| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2004 04:48:04 AM · #1 |
| I have been trying to figure out what the best setting is to use while taking pictures, raw data or JPG. I have found that raw is pretty good but it is very time consuming in the digital darkroom. What are your thoughts about it. What should I use to receive highest quality? |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 04:54:27 AM · #2 |
| I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself - RAW is better, but takes a little more time. I don't know about the actual difference between RAW and jpeg quality on a S7000 though.. |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 05:20:41 AM · #3 |
I tried RAW, and I didn't find enough use for the extra tweakableness. And the jpeg (at best quality) is beyond discernable comparing to the RAW files. I found the RAW takes me more than triple the amount of time to work on them.
I went back to jpeg and love it. I can't stand working on the 100 shots or so I took in RAW.
Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 05:24:47 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I think you've hit the nail on the head yourself - RAW is better, but takes a little more time. I don't know about the actual difference between RAW and jpeg quality on a S7000 though.. |
With the camera that you have, do you find that it is worth the time and effort for the results you receive when using raw files. Say specifically for prints especially. |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 05:34:23 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by timganier:
With the camera that you have, do you find that it is worth the time and effort for the results you receive when using raw files. Say specifically for prints especially. |
I've only ever used RAW briefly, mainly because I found it just too slow writing to CF (I use multi-shot mode a lot). Not to mention taking up much more space. I've done quite a lot of jpeg prints at 10x8 for sale, and not noticed any quality problems with them. I agree with what Jadin said about the extra fiddling - you can spend a lot of time moving sliders backwards and forwards. :-)
This thread touched on the subject. |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 12:22:21 PM · #6 |
I shot RAW when I am going to be selective with the final images. From a typical shoot with maybe 300+ images and maybe 50 keepers I only expect to print/ show a final 5 or so - so RAW is not a problem.
When I shoot events where people want all the shots, I'll shoot JPEG and batch process though generally RAW and & JPEG files take about as long to process anyway, but I can store roughly double the number of JPEG files on my CF cards.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2004 09:17:11 PM · #7 |
i usually shoot RAW+Jpeg. this way if i can browse the jpg's quickly to proof them, and not waste time processing the RAW's. Once i've proof'd my shots i usually do the RAW batch process to make JPG's out of them. then if i have any particular ones that require special adjustment, I'll tweak those out.
I think RAW is great, and use it whenever i'm not crammed for space on my CF cards. at the very least, if i end up with JPG's, it's only 1 extra step to batch process them all to high quality jpegs (with much lower compression than if i had used JPG in the camera.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2004 09:35:40 PM · #8 |
Depends on the circumstances... If I'm shooting something static or a subject that doesn't need a significant amount of speed I use RAW. For snapshots, trying a new lens, or a new technique I'll use JPEG.
But I've always heard that regardless which format you shoot, you should save keepers as TIFF files so that you don't degrade the quality of the image with repeated editing. Wrong or right? |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 09:36:33 PM · #9 |
I came across an excellent article on the subject yesterday:
//www.photoxels.com/tutorial_raw.html
|
|
|
|
06/28/2004 10:38:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
But I've always heard that regardless which format you shoot, you should save keepers as TIFF files so that you don't degrade the quality of the image with repeated editing. Wrong or right? |
Right. Keep the original as well (for exif etc). For users with Paint Shop Pro, it supports lossless jpegs. Which is extremely handy. And beyond me why Photoshop doesn't. (does CS?) |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 10:42:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Right. Keep the original as well (for exif etc). For users with Paint Shop Pro, it supports lossless jpegs. Which is extremely handy. And beyond me why Photoshop doesn't. (does CS?) |
Because there isn't really much point to using a lossless JPEG over a TIFF or the Photoshop PSD format. If you want lossless image storage, something like PNG will give you better lossless compression than the mostly obselete lossless JPEG standard. There are also issues with support in other JPEG decoders for the lossless type of JPEGs. JPEG-LS is starting to emerge to replace lossless JPEG in some cases.
I typically save my keepers as PSD format, to preserve any layers and masks that I've generated in an easily reusable format. LZW TIFF format can be useful as well, though due to patent costs, quite a few applications can only open uncompressed TIFFs (many commercial printers for example)
Message edited by author 2004-06-28 22:43:24. |
|
|
|
06/28/2004 11:26:38 PM · #12 |
| My two cents: Raw has many advantages since you are able to tweak the picture to what you want. Jpeg, fine as it may be, still lacks the flexibility. For example, you may want to go back and tweak a particular image to perfection, the option is here. PhotoShop is great but such controls of exposure compensation, color temp etc, etc are best done in Raw, which is considered the equivalent of a negative. best to shoot raw and expend the extra time, you never know when you really want to keep an image and use it for a special purpose. dan |
|
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: 08/02/2025 06:53:16 PM EDT.
