me on this, I believe this is what the TIFF format on my camera is, which is supposed to be similar to the RAW format on others.

Lee

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/26/2003 09:24:38 PM · #8

Most photographers who compare RAW and JPG out of the same camera agree that RAW seems to give a slight advantage in detail. I think this may be because PC (or Mac) based RAW conversion programs are free to use more computationally intensive algorithms to process the sensor data, thus squeezing out slightly greater detail out of the same RAW data. the camera is limited by the processor power available, and the need for SPEED in processing the shot. The algorithms must be efficient & fast, i.e. simpler is better.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/26/2003 09:32:35 PM · #9

could be the format defaults are just that way for convenience and space saving.

its also simpler, and less time consuming to work on a jpeg image.
less PC power required as well.

so the dig cam industry has just gone with what sells, and leaving the option open.

i would assume the RAW format is top notch - but for most things jpeg will suffice.

now i will try a set in raw and see how it goes though ;}

Shelley

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

12/26/2003 10:00:27 PM · #10

Raw files are simply data. Therefore when you go into a program that reads the raw files, such as Nikon capture or the software that comes with the Canon Cameras (and Photoshop CE), you can change the data. For instance if you had the wrong white balance set in your camera, you can change it in the software and it changes the data, as if that is how the originial picture was taken. Kinda shooting for dummies, or memory impaired, which I often am. It also shoots the info in 12 bit instead of the standard 8 bit files, which allows for more data. This is really important when you have alot of white in your picture, as white tends to blow out in digital. The more data bits the more info. YOu can also go back into your raw file at any time and change the info or go back to your orginal settings, without degradation of the original. I find it so very useful and almost always shoot in raw. The only time I shoot jpegs is when I have been shooting all day, and am running out of card space. It does however require a little more post processing, but I find it is well worth the effort

Shelley

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

12/26/2003 10:01:41 PM · #11

Oh yeah, one more thing, not all cameras have raw mode as an option

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

12/26/2003 10:07:12 PM · #12

I guess TIFF is soon to be the lost format :(

Shelley

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

12/26/2003 10:10:44 PM · #13

Yeah, mostly because you don't get the benefit of a raw file, and they take up more space on the camera. I do however save my files as Tiffs after I work them in my capture software. It isn't a good idea to save jpegs for finals, because every time you open and change a Jpeg file, you lose some of the information. Tiff Files aren't compressed. So I guess in that sense, tiff files won't go away, just as a camera option

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/27/2003 01:17:49 AM · #14

Originally posted by faidoi:

I guess TIFF is soon to be the lost format :(

Almost every photo I edit has a TIFF intermediary stage. If you use LZW compression within Photoshop you will not lose any data, but will make the file slightly slower to open or close. DO NOT save with LZW if you plan to use the TIFF in another program though, there it creates problems. My camera takes an uncompressed TIFF; I should try it more often, but I've never seen the difference.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/27/2003 01:21:58 AM · #15

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Better quality detail at any given resolution affords the opportunity for more accurate upsampling, thereby potentially increasing the maximum printable size for a given quality level. Any uncompressed format should give a better chance at usable upsampling than JPEG.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/27/2003 01:46:38 AM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
cimarron98,

Unless I'm totally crazy (feel free to comment after you stop laughing), shooting in RAW mode doesn't help you any if you want to make larger prints. RAW format only stores more data about the image; the resolution should be the same at both RAW and whatever is the largest JPEG image you can take ...

Better quality detail at any given resolution affords the opportunity for more accurate upsampling, thereby potentially increasing the maximum printable size for a given quality level. Any uncompressed format should give a better chance at usable upsampling than JPEG.

That's good to know, Paul. I guess I'll go back to shooting anything I expect to produce large prints of in RAW. I had switched to JPEG just to save time in editing and post-photo production work.

Thanks,

Kev

PS. - does this mean I'm totally crazy? Surely there are better litmus tests

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/27/2003 03:09:39 AM · #17

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

I guess I'll go back to shooting anything I expect to produce large prints of in RAW. I had switched to JPEG just to save time in editing and post-photo production work.

Thanks,

Kev

PS. - does this mean I'm totally crazy? Surely there are better litmus tests

No, you're not, unless you just do what I say and not what I do. I am speaking from theory, not actual experience. I think you should shoot the same subject(s) twice, once each way, and compare. Diagonal lines are usually the toughest to work with as they get the jaggies real easily, and any kind of fine lines can go when you start resampling either up or down.

mjalvarino

Canon EOS-10D

12/27/2003 05:12:17 AM · #18

RAW should be thought of as the Digital Film format. It saves all the information without any of the compression. Since it is just raw data (hence the name RAW), the data can be post-processed in various ways. As Shelley pointed out, White Balance can be corrected, and a number of other things can be fixed.

Once you have a RAW file, the next thing that occurs is to process that file. This is where TIFF comes to play. In order to use the picture in an image editing program, ie. PhotoShop or PaintShop Pro, the RAW file needs to be converted to a file that it can read. And that's a TIFF file. Once the file is converted, the image can be manipulated then printed to paper, cards, etc. (TIFFs have all of the information of the RAW file but after processing, a TIFF file size is a lot bigger than that of a RAW file.)

Now, in order for other people to see the picture on the WWW/Internet, the image needs to be changed to a file that the web browser can understand. In general, a JPEG file of the image is needed (browsers can recognize other types of files, but usually require some sort of plug-in). And this is where JPEG files come in. After editing the image, the image is then converted to a JPEG file, which is compressed, then uploaded to a site, ie. DPChallenge, for all the world to see.

So this is how RAW, TIFF, and JPEG files work together.
If your interested in a more complete definition of RAW, check out the Digital Outback Photo article:
//www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/27/2003 10:00:53 AM · #19

Good summary, and the article is helpful. I do disagree with one statement: TIFFs do not have all of the information of RAW files; they store only 8 bits/channel and the Bayer to RGB interpolation has already been done. This makes it more difficult to correct white balance or minor exposure problems.

My Olympus C-720UZ supports JPEG and TIFF. I've never seen any noticable difference between the highest quality JPEG and TIFF, and a lot more JPEG images fit on the memory card than TIFF images. So except for some initial experimenting, I've always used SHQ JPEG format in the camera. But I've never done much upsampling, and there may well be a difference there since compression artifacts would be magnified. I do save processed files in a no-loss format (PSD, PSP, or TIFF), using JPEG again only when needed for a final product (e.g., a challenge entry) to avoid introducing artifacts.

I'm still figuring out my workflow for my new EOS-300D. RAW is useful for the reasons listed, but is harder to work with since most programs don't support them, and slower since they need to be converted to RGB first. My tentative plan is to use RAW in the camera and on the archive CD, then convert the whole batch to JPEG (using the default settings) before postprocessing. That has the advantage of a better conversion algorithm, and I can always reconvert single images with different settings if I need more control.

mjalvarino

Canon EOS-10D

12/27/2003 06:48:12 PM · #20

Originally posted by dr rick:

You're right about the the interpolation that is done. I forgot that you can't change white balance after converting to TIFF. Although, RAW files can be converted to TIFF files with 16 bits per color channel.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/27/2003 07:02:43 PM · #21

Another plus of RAW files (not legal here) is that you can use it as a "double exposure" if you have a middle of the road shot, that needs some increased detail in shadow, etc. Same as taking the same shot (on a tripod) with 2 different exposure settings.
I only hate how long it takes to process it to the card. But I use Fine if I need faster action, and RAW when I know I have 15-45 seconds (damn batteries) inbetween shots.
Also Camera RAW in PS CS is sweet (touch more time than with jpg), along with the 16 bit processing with alot of the tools.

Message edited by author 2003-12-27 19:04:05.