Large Jpeg or sRaw on 40D?

[george_mazzetti1]

I set my 40D on sRaw and the counter read approx. 540 exposures on my empty 4GB

CF card. When I switched it to Large JPEG the counter read 999 exposures. Can

someone tell me if there is a significant difference in quality between the

two? I'm going to Italy in the Spring and I would like to shoot all of my

snapshots in JPEG and the serious stuff in RAW. I'm hooked on RAW, so I would

forego the JPEG for the extra exposures gained, for the sRAW's post processing

advandages and fewer exposures per 4 GB card, if there is no quality

difference.

 

Gmazz

[bryantan]

Depends on how big you want to print. sRaw will generate 2.5 megapixel jpegs. I think you're better off shooting jpeg. Just expose correctly and do minor post processing.

[JDMvW]

There is a quality difference, though not so much as sometimes claimed. However, as you have already discovered, RAW is like a negative and can be manipulated for myriad different end results. I just "byte" the bullet and save RAW+Large jpeg and

 

1) bought lots of CF cards

 

2) carry my computer with me along with blank DVDs and transfer and back up as I go along.

 

 

The only catch with #2 is that you really need to do it every day or it completely gets away from you and then it becomes almost insurmountable.

[akajohndoe]

I don't bother with the RAW + JPG. Now and again I shoot JPG only when there is no need for anything more, but more often than not, I shoot RAW only. However, it is good to have options.

[bobatkins]

The best solution is to shoot both for now and see for yourself. I believe there is a "sRAW+JPEG" mode.

 

sRAW files are small of course. They only have 25% of the pixels of a full size image. It's all in the manual.

[phule]

There's no reason to switch back and forth between the two options. Determine your max print size: If it's small, shoot sRAW. If its large, shoot RAW.

[big kahuna1]

This drives me nuts! Once you release the shutter, that instant in history is gone. You NEVER get it back. Don't we want the biggest best image of that moment we can get? After all, isn't that why we all ran right out and shelled out $1300.00 for the 40D? Quality of the sRAW is ok, but the image "PRINT SIZE" is 3.5 x 5.5 inches. My cell phone takes pictures almost that big. I say go full RAW, or Large Fine Jpg. This feature is lost on me.

[robin_sibson1]

What Charles said. CF cards are cheap, portable storage is cheap, why throw away what you have paid all that money to be able to achieve?

 

There may occasionally be a good reason for shooting RAW+JPEG, and, no, I'm not thinking about enabling use of the direct print button. With a RAW file the camera uses the rather limited quality embedded JPEG for viewing, and the same is true of any PSD to which the image may be copied (with the possible exception of the JoBo GigaVu Pro Evolution if you don't mind the wait). If you shoot RAW+JPEG as a pair, then while the two files are kept together with matching names they should be treated as a pair, and the separate JPEG will be displayed in preference to the embedded one. I am pretty certain this happens in camera, and completely certain it happens with the M80 Media Storage. If it doesn't happen with an off-brand PSD you can presumably choose the JPEG explicitly. Whether this is worth doing is of course a matter of choice, but it is a capability whose existence is often not realised, and it is a way of overcoming the quite common complaints about the resolution of the embedded JPEG.

[jon_austin]

I don't get the point of sRAW, either, beyond the fact that it's something Canon could devise, stick in the firmware and call it a feature. But who knows? Maybe someone has an application for it.

 

Like Charles says, always shoot at the highest resolution and quality you can. You can always downsize later. And to Robin's point, storage is abundant and cheap, and it's only going to become more so.

 

I've only once reduced the quality of my capture setting: I was at the Grand Canyon and I was running out of space towards the end of a hike, and there was more I wanted to capture. I learned my lesson, and since then I always make sure I have more than enough storage with me to capture the day's shooting.

[KenPapai]

The odds I'll ever waste my time shooting sRAW are zero and none. Ignore that mode. Life is NOT that complex -- your Photo Life I mean. Who cares? really about sRAW? (clue: a Canon marketing rep cares) Don't waste your time nor your precious travel shots using a crippled sensor capture mode like sRAW. Just like the others said but with a harsher tone! ;)

[george_mazzetti1]

Raw is the answer. I shot the same subject with flash, 1 Raw, 1 sRaw and 1 Jpeg. The raw stood out the best. I'm buying more CF cards. Thanks to all that replied. SRaw is useless, stay away from it.

 

George Mazzetti

[rogernoel]

Interesting discussion. Sometime ago I posted the question about shooting with RAW and JPEGL. I found that using both it only gave me 309 pictures on a 4GB CFC, whereas using just JPEGL I get 999 and just RAW 442. I have just about decided to use only RAW, as I know several photographers who do that. I am wondering George if you are going to shoot both or just RAW. This has implications for me as I am leaving for 18 days on a cruise of the Med and Black Sea.

[david_amberson1]

Dont waste time with the Raw+jpeg. Just shoot raw. I hate I didnt start that sooner. I have gotten so much better photos by shooting raw and then setting the WB and everything to match each individual scene. its amazing what that one change can do for a photo. Our lighting conditions change from moment to moment and you have so much more freedom in RAW. If I were better at knowing what light temp I was under, I would set that and shoot jpeg, but then it takes to much time to change back and fourth and you miss an amazing shot which is why we do what we do in the first place.

[robin_sibson1]

I'm not suggesting the use of RAW+JPEG in order to allow further processing/printing of the JPEG back at the ranch. I have always done that work from the RAW file and would never consider doing anything else. My point was simply that if you are unhappy with the quality of the embedded JPEG as an image viewable during shooting, RAW+JPEG offers a workround. The JPEG can be discarded as soon as it's no longer needed for that purpose.