| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2004 02:32:39 PM · #1 |
how much difference does it make to shoot in raw.
is it REALLY that much better of a file.
it has to be converted to a jpg later anyhow... or is it just that the computer jpg converter can do a better job than the in-camera converter. I only have the canon raw processor that they sent with the camera... so it is the same company.. just one is on the computer and one is in the camera....
is raw still better?
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 02:49:06 PM · #2 |
if you're shooting large files (say, ~3000x2000+), the jpg compression artefacting is not really a visual problem (assuming that you're not using a maximum compression ratio). but where the artefacting DOES start to show up is when you begin to muck about with the photo (filters and whatnot). it is then that you will being to see the irregularities become exaggerated (especially when messing with color - saturation, hues, shifts etc)
RAW images are accurate pixel for pixel to what the sensor saw when you took the shot. (and because the data is not compressed, you end up with larger files - usually MUCH larger files). preservationists (or other "purists") like to shoot in RAW so that they have the best possible "original". from the original, they then save copies as needed (jpg, tif, etc).
of course as your file starts to decrease in size, say to something like 1024x768, the jpg artefacting will become much more obvious simply because you have less pixels to "hide" it.
remember that every time you save an image as a jpg, your software scans through the image and creates a whole new image based on the compression algorithm (the new jpg). for this reason, a copy of a copy of a copy of a jpg will start to look blurrier, blockier, or just generally "crappier" ;) than the original even though you haven't edited the image at all. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 02:49:29 PM · #3 |
Here's my take.
With RAW you are maintaining all detail available when the image was captured. To me the more information I have to start with the better the final image will be after post processing.
With jpeg, even at the highest quality, there is some compression. With compression some information is lost. Once it is gone, you can't get it back.
I'm sure someone else will pipe in with a more detailed explanation of the difference.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 02:56:05 PM · #4 |
There was a recent discussion of this in the forums, but one of the really interesting tutorials I learned about is:
He talks about working with raw images etc... I guess it depends on what you want to do with them. //www.normankoren.com/index.html
The other big thing I notice is it depends on your lighting conditions. Raw remembers the information before in jpg converstion so if you have it set to the wrong lighting you have not lost your chance at the image. (granted you can adjust jpg later but have less information to work with)
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 15:01:29. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 03:38:35 PM · #5 |
something just popped into my head...i think it was the lastest issue of photoshop user magazine that had an example of raw vs jpg. if you can browse through a copy somewhere, you will see that the visual difference really isnt that much (especially when you consider the savings in file size).
but again, RAW is usually the preferred method, file size be damned :)
an experiment you can try is to tripod your cam, shoot the same pic in both jpg and RAW then bring them into photoshop, zoom in really close (so that individual pixels are visable), and then crank the saturation up to 100. you'll notice the artefacting. it isnt much of a difference, but compounded over multiple saves, it can really degrade an image. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 03:53:24 PM · #6 |
It's not just about jpg compression. When you shoot RAW, you don't have to worry about white balance, sharpeneing, etc., as you have much finer control at the post-processing stage.
Also, if you use PS CS and shoot RAW, you can do all of your editing in full 16-bit mode, which gives you a much wider window for altering levels, curves, etc. than the 8-bit restriction on jpg.
The downside is it really eats into your storage space and processing time. Not all "pro" shooters use RAW--Ken Rockwell has an always interesting and controversial opinion:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 03:59:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Zal:
The downside is it really eats into your storage space and processing time. Not all "pro" shooters use RAW--Ken Rockwell has an always interesting and controversial opinion:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm |
Not to mention that you can only take about 30 RAW images on a 256MB card...
Having said - once you've gone .RAW, there's no way back... :)
Are_62 - the control freak |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:02:48 PM · #8 |
I don't shoot RAW because of the obnoxiously large file size.
Also I DONT print over 8x10, so I dont even shoot at the 6 MP my camera will do (medium JPG, fine on D60).
I would rather be able to capture 300 to 400 images on 1 512mb card than only about 50 RAW images.
so to me RAW is not worth it. Im sure it does have its advantages for the VERY SERIOUS who want to print images larger than 8x10 or possiblly have them published on a regular basis. But if your not one of those then RAW is probablly not worth it.
James
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:22:44 PM · #9 |
I only have jpeg or tiff available so I could be biased :) However I have compared tiff files to the highest quality jpeg files and have found them to be virtually identical. As others have already mentioned it is when you go to make significant color and tonal changes that those seemingly insignifant artificants 'could' begin to rear their ugly heads. So it depends on what kind of editing you plan to do with your image. Since I only work in jpeg I find it is very important to try to get my original image as close to my final intention as possible and keep my in-camera sharpening to zero. One thing to remember is that when you open up a jpeg image in your image editor it is then in your editor's native format which is uncompressed. It is only when you re-save it as a jpeg that it will get additional compression added. For most of my images I re-save as a jpeg with a high compression setting of 11 or 12 so they still look great. So working with jpegs is not nearly as bad as it sounds especially with normal image corrections.
T
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 16:25:13.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:57:29 PM · #10 |
| The main advantage of RAW for me is the 16-bit file, which allows you to manipulate the image to a much greater extent. Colour balance, contrast, saturation, exposure (about 1 stop either way) etc. can all be adjusted afterwards with little or no degradation of the initial image, which is a huge advantage when you're trying to get the most out of it. The dynamic range, after editing, is much greater with a RAW file and film-like results can be had if one is careful. Unless it's a sporting event where I'm taking a huge number of shots, I always shoot RAW now. If you'r enot going to edit your shots afterwards, there's no real reason to shoot anything but .jpg. If you're willing to spend some time with Photoshop, RAW is the only way to go. Not thinking about white balance etc. when you're in the field is wonderful. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 05:15:34 PM · #11 |
Put simply a RAW file is your digital negative/proof. You can process it as often as you like and save the result in any format you like.
If you shoot JPG you don't have a true digital negative/proof.
Of course if you shoot RAW you will need to have a pretty good filing system 'cause things can get messy if you have heaps of images and you need to do post-processing in an image editing program - but I think it's worth the effort.
:) |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 05:38:33 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by gajmaj:
Put simply a RAW file is your digital negative/proof. You can process it as often as you like and save the result in any format you like.
If you shoot JPG you don't have a true digital negative/proof.
Of course if you shoot RAW you will need to have a pretty good filing system 'cause things can get messy if you have heaps of images and you need to do post-processing in an image editing program - but I think it's worth the effort.
:) |
I use my original jpges just like a digital negative too. The thing to do is to save the edited version in a separate folder or, at least, rename it. This way you can always go back and re-edit the original jpeg if you need to.
T
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:00:44 PM · #13 |
| my nikon d70 shoots about 47 raw images in my 512 compact flash card.. i can shoot 145 highest quality jpegs in the same card... now that is a big difference.. i generally like to be able to shoot at least 100 images at any given time... so say if i had a 2 gig compact flash may be i would opt to shoot in raw.. but my computer has enough trouble dealing with 3 meg jpeg files.. i cant imagine how slow image processing would become with a gigantic 20 meg file like "raw" formatted file.. plu you woul eat a gig of space in your hard drive with every 100 raw images... it just seems unnecessary for me.. especially when differences between higest quality jpeg and raw are minimal... |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:10:48 PM · #14 |
Sounds like raw files in the Nikon are twice the size of those on the 10D. I can fit approx. 90 RAW on a 512 card.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:20:18 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:27:48 PM · #16 |
If we both get the same benefit from RAW I would say it is bad for Nikon, however I haven't seen any comparisons as to the quality of the Nikon raw vs Canon raw files.
Also, I've got my camera set to only embed the smallest JPEG which could account for the size difference.
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 18:29:37.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:39:06 PM · #17 |
As I was trying to say earlier when you are working on a 5mp 2mb jpeg file, for example, the file is about 14mb in PS because when you are editing the image it is uncompressed in Photoshop's native format. To see what I mean open up a jpeg file and then go to Image Size to see the actual pixel Dimension size. Jpegs are not relevant for editing but for final file size. Basically, a 5mp image is the same to PS no matter what format it originally was, RAW, tiff, jpeg, bmp, it doesn't matter. 8 bit or 16 bit will matter, however.
T
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 18:43:50.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:43:05 PM · #18 |
| i think you are right.. i did realie that size difference while editting and i couldnt understand why.. but now i know.. thanks |
|
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: 06/13/2025 04:44:30 AM EDT.
