Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 5, 2005, 10:20 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

In my brand new website I have a article about RAW photo editing done with s7raw. I compare the results of the edited raw photo to an edited JPEG photo of the same subject in the same circumstances. I compare histograms and visual close ups to see differences.

In doing so I found out something interesting about the S5100. When taking photos in raw mode it isn't the same number of megapixels as in JPEG. JPEG pictures from this camera are 3.87 MPs. The raw format ends up being more.

To see more about this visit http://mattspinelli.com/rawediting.html
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 5, 2005, 3:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

That is a very interesting article. I wish Fuji had come up with a more efficient file format for their RAW images. It seems rather strange to me that raw images from my 5100 are more than 8 MB in size, and raw images that my son-in-law has given me from his Nikon D70 (6.1 MP) are only a little more than 4 MB in size. But I agree with you about the quality. I went out to shoot some autumn pictures the other day and decided to use JPEG. When I got home I could tell that the pictures were not quite as sharp as they could have been, and there was some vignetting on some of them. Some would say that I just need to get a better camera, but occasionally even the Nikon cameras have the same problem. I have used S7Raw a little bit. But personally I prefer using Adobe Camera Raw, the plug-in for Adobe Photoshop. But if you don't have access to that program I suppose S7Raw is a reasonable alternative, especially considering the price.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2005, 4:03 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

I agree about the file size. I can fit about 250 JPEG fine quality pictures but only 61 RAW photos on my 512 card. And I also believe that the huge file size is why the burst mode and bracketing are disabled when shooting RAW. At least it is smaller than TIFF format though, which come to be about 11MB per picture.

I wish I had Adobe Photoshop but I am stuck with Elements as it is too much money for me. s7raw, being free is a great alternative. It isn't the best raw editor but it is pretty good none the less.

One thing I was wondering is that do all cameras when shooting raw use the entire CCD (that is non-Dslr cameras)? The specs on the fuji 5100 is 2272 x 1702. Them manual even lists RAW mode as 2272 x 1702. But if you look at the file size of the RAW pictures they are 2302 x 1734. Am I the only one that has noticed this?
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2005, 5:34 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

I don't really know what the answer to that question is. Whenever I open an image in Adobe Camera Raw it reports the same size as my JPEGs. If I save a file from S7Raw it reports the same dimensions you mentioned. I hadn't really thought about it before.

You must be using Photoshop Elements 2. Photoshop Elements 3 and now 4 both use and integrate with Adobe Camera Raw, although I understand not all options are available.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 8:56 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Actually I still have elements version 1. Even if I had version3 & up I think I still would prefer s7raw because of the lens correction since almost every shot I take has slight vignetting.

The file size isn't limited to s7raw. Once you convert the picture to your file of choise it retains the pixels, as you have now noticed. If you were to load the two pictures of the rose (the final jpeg and final raw in my article) into your editor of choice you will notice that the rose is not the same size in both pictures.

If Camera raw keeps the file size at the same as when using JPEG then I guess that is another reason (and the lens corrections) to possibly use s7raw if one wants a little extra resolution. But again in this case we are only talking about a 1.5% gain... nothing to really boast about. The Exif data on these images also reflects the 1.5% gain.

Interesting nonetheless.
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 10:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

In my opinion the difference in size is so minuscule that it isn't worth worrying about. And as far as lens correction is concerned, Camera Raw has correction for vignetting, chromatic aberration, color noise and a couple of others. And I really like the way the curve control works in Camera Raw. I think one of the writers for Adobe pretty well summed it up when he kind of jokingly said that Photoshop was an excellent add-on for Camera Raw. I guess if you've never used Camera Raw, S7Raw probably seems very intuitive and powerful. But after using Camera Raw I feel handcuffed when I try to use S7Raw. I suppose it's all a matter of what you are accustomed to using. I have tried on several occasions to force myself to look for the merits in using S7Raw, but I just don't like it.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 3:32 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

I thought camera raw didn't allow for lens adjustments in elements and only in the full version. If so then I stand corrected.

Don't get me wrong I've heard many good things about Camera Raw. I also know that it's results are a little cleaner sinces7raw adds some artifacting (as my article acknowledged).

If you happy with Camera Raw then thats great. If I had photoshop and not elements 1.0 (which doesn't have camera raw), I would probably just use Camera Raw instead. But being that I don't want to spend $600 or even $100 to upgrade to version 4 of elements (if it allows for lens correction) then s7raw is a very attractive alternative.

To me I would liken s7raw to what Gimp is compared to Photoshop. Not as good but it will provide similar results.
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2005, 5:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

I keep forgetting that a lot of the options I use in Photoshop CS2 and Camera Raw are not available with Photoshop Elements. So I don't know what is/is not different. Luckily you have an alternative that you are happy with.
jphess 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 1:31 PM.