Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 12, 2003, 12:57 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8
Default RAW or JPG??? Which one to use?

Dear Everyone,

My boss uses a canon 10d, and he is just not able to decide in which format shoud he take photos. Let's put image cpacity aside. I suggested to him to shoot in RAW because of it's better quality. He took my advice and started to use RAW continously, but he met a few unforseen obstacles.
Let's say he shoots a jpg which is eg 1,5 MB, it is easy to work with. If he shoots the same in RAW that's 8MB still no problem, but the canon software don't let you save it as RAW, but converts it to TIFF which results an extremely big file size. He wants to work with photoshop with the raws is it possible somehow to force photoshop to read RAW directly from the camera with a TWAIN or something like that? :?: What would you do? Would you just satisfy with JPG's image quality?

Thanks in advance

Caddy
caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 12, 2003, 2:14 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

just download the images onto the HD without going thru the canon software and they show up as tiff but they are the RAW image. they will remain as the 8MB files with a .thm(thumbnail file) thats what i do with my 1Ds RAW files. then i open and convert it using Adobe RAW Converter into PS7 when needed and keeping the RAW in its original state.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2003, 7:54 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,200
Default

If I would get RAW-converting as a hobby, I would buy a SIGMA SD9 :-)
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2003, 10:18 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Klaus DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,216
Default

I only shoot .JPGs when I need to shootlots of pics fast. This is very seldom for me. This is why I always shoot RAW - there is no other way if you want (almost) total control! But you will have a lot of work afterwards!
Klaus DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2003, 10:29 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

the SD9 is a good 3rd gen "Proof of concept" camera package for the foveon imager but has some limitations.
1-iso 400 upper limit
2-battery setup
3-one brand lens only

still a work in progress
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2003, 2:05 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,200
Default

Soon I bought a Sigma SD9 - lenses are enough, ISO makes no matter - but RAW only ... that's bad. So I decided to get a CANON 10D.

I don't want to spend all my free time with RAW converting.

I think, Foveon makes excellent sensors.
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2003, 2:23 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

a batch conversion is short but then you don't get to fine tune for less then great exposure.

plus having greater speed has its advantages. like iso 1000

http://www.pbase.com/image/18747451

i used a foveon based camera using their body, a canon lens and a laptop setup. it is excellent but that was 2nd generation. like i said a work in progress
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2003, 4:32 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Frank Doorhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,320
Default

@Donalduc,

When using CL1 you will go lightning fast with converting.
Most of the time I found that I needed too much tweaking of the picture from the 10D to justify JPEG.
Almost all shots need a little curves to lighten the whole up and offcourse some GOOD USM.

CL1 lets me do that in under minute per 10 photos (on average, due to batchprocessing for more of the same shots).

In photoshop this would take me arround 2-3 minutes per shot, meaning I shoot arround 300 shots on a zoo day so this was a whole evening in processing.

Now I shoot in Raw and use CL1 and the whole process is brought back to 2 hours. Still a long time compared to my HP-850 from which all the shots came out perfectly, but after working on the 10D shots they BLOW away the HP-850 shots.

Shooting is half the fun, working on your shots is the real bonus.

Greetings,
Frank
Frank Doorhof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2003, 12:34 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8
Default Would that help: Photoshop Camera Raw & JPEG 2000?

Dear Frank,

I was eagerly searching a solution to my problem when I found adobe's Photoshop Camera Raw & JPEG 2000 downloadable plug in which helps photoshop reading RAW.

Do you think it is something we need to resolve the RAW question?
All I would like to achieve is to shoot in RAW, but not to convert it to tiff, because the process takes lots of time and would be unnecessery if something would be able to use RAW. I just don't really know if it is really what i need, I thought you might know more about this plugin.


THNX,

Caddy
caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2003, 8:30 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

I was also debating between the Sigma SD9 before I got my 10D. Honestly, I am glad I had gone with my Canon. Its Sigma's first digital, and then to introduce a raw mode only camera to me wasnt totally a bright idea... :? Also I guess you have to use their software that is included to get the pictures off the camera. PC's dont see the device as a mass storage device... ack. Lots of small complants from the few owners that do have it. And like you said. No optional lens brand selection which means a monopoly kind of thing going on. Your at their mercy of their inflating pricing no matter what... Been there done that. IE: Olympus E-10 with the optional TCON-3 or whatever it is. Its just a 3x multiplyer and cost around $650 bucks now!? I sold my E-10 and the accessories for around $1200 which was a nice down payment for my 10D. A few extra bucks and then I got a camera that is obviously way more professional and versitile and the accessories are reasonalby priced and a larger range of them...

To me, it was way over a wise choice. Even look at the battery grip. Canon's grip $199.99 plus $69.99 for a extra battery. Or Olympus with there 400-500$ grip. To me, them extra bucks could be used for something else. Maybe like a cute closeup lens or something... :lol: Dont get me wrong here... I liked the Olympus brand and actually Ive had more Olympus digitals then any other. Just it was time to move on...
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:36 AM.