RAW vs. JPG

[ewitte]

What kind of processing is done inside the camera? I like the detal/color better on the JPG. What needs to be done in PS CS to get the same thing out of the CRW files?

Eric

[sjms]

actually detail is lost when you convert from RAW to jpg. since jpg is lossy compression and more artifacts show up on decompress do to the loss of actual image data frim compression. if it is an image that i am going to print it goes to tiff. jpg is good for general shooting.

given the fact that you can adjust RAW images as much as 2 stops in exposure easily and adjust many other atributes w/o meaningful loss of image data that is what keeps it at the top.

with raw there is no processing except maybe with some cameras where the do a non loss raw compression.

jpg compress will vary with the quality of image you want the less the better.

you say you get better color and image quality out of a jpg? that doesnt sound correct.

[ewitte]

Originally Posted by sjms

you say you get better color and image quality out of a jpg? that doesnt sound correct.

Directly out of the camera. The camera is doing something to the JPG to increase the quality. With the RAW there is no processessing. I'm trying to find out exactly what the camera does so I can replicate it in PS on the RAW image.

Eric

[sjms]

if you go to jpg in camera it will reduce overall quality outputwise.

depending on the camera there can be sharpening. color correction/enhancement. noise reduction. it all depends on the camera and how you have it set up. you will hopefully get good images straight out of the camera. but but once you learn how to use PS you will get better images. there is no one stop "formula" to use in RAW. its a picture to picture exercise just like going into a darkroom with a negative. it requires visual aquity work and patience.

look at the control sliders in CS RAW. there are many things that you can now control post shoot. more the the camera itself. and this is before you really enter PS itself. it requires practice.

if your getting the image you want currently out of the camera then at this point you don't need to work in RAW it seems.

[ewitte]

Originally Posted by sjms

if your getting the image you want currently out of the camera then at this point you don't need to work in RAW it seems.

I was wanting to keep as much detail as possible. But I guess for my trip next week I need to stick to the highest JPG setting. Maybe I will have more practice with the 300d before the next one. Especially since I only have 768MB to play with. It should still be way better quality than my finepix 1300 no matter what

Eric

[-jb]

Originally Posted by ewitte

I was wanting to keep as much detail as possible. But I guess for my trip next week I need to stick to the highest JPG setting. Maybe I will have more practice with the 300d before the next one.

There is a learning curve to the whole RAW/PhotoShop thing. It takes some practice and patience.

There is no rule that you have to shoot all your images in one format. If you get a shot that could be tricky, take a couple of shots of it in RAW mode along with your jpegs. Work on it when you get back from your trip...

-jb

[ewitte]

Originally Posted by -jb

There is a learning curve to the whole RAW/PhotoShop thing. It takes some practice and patience.

There is no rule that you have to shoot all your images in one format. If you get a shot that could be tricky, take a couple of shots of it in RAW mode along with your jpegs. Work on it when you get back from your trip...

-jb

I got one to look close by choosing exposure +1, shadow 10 and choosing the best looking wb while opening it. That was indoor under fluorescent.

Eric