Diff. in quality between JPEG and raw unedited??

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/17/2007 02:41:28 PM · #1

Ok well heres the thing, im going to California soon (1 week :D), now i have limited memory cards, so im wondering what to do for space. Someone here generously lent me 20gigs of online storage for my pictures, loading a 1gig memory card full of RAW files takes roughly 2hours, more or less (depending on speed), whereas a memory card full of JPEG takes only 30min, and its pretty close to double the pictures i can fit on the card.

My question is, right out of the camera, is there any difference between a Raw file (unedited) and a JPEG file (unedited)? I find for the most part i dont fiddle around with raw files unless its for a challenge, and these pictures are Mostly going to be just for family memories and such. Im probably gunna grab another 1 gig card either way, but id like to be able to offload as many pictures as fast as possible at the end of the day. Dont want to sit around for 4 hours dumping 2 1gig cards.

candlerain

Canon EOS-30D

04/17/2007 02:51:38 PM · #2

You always run the risk of getting your "once in a lifetime" shot. If it is in JPEG you will regret it down the road. JPEG is only 8 bits. RAW is 16. Way more information in RAW. I thought like you did before and the more I read the more I leaned toward RAW. Mem cards are cheap now so I bought extra ones and I am really happy with my decision.

geoffb

04/17/2007 02:56:38 PM · #3

I typically shoot in RAW (and generally agree with what candlerain said), although I do suggest you read Ken Rockwell's comparison. I would ignore what Ken says about lack of support for RAW down the road, unless you're using some format besides the big ones (NEF, CR2, PEF, DNG, etc.).

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 14:57:04.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/17/2007 02:58:15 PM · #4

jpegs are never unedited. The RAW data is processed using the parameter settings you chose, then compressed into 8 bits/channel.

If you choose to shoot jpeg then I suggest you do some shooting in jpeg before you go to get comfortable with the parameter settings.

scottwilson

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8

04/17/2007 03:00:45 PM · #5

My wife and I are also going to California in about a week and a half and we are taking a small external hard drive with us, one of these
80 GB hard drive

We will use a friend�s computers to download from the memory cards to the drive. The drive is not much larger then a deck of cards and gets its power from the USB cable.

This lets me shoot raw without worrying about how much memory I am using. I have gotten rather addicted to shooting in raw. Even if you
shoot in jpeg mode a drive like this would save you a lot of upload
time.

With a little care jpeg images can look great, but I like working with raw files a lot more.

Scott

Valdo

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/17/2007 03:00:47 PM · #6

Pascal is right. However, I noticed that in my case I was sharing less my pictures by shooting RAW. And I don't mean DPC only but also to friends and family. So I decided to switch back to JPG. It is no good for me to have a bunch of pics that I don't have the time to PP and then those go to a massive storage device and are lost "forever" (you know what I mean).

So now I shot JPG which forces me to pay more attention to WB and the right exposure, since you don't have the flexibility and extra information of RAW. And only change to RAW if the conditions are too difficult or if I feel that special shot coming on. ;) my 2 cents

geoffb

04/17/2007 03:05:17 PM · #7

Originally posted by scottwilson:

Just be sure it's not a PowerBook or MacBook Pro; I have a PB G4 and it does not supply enough power to USB to power the said drive (which, unfortunately, actually complies with the USB specs).

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/17/2007 03:10:15 PM · #8

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

The RAW data is processed using the parameter settings you chose, then compressed into 8 bits/channel.

I do not believe this is correct unless you choose 8 bits/channel output from your RAW converter.

Typically cameras capture 12 bits/channel of real data out of the full 16 bits available in a RAW file that you want to keep by choosing a 16 bit/channel in RAW conversion. The reason you want to capture and preserve those extra 4 bits/channel of data is that it holds more color tone variations that make for better overall image tonality and color.

If all you ever want is web graphic output then preserving that data might not be worth the effort.

Geocide

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/17/2007 03:25:09 PM · #9

Dude, you should spring for one of those new 12GB compact flash cards... They're not very expensive either.

Creature

Nikon D70s

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

04/17/2007 04:10:30 PM · #10

Originally posted by kawana:

Someone here generously lent me 20gigs of online storage for my pictures, loading a 1gig memory card full of RAW files takes roughly 2hours, more or less (depending on speed), whereas a memory card full of JPEG takes only 30min, and its pretty close to double the pictures i can fit on the card.

Wait ... is this a trick question? Isn't that like saying a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers? (think about it...) The memory card size doesn't change, it's 1 GB ... so if it takes you 2 hours to upload 1 GB of RAW files, why would it take you any less time to upload 1 GB of JPEG files? (Even if they're half the size, it's still 1 GB worth!)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

04/17/2007 04:26:11 PM · #11

Originally posted by Valdo:

Most cameras have a RAW+JPEG setting so you can have both -- quickly-sharable JPEGs and hi-res RAW files for those you choose to PP more extensively.

Valdo

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/17/2007 05:07:03 PM · #12

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Valdo:
Pascal is right. However, I noticed that in my case I was sharing less my pictures by shooting RAW. And I don't mean DPC only but also to friends and family. So I decided to switch back to JPG. It is no good for me to have a bunch of pics that I don't have the time to PP and then those go to a massive storage device and are lost "forever" (you know what I mean).

So now I shot JPG which forces me to pay more attention to WB and the right exposure, since you don't have the flexibility and extra information of RAW. And only change to RAW if the conditions are too difficult or if I feel that special shot coming on. ;) my 2 cents

Most cameras have a RAW+JPEG setting so you can have both -- quickly-sharable JPEGs and hi-res RAW files for those you choose to PP more extensively.

Yes that is right, unfortunately on the new rebel they limited that option to RAW+highest quality JPGs so you eat GB very quickly. Yes, I know the real problem is my storage capacity :D

cutlassdude70

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

04/17/2007 05:23:36 PM · #13

I ALWAYS shoot in RAW. Not only is it nice to have the flexibility to do fine-tuning afterwards (white balance, etc.), but you don't lose any quality either. When you shoot JPGs, they are automatically compressed and therefore lose a small amount of image information. I don't like to take the chance. I took a week-long road trip along California's coast back in December and shot in RAW the entire time. I only have a single 2 GB card, but also brought along a SmartDisk PhotoBank ( //www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=429801&is=REG&addedTroughType=search ).

Every time I filled my card, I just put the card in the PhotoBank, pressed copy, and then could format the card again afterwards. Then you can shoot up to 40 GB worth of photos in one trip without even taking a laptop. :D Then once you're home, plug the PhotoBank into your computer with the USB cable and pull the photos off (just like an external hard drive). I also recommend buying an inverter that you can plug into the 12V outlet in your car so you can charge the PhotoBank, your camera batteries, etc... :)

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 17:23:50.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/17/2007 05:25:12 PM · #14

I went on a three day event with a combination of indoor, outdoor, and various different levels of light and shadows......and took my kid's laptop and shot in jpeg after shooting RAW exclusively for the last three months.....I didn't have enough cards.

NEVER AGAIN!

04/17/2007 07:13:24 PM · #15

Originally posted by Creature:

Originally posted by kawana:
Someone here generously lent me 20gigs of online storage for my pictures, loading a 1gig memory card full of RAW files takes roughly 2hours, more or less (depending on speed), whereas a memory card full of JPEG takes only 30min, and its pretty close to double the pictures i can fit on the card.

Wait ... is this a trick question? Isn't that like saying a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers? (think about it...) The memory card size doesn't change, it's 1 GB ... so if it takes you 2 hours to upload 1 GB of RAW files, why would it take you any less time to upload 1 GB of JPEG files? (Even if they're half the size, it's still 1 GB worth!)

sorry ya i wrote that wrong, i ment to say that file for file, its way faster to upload JPEG. The times are for like 100 pictures i think, or something like that.

04/17/2007 07:16:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by cutlassdude70:

Id love one of those photobank things, but problem is im in Canada, and getting stuff shipped from B&H takes a minimum of 7-10 days, time i dont have. Plus the $$ is a factor.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/17/2007 07:49:01 PM · #17

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The RAW data is processed using the parameter settings you chose, then compressed into 8 bits/channel.

I do not believe this is correct unless you choose 8 bits/channel output from your RAW converter.

Typically cameras capture 12 bits/channel of real data out of the full 16 bits available in a RAW file that you want to keep by choosing a 16 bit/channel in RAW conversion. The reason you want to capture and preserve those extra 4 bits/channel of data is that it holds more color tone variations that make for better overall image tonality and color.

If all you ever want is web graphic output then preserving that data might not be worth the effort.

Out of context your clarification works. However, this was in reference to shooting jpeg. Selecting jpeg in-camera causes the RAW data captured by the sensor to be processed using the parameter settings you chose, then compressed into 8 bits/channel.

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 19:50:40.

Creature

Nikon D70s

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

04/18/2007 06:02:27 PM · #18

Originally posted by kawana:

Originally posted by Creature:

Originally posted by kawana:
Someone here generously lent me 20gigs of online storage for my pictures, loading a 1gig memory card full of RAW files takes roughly 2hours, more or less (depending on speed), whereas a memory card full of JPEG takes only 30min, and its pretty close to double the pictures i can fit on the card.

Wait ... is this a trick question? Isn't that like saying a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers? (think about it...) The memory card size doesn't change, it's 1 GB ... so if it takes you 2 hours to upload 1 GB of RAW files, why would it take you any less time to upload 1 GB of JPEG files? (Even if they're half the size, it's still 1 GB worth!)

sorry ya i wrote that wrong, i ment to say that file for file, its way faster to upload JPEG. The times are for like 100 pictures i think, or something like that.

gotcha ... yeah, that is very true, RAW files will about double your upload time.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

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

04/18/2007 07:25:16 PM · #19

Originally posted by kawana:

Originally posted by cutlassdude70:
I ALWAYS shoot in RAW. Not only is it nice to have the flexibility to do fine-tuning afterwards (white balance, etc.), but you don't lose any quality either. When you shoot JPGs, they are automatically compressed and therefore lose a small amount of image information. I don't like to take the chance. I took a week-long road trip along California's coast back in December and shot in RAW the entire time. I only have a single 2 GB card, but also brought along a SmartDisk PhotoBank ( //www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=429801&is=REG&addedTroughType=search ).

Every time I filled my card, I just put the card in the PhotoBank, pressed copy, and then could format the card again afterwards. Then you can shoot up to 40 GB worth of photos in one trip without even taking a laptop. :D Then once you're home, plug the PhotoBank into your computer with the USB cable and pull the photos off (just like an external hard drive). I also recommend buying an inverter that you can plug into the 12V outlet in your car so you can charge the PhotoBank, your camera batteries, etc... :)
Id love one of those photobank things, but problem is im in Canada, and getting stuff shipped from B&H takes a minimum of 7-10 days, time i dont have. Plus the $$ is a factor.

There are lots of similar devices. Google photo storage device. I bought one from Wolverine for our Alaska cruise last summer. Something might be available near you. Costs range from $100 to $1000 (U.S.), depending on capacity and features. If you spring for one with a screen, be sure it can handle your raw format! I personally am happy with my low-end device that just makes a copy of the memory card.

Message edited by author 2007-04-18 19:33:38.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

04/18/2007 07:32:35 PM · #20

Originally posted by kawana:

... Id love one of those photobank things, but problem is im in Canada, and getting stuff shipped from B&H takes a minimum of 7-10 days, time i dont have. Plus the $$ is a factor.

Any chance you have an address in Cali that would be willing to accept the package for you and hold it? Maybe the hotel, if you staying at one? That way when you get there you are ready to go...well that is if it gets there in time.

When I'm in a bind and know I'm not going to have enough card space I shoot at the high quality JPG and if I happen to see something I really want to have special I switch to RAW. I know that I am missing out on a lot of options with the other images but sometimes that is the price you pay.

Good luck on your hunt and trip.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

04/18/2007 07:48:09 PM · #21

Originally posted by kawana:

Where in BC are you? If you're anywhere near Vancouver have you checked Kerisdale Cameras? I don't know how comparable their prices are but since you're in a crunch for time that may be an option.

Message edited by author 2007-04-18 19:48:36.