Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:13 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

Quote:
Raw files just give you a few more options not available with a JPEG..... But not many,
only the important, creative, and sometimes image saving ones.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:26 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
only the important, creative, and sometimes image saving ones.
Wow what a vauge comment.....So All Important, and creative options depend on having a RAW file format?............ummm.....That makes no sense.

The Imaging saving comment I cannot deny. If a picture NEEDS correction beyond the NORMAL RANGE of correction Then your right... with a raw format image you have your best chance of saving it. In most situations people here are going to be taking multiple shots and bracketing; so unless your into photo-journalism and you only have ONE CHANCE to get that ONE SHOT and that ONE SHOT needs to be FLAWLESS and on the cover of time magazine, the fact that you exposed multiple shots will probally yeild a better solution then Editing the one shot that got botched.

Its rather odd how a new technology comes out and people act as IF they cannot live without it... With RAW being so important I wonder what you do when you have film in your camera.
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:44 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Another two cents...
RAW is the purest, and gives you maybe more options.

BUT, I've used jpeg (extra-fine) in all cases, and have printed beautiful prints (Minolta Dimage 7i), retouched extensively in photoshop and have NEVER had a picture I wished I'd saved in RAW format.

And consider one more factor: The storage size of RAW images is bigger, sometimes much bigger. For the Miolta 7i, I think RAW takes almost twice as much memroy to store. This means taking a single shot usually takes longer (maybe many seconds instead of less than a second - actual time will depend on the speed of your compact flash, memory stick or whatever) and you get a lot less images on any given size memory card (I get about twice as many shots in 'extra fine' jpeg than in RAW), and finally the room to store them on your computer (and/or the size you would be EMAILing unless you edit the picture).

That's not to say you don't need RAW. But if you're asking the question, maybe you should ask yourself if you have ever been dissatisfied with the jpeg images you've taken due to lack of resolution or image quality (i.e. NOT due to bad composition, focus or exposure problems - those have nothing to do with RAW vs JPEG).

Personally, I do fall prey to the "gotta have the best" syndrome. But be aware that, in addition to the extra expense of the initial camera, if you shoot in the RAW (pardon the pun) you also pay for longer time to shoot, less pix on the card, and bigger files in your PC or EMAIL.

Hope this helps
judstr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:51 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

One other thing I don't think has been mentioned.
Jpg saves as an 8 bit channel image. RAW gives you whatever your sensor is capable of, 10 bit on many consumer cameras, 12 bit on the eos-1dMKII and other higher end cameras, and 16 bit on many digital backs.

Many many more colors/shades to play with in the image.

===

I still shoot a lot of film as many clients still require it and it is scanned at 16bit channel. Film has a lot more latitude than current digital cameras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptinKABOOM
Its rather odd how a new technology comes out and people act as IF they cannot live without it... With RAW being so important I wonder what you do when you have film in your camera.
I posted this in another thread I'll repost here, as I found it very usefull.
Quote:
Some guidlines for print size/resolution submissions can be found at the Digital Image Submission Criteria(DISC) site. They also have the forming guidlines for required submission METAdata and a Phososhop addin to assist filling it in.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

up to 2 stops recovery in either direction. yep that can be image saving.

as a PJ i still bracket to give my self a wide range of correction. i don't shoot only one shot but 5-8 as fast as i can at various angles. shadow. since raw can be massaged a few stops here and ther the highlight and shadow detail can also be manouvered much finer and without blowing out in either direction. it also works out better when converting to jpg as there is better control over the process then in camera. converting to 16bit also gives the color more range control too.

being able to correct for the abberations and vignetting easily. i guess none of these are needed or important.

there is more to RAW then you lead onto.

RAW allows you to control all the aspects of your image because all the processing is done outside of the camera. so the limits of your cameras internal software do become apparent after using RAW with a good conversion tool and reasonable editing program.

What is an image but light and shadow.


for 28 years of shooting i have about 14000 chromes left. bracketing is what i did for the creative with an F5, F4, N90s, Oly OM 1, 2, 3, 4T.
unfortunately i cannot do with slides what i can with a RAW image. i still shoot and scan film.

a RAW image (which is 48bit. thats why they're rather large) can be saved as either 8 or 16 bit in PS since it has not been processed by the camera itself just transferred. the cameras internal processing is what downconverts (degrades) the original image generally to 8bit per color 24 bit images. good enough for some not for others.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:10 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptinKABOOM
... I wonder what you do when you have film in your camera.
That makes no sense at all.... if shooting film then you have the leverage of scanning your slides/negs at up to 5000 dpi, and color correct an 8/10/12+ bit file .. OR have any issues of exposure/contrast corrected in chem development.... Not everyone has the luxury of shooting multiple exposures to ensure one "keeper" and this applies to amateurs as well as pro's... Next time you try and capture your childs first smiles/steps, sliding for home in his first game, or find an exotic bird about to take flight just make sure your 110% sure of exposure, aperature etc ... if not no big deal just ask them to sit still or "redo" while you recompose and take multiple exposures :roll: :roll: .....
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:12 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Yep, and then along came Photoshop CS and made 16bit handeling a breeze.

Now for some reason the 52x burner is too slow :lol:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjms
there is more to RAW then you lead onto.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:42 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Once again your a photojournalist... Like I said its HANDY for you BUT for the Average Amature/Hobbiest... RAW is NOT essential for taking digital pictures.

I am not be littling RAW format... I am just saying its NOT essential... everyone here is taking a question asked by someone who is obviously not a professional or an advanced hobbiest and They are blowing the need for RAW format WAY out of proportion.

It is possible to do ALOT of editing with the Jpeg format of a digital Camera... EVEN with kodaks Agressive jpeg compression.

So Like I said if your a photo journalist ... then good.... RAW is the good choice for you.

As for capturing your childs first steps....um.... Well That is kinda of an odd thing to say too.... becuase Why not use any camera then... Next time I go home to see my parents I will inform them to burn my baby pictures as they are not in 16 bit color Digital format... hah.
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:48 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

you know thats what suffering for your art was about. now with RAW capable camera i no longer worry about the massive amount of rolls of film i needed for a field trip. i have 2 2GB and 2 1Gb cf cards in film terms using RAW that is approx 13 rolls of film. enough to shoot any way i want and almost as many as i want.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:53 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

KaptinKABOOM is right, I am your average amateur and I have decided that cons of RAW (slow,large file,expensive camera) outweight the benefits in my case.
The thread has been very informative anyway.
Thanks for the responses.
jnrob 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 11:40 PM.