| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2004 11:04:47 PM · #1 |
I have not taken many pictures using raw mode, thus my question.
Is there ever a time when you might want to AEB while in raw, or do you rely entirely on being able to change the exposure during editing? |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 11:10:10 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I have not taken many pictures using raw mode, thus my question.
Is there ever a time when you might want to AEB while in raw, or do you rely entirely on being able to change the exposure during editing? |
I use AEB all the time with RAW. Perhaps I am missing something but there's nothing special about RAW images that let you change the exposure. You could do the same with JPEG or TIFF by changing levels in the same way you do with RAW.
What RAW lets you do uniquely is to change the white balance. Not to mention it doesn't suffer from artifacts like JPEG. And JPEG is only 24 bit color, so I guess you do have a little more exposure control in RAW, since there's more color/brightness resolution in the image.
Message edited by author 2004-04-17 23:11:03. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 11:16:42 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Perhaps I am missing something but there's nothing special about RAW images that let you change the exposure. You could do the same with JPEG or TIFF by changing levels in the same way you do with RAW.
|
I agree with your statement for the G series cameras but with the 10D and probably with the Rebel as well you can adjust the exposure. In Canon's File Utility program there is what is called Digital Exposure Compensation which has a range of -2 to +2 stops in increments of 0.1.
With the G series cameras if you choose custom effect you can then adjust the contrast, colour saturation and sharpness though I would leave these adjustments to photoshop (or other image editing software).
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 11:42:45 PM · #4 |
I shoot in raw and I never bracket the exposure, maybe I should but Photoshop CS's raw convertion does an amazing job in exposure adjustments. Before CS I didn't shoot raw because Canon's File Viewer Utility is not the easiest to use. Yeah it does have dig exposure compensation of -2 to +2.
Having said that, I still take multiple shots with different exposure settings.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 11:44:27 PM · #5 |
Exactly Colette. I'm guessing AEB would be redundant while in Raw mode, but got curious that I might be missing something.
I'm thinking along the lines that since I shoot mostly AEB with Jpeg, shooting Raw would actually save space. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 11:45:38 PM · #6 |
| Thanks for the info Henry. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 12:14:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Thanks for the info Henry. |
No prob, Garry.
Regarding space, raw file sizes range from 5MB to 8MB per image so my 256MB card stores only about 33 images. That's why I carry another 256MB and 1-512MB cards. They will also fill up your hard drive quite fast. It could be hard to tell whether there will be significant saving in space (on the card). You could be taking 3 shots of a scene at 2MB each or 3MB.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:07:48 AM · #8 |
Hope garrywhite2 does not mind me adding to his thread, but I have been wondering about RAW mode as well. My camera does not have anything called RAW, but it does have a TIFF setting as its highest quality mode. Is this uncompressed TIFF image similar to a RAW image? If not, what are the differences?
David |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:12:31 AM · #9 |
David,
This should help: //www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm , it mentions the pros and cons of each. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:24:39 AM · #10 |
Thanks for the link.
David |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:29:58 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Hope garrywhite2 does not mind me adding to his thread, but I have been wondering about RAW mode as well. My camera does not have anything called RAW, but it does have a TIFF setting as its highest quality mode. Is this uncompressed TIFF image similar to a RAW image? If not, what are the differences?
David |
It is an uncompressed image, but nothing like the RAW images they are discussing. It has already had various settings applied to it -- white balance, exposure compensation, etc. -- before the file is saved to the card. The only difference from the JPEG images you get are that it has not had the JPEG compression applied, and there is no chance of artifacts from that. Almost no one can tell the difference between TIFF and the best-quality JPEG, but I might use TIFF on a "pro" shoot where image quality is paramount.
With the RAW file, the actual values from the sensor are saved without any intervening processing; those are applied later with one of the softwares they are discussing. The main advantages of RAW are other than its uncompressed state. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:31:13 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Hope garrywhite2 does not mind me adding to his thread, but I have been wondering about RAW mode as well. My camera does not have anything called RAW, but it does have a TIFF setting as its highest quality mode. Is this uncompressed TIFF image similar to a RAW image? If not, what are the differences?
David |
The TIFF will be close to raw in that it has no compression loss. But the TIFF will already be reduced to 8 bits/pixel and the camera will have done white balance, sharpening and similar adjustment to the photo before storing as a TIFF. Raw mode is just what the pixel values right out of the camera are. In reality you can do most adjustments to the tiff that you could in raw. I have played some with raw and in some cases you can get squeeze just a little more out of the photo but it is nothing dramatic, at least not with my camera. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 08:17:47 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Exactly Colette. I'm guessing AEB would be redundant while in Raw mode, but got curious that I might be missing something.
I'm thinking along the lines that since I shoot mostly AEB with Jpeg, shooting Raw would actually save space. |
If your looking to get the exposure right in Camera and are making notes as you go along then AEB can help alot.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2004 10:54:40 AM · #14 |
I rarely use AEB on my Rebel. I check the histogram after each exposure, and if I got the exposure wrong, I adjust the Av and shoot again. I do shoot RAW, and find that the bad exposure can usually be fixed during the conversion to TIFF.
I do use AEB on my C-720UZ whenever conditions are such that I don't trust the exposure meter. It's hard to tell by looking at the preview screen if the exposure is right. But I almost never use TIFF; high quality JPEG works fine in almost all cases and a lot more of them will fit on the memory card. Since I'm still in the "shoot as much as I can in hopes that one will turn out well" phase, that works best for me. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 12:21:19 PM · #15 |
Just as an aside to this thread I thought that I would mention that it should be possible to use a heuristic's algorithm to recreate a JPEG file that is almost indistinguishable from the original that it came from. Any JPEG saved above level 75 or so should be able to be recreated into an almost identical image to the original without any compression artefacts. In fact there is a French company working on just such an algorithm at the moment.
Also I am not sure if all of you were aware of this or not but there are two different types of JPEG. One of them can save 16 bits per colour channel information. If JPEG could be bothered releasing an update of this compression method then you could also adjust the white balance and exposure just like with raw files.
Just thought I would share. |
|
|
|
04/18/2004 01:02:45 PM · #16 |
Wow... This was a really informative site.
Thanks for posting it. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/21/2025 06:20:45 AM EST.
