Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shooting RAW vs Large Fine JPEG

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 10:57:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.

One more note. I don't like the name "RAW" for the shooting mode. It's
kind of like getting the "Load" when I buy a mutual fund. I don't like the
idea of shooting "RAW" and taking a "Load" from mutual funds.

Thanks,

Jimmy
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 10:57:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jimmy Smith trolls:

> I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to
be
> able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What
are the
> benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
www.google.com: "benefits of shooting raw"; 109 hits
January 19, 2005 4:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <KeiHd.30233$tF.24688@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, nospam@pleaseno.more
says...
>
>I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
>able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
>benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
>
[SNIP]
>
>Jimmy

Since you mentioning using PS for image work, your options are clear: TIFF, or
RAW (regardless of the name). JPG is a lossy format. When you initially save
to JPG in-camera, you have compressed the file. When you Save, or Save_As in
PS to JPG you re-compress the file. A similar analogy would be a electrostatic
copy (Xerox) of an electrostatic copy. You loose some info. TIFF uses your
camera's settings for lossless file Save, while RAW saves all data for you to
process as you see fit.

Hunt
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:53:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
>able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
>benefits of shooting in RAW?

You are still shooting RAW, you are just letting the camera convert the RAW
into a JPEG for you based on the fixed set of parameters you've defined and
then it tosses away the RAW file data. If you keep the RAW you can convert it
many different ways, to JPEG with a variety of settings or TIFF or whatever.
What you are doing is the film equivalent of giving your negs (raw files) to a
lab (camera software), getting back prints (jpegs) from them and tossing away
the negatives (raw files).

The advantages of shooting JPEG are that the files are smaller and that it's
more convenient if you want to skip the RAW conversion step. If you rarely
have to edit your files, if your the white balance is always right (usually
means you're shooting with flash in a studio), if you want to work with 8 bit
instead of high bit files in Photoshop and if you're happy with the results you
are getting now then there's no reason to switch to RAW, but the more you edit
your files the more you appreciate the advantages of RAW.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:53:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
>>I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
>>able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
>>benefits of shooting in RAW?
>
>
> You are still shooting RAW, you are just letting the camera convert the RAW
> into a JPEG for you based on the fixed set of parameters you've defined and
> then it tosses away the RAW file data. If you keep the RAW you can convert it
> many different ways, to JPEG with a variety of settings or TIFF or whatever.
> What you are doing is the film equivalent of giving your negs (raw files) to a
> lab (camera software), getting back prints (jpegs) from them and tossing away
> the negatives (raw files).
>
> The advantages of shooting JPEG are that the files are smaller and that it's
> more convenient if you want to skip the RAW conversion step. If you rarely
> have to edit your files, if your the white balance is always right (usually
> means you're shooting with flash in a studio), if you want to work with 8 bit
> instead of high bit files in Photoshop and if you're happy with the results you
> are getting now then there's no reason to switch to RAW, but the more you edit
> your files the more you appreciate the advantages of RAW.
>

Using just PS CS, I don't think I can go directly from RAW to JPEG [not
that I want to]; have to pass Go, collect $200.00, and you're in a PSD
file, easy enough to get to JPEG from there. But since I already have
the file in PSD format, I tend to save that as the working "Master", and
save only the best RAW files for future work.

As of today, using Russell Brown's script, I think I may no longer shoot
in RAW+ (+ = the addition of a jpeg to the RAW file) Seems to only take
up room, and I have to move them out of the way to run the script anyway.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 6:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jimmy Smith wrote:
> I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
> able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
> benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
>
> One more note. I don't like the name "RAW" for the shooting mode. It's
> kind of like getting the "Load" when I buy a mutual fund. I don't like the
> idea of shooting "RAW" and taking a "Load" from mutual funds.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jimmy
>
>
Have you seen a shrink for the homophobia?

If you want to preserve ALL the data the 10D collects, then shoot RAW.
If your needs are less strengent, then the fine Jpeg may be just fine,
and will certainly save space on your flash media. Your choice.
If you are satisfied with the quality of your jpeg pictures, I see no
strong reason to change.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:14:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

YoYo wrote:
> RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
> way they can correct the errors.

Wrong on two counts. There are many errors that cannot be corrected, and
RAW allows for better pictures in the hands of those who know how to use it.
--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:35:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy Smith" <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote in message
news:KeiHd.30233$tF.24688@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
> able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are
> the
> benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
>

For me, the single biggest benefit is being able to adjust the white balance
when converting. Ocassionally I have it set incorrectly, but there are
times when I have it set appropriately for the lighting conditions and it
still needs to be adjusted. Raw conversion is the best time to make a white
balance correction; there's only so much you can do with a jpg right from
the camera.


> One more note. I don't like the name "RAW" for the shooting mode. It's
> kind of like getting the "Load" when I buy a mutual fund. I don't like
> the
> idea of shooting "RAW" and taking a "Load" from mutual funds.
>
>

Can't help you there.

Mark
January 19, 2005 2:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <190120050713107461%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> A clue is a terrible thing to waste.
>

Im VERY glad you didn't say MIND or BRAIN, as I dont think the OP has either.

Im not a "big time" pro, but I've had several dozen photos published, and
I've sold quite a few.

I know that a large part of what was published, and almost ALL of what has
been sold wouldn'r have been any good (or at least AS good) without RAW.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:09:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:wypHd.1810$Of.762@fe38.usenetserver.com...
> Jimmy Smith wrote:
> > I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
> > able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are
the
> > benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
> >
> > One more note. I don't like the name "RAW" for the shooting mode. It's
> > kind of like getting the "Load" when I buy a mutual fund. I don't like
the
> > idea of shooting "RAW" and taking a "Load" from mutual funds.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> >
> Have you seen a shrink for the homophobia?

Have you................Ron?


>
> If you want to preserve ALL the data the 10D collects, then shoot RAW.
> If your needs are less strengent, then the fine Jpeg may be just fine,
> and will certainly save space on your flash media. Your choice.
> If you are satisfied with the quality of your jpeg pictures, I see no
> strong reason to change.
>
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:10usiv1jam6qp4f@corp.supernews.com...
> RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
> way they can correct the errors.

Or tweak curves and white balance settings to enhance and otherwise
experiment without losing data.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <7tmdnYPIVvy4RHDcRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Using just PS CS, I don't think I can go directly from RAW to JPEG [not
>that I want to]; have to pass Go, collect $200.00, and you're in a PSD
>file, easy enough to get to JPEG from there.

I hate to nitpick :)  , but you're not in any kind of "file" when you do
a RAW conversion with CS. You have RGB data in memory. "PSD" is just
the default file type CS chooses if you go to save the image (which also
is the best way to preserve any multiple layers).

If you set the converter to give 8-bit output, you can just choose to
save as JPEG. Of course, you're better off saving as 16-bit until all
your editing is done (or all the editing that *can* be done in 16-bit is
done).

>But since I already have
>the file in PSD format, I tend to save that as the working "Master", and
>save only the best RAW files for future work.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <7tmdnYPIVvy4RHDcRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Using just PS CS, I don't think I can go directly from RAW to JPEG [not
>>that I want to]; have to pass Go, collect $200.00, and you're in a PSD
>>file, easy enough to get to JPEG from there.
>
>
> I hate to nitpick :)  ,

So, don't do it!

> but you're not in any kind of "file" when you do
> a RAW conversion with CS. You have RGB data in memory. "PSD" is just
> the default file type CS chooses if you go to save the image (which also
> is the best way to preserve any multiple layers).
>
> If you set the converter to give 8-bit output, you can just choose to
> save as JPEG. Of course, you're better off saving as 16-bit until all
> your editing is done (or all the editing that *can* be done in 16-bit is
> done).

Since I usually process in 16 bit, jpeg is effectively cut off until I
save it in PSD. But I'd agree with your pick of nits, sorta.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:53:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <10usiv1jam6qp4f@corp.supernews.com>,
"YoYo" <_> wrote:

>RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place!

No; RAW is a better capture, and one of the side effects is better
exposure lattitude.

I can just imagine you looking at a Canon DSLR that goes down to ISO 100
and saying to yourself, this is nice, but too bad it doesn't have ISO
50, too!

Wake up, it does; at least by your own standard! ISO 100 with an EC of
+1 in RAW mode gives you a better ISO 50 than you would get if the
camera actually went to 50, in JPEG mode. One bit more depth for the
subject, no JPEG artifacts, and more headroom in the blue and red
channels that would be clipped if the camera did an ISO 50 JPEG!

If you had any comprehension of the subjects you balk at, you would be
able to understand this.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:56:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ZfBHd.8620$Vx2.703@trndny01>,
"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

>"YoYo" <_> wrote in message news:10usiv1jam6qp4f@corp.supernews.com...
>> RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
>> way they can correct the errors.

>Or tweak curves and white balance settings to enhance and otherwise
>experiment without losing data.

Who are we to criticize Yoyo? He used to personally accompany Ansel
Adams when he dropped his sheets of film off at Woolworths!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
January 20, 2005 10:30:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:
> Using just PS CS, I don't think I can go directly from RAW to JPEG
[not
> that I want to]; have to pass Go, collect $200.00, and you're in a
PSD
> file, easy enough to get to JPEG from there.

The CS flow from RAW -> Jpeg is to convert the RAW to tiff and then do
'Save As' with format 'jpeg'. No need to make a psd file or even save
the tiff if you don't want to ...

I usually use Capture One and that lets you convert directly to tiff or
jpeg (or both at once).

Bill
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:52:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hunt wrote:

> In article <KeiHd.30233$tF.24688@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, nospam@pleaseno.more
> says...
>
>>I usually shoot Large Fine JPEG. The results seem fine and I seem to be
>>able to alter the pix in Photoshop if I want to work on them. What are the
>>benefits of shooting in RAW? I am using a Canon 10D.
>>
>
> [SNIP]
>
>>Jimmy
>
>
> Since you mentioning using PS for image work, your options are clear: TIFF, or
> RAW (regardless of the name). JPG is a lossy format. When you initially save
> to JPG in-camera, you have compressed the file. When you Save, or Save_As in
> PS to JPG you re-compress the file. A similar analogy would be a electrostatic
> copy (Xerox) of an electrostatic copy. You loose some info. TIFF uses your
> camera's settings for lossless file Save, while RAW saves all data for you to
> process as you see fit.

As usual with many things, there is no black and white
answer in my opinion.

People spout the lossless nature of raw, but it really does not
matter much if your signal-to-noise is adequately digitized by
the lossy compression of jpeg.

Take a look at this page:

Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

Figures 5, 7 , and 9 in particular show the posterization
and increased noise of jpeg versus a raw to 16-bit tif conversion.
Clearly there is a difference, but this is on a top end
camera, the Canon 1D Mark II, at its lowest ISO setting.
Even so, the jpeg got impressive detail in the shadows
(Figure 5), and a little adjustment of the green channel
will clear up the green cast in the shadows.

The Canon 1D Mark II has large pixels, with full well capacities
of over 52,000 electrons. That means, it's maximum signal-to-noise
is square root 52,000 or 228. That means that jpeg posterization
is less of an effect than one might think given the 8-bit
versus 12 bit raw. The main difference with jpeg, which the
above web page shows, is loss of shadow detail. There is little
difference in the mid portions of the image, which if well exposed
so needing little adjustment, would show little difference between
the raw and jpeg version of the image.

Now go to higher signal-to-noise. The Canon 1D Mark II at ISO
200 has a maximum signal-to-noise of sqrt(26000) = 161. Now we
are starting to fall into the jpeg 8-bit range with less
apparent problems due to posterization. By ISO 400, there
is very little difference that can be detected on well exposed
images. For signal-to-noise info, see:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

But some cameras, like the 10D, apparently lose a stop in the
conversion to jpeg. See Figure 5 at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange

So, my strategy is when I need to take a lot of images at
higher ISO, I shoot jpegs, like wildlife action at ISO
200 and higher. When I am taking fewer images of highest
quality, like landscapes, or wildlife at ISO 100, I
do raw, like this one:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

Check my photo galleries, and see if you can tell
which images are raw, and which are jpegs. I've made
16x20 inch prints from both types from 6 megapixel
cameras. I've also placed in the Nature's Best photo contest
with a 1/2 image crop from a 6-megapixel jpeg, making 16x18 inch
prints from the image. Of course there are always times when I'm in
one mode (e.g. jpeg) when I wish I was in the other (e.g. raw),
but overall, it is fast to switch so I have a balance that
works most of the time, in my opinion, while letting me manage
the space on my cards. By the way, I now have 20 gigs of
compact flash cards with me in the field, and I need more.
Also, I do all my processing, even when starting with an 8-bit
jpeg, by first converting to 16-bit, and to all processing
in 16-bit.

Roger Clark
Photos at: http://clarkvision.com
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:21:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:


> Now go to higher signal-to-noise. The Canon 1D Mark II at ISO

Oops, that should read:

Now go to higher ISO.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1106278211.572455.279240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>The CS flow from RAW -> Jpeg is to convert the RAW to tiff and then do
>'Save As' with format 'jpeg'.

It's from RAW -> memory, which is then saved as a JPEG. TIFF doesn't enter
into it - there's no need for an intermediate file when using ACR.

>No need to make a psd file or even save the tiff if you don't want to ...

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. It's only a TIFF when you save
as a TIFF. Prior to that, it's just data in heap.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:52:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1106278211.572455.279240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>The CS flow from RAW -> Jpeg is to convert the RAW to tiff and then do
>'Save As' with format 'jpeg'. No need to make a psd file or even save
>the tiff if you don't want to ...

There is no TIFF at all, unless you load a TIFF, or Save as TIFF. The
image in memory does not have a file format.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!