travvel Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 just wondering what is the diffence between shooting in raw and jpeg(Large file). I have'nt tried shooting in raw yet.does it reduce noise at iso1600 for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_hodson Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Raw+vs+Jpeg&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 When I first got my 20D I shot only jpg files, partly because of available memory cards size and partly because of the uncertainty of handling raw images. I now use two 1Gb cards and this gives me more choice. I am not fully convinced that raw images are 'worth' the effort as most of my shots are not for exhibition or the like so jpg images are often sufficient. However I do leave the camera set to jpg L and raw and just in case I get a winning shot and I then have the choice of the best starting image.I am sure that raw does have the edge and I am sure that most users will agree, but the difference is marginal in my opinion, certainly for my kind of shooting. These two images were taken with raw and jpg L and the raw seems to have the higher contrast and sharpness but the jpg image has not been manipulated in PS whereas the raw has been processed in RawShooter Essentials, saved as a tiff file and cropped in PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 oops, confirmed before image was downloaded.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.philwinterphotography. Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 All digital camera images start out as RAW. Most hi-end cameras, like your 350D allow you to save the image as a RAW image. (A jpeg image is saved as well.) When you shoot jpegs, the camera is taking your RAW image, applying sharpening, saturation, contrast per the settings in your camera, and performing a lossy jpeg compression. In terms of print quality, I can't tell the difference between images shot as large jpegs and RAW images converted to 8-bit tiffs. I'm sure there is some, I just can't tell it. If you can convert RAWS to 16 bit tiffs, there might be a difference. The advantage of shooting RAW is that RAW gives you more control over exposure and white balance when you convert the RAW image to a tiff or jpeg. This is a huge advantage, and one of the great benefits of digital. Unless the jpeg conversion has some sort of noise reduction process, the noise in the RAW and jpeg will be the same. This should be pretty easy to test, however. As for comparisons of RAW and jpeg images displayed here on PN, the RAW image has to be converted to a jpeg, so the differences you're seeing are just those of different jpeg conversion processes. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyahn Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 To continue this discussion in a slightly different slant, I wonder what's a better picture quality between "Large Normal" and "Medium Fine"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Think about what the image compression process is doing. The algorithm makes decision about where meaningful content is in an frame, and essentially throws everything else away. For example, lets say you s illuminate a gray card so that one edge gets just slightly more light than the other, say 1/5 of a stop. The compression algorithm may well decide that the tonality difference is unnoticeable and thus map the entire image to just a few tones. The problem comes later. If you wanted to increase the contrast range of the card, the compressed image no longer contains the tonality to let you do so without posterization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travvel Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Very helpful stuff! basically if you have the time you can shoot in raw. and not only this but it also alows you to retain the original 'tones' of what your shooting with out any flattening by the compression of the camera's own post processing of the original raw image(if your shooting jpeg)...I'll go do some experimenting...if you could take a look at my 'pireus'folder i would be grateful for any tips...Thankyou! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis alvarez Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Here's my 2 cents... As a Wedding photographer I was going to invest in a Expodisc for white balance in certain shots. About $100.00 for the white one, and another hundred for the warm one, But then I decided that it was better to invest In a 2GB Lexar 80X Card $120.00 for the Xtra space that I was going to need when shooting RAW. No white balance Issue, I Just shoot in RAW + JPEG Large and good bye white & Gray Cards! plus I Saved $80.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travvel Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 i do need an extra card too cause i'm beggining to be convinced buy raw now...and you don't need to spend so much time adjusting and tweeking...and the exra 'control' over the image when shooting in raw is very appealing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now