Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D RAW or JPEG

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 11:26:29 PM

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

I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a few
weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want to
shoot everything in both formats.

More about : 20d raw jpeg

Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:27:55 AM

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

>For those who have the Canon 20D which do you shoot, JPEG or RAW.

It all depends if you prefer steak or tuna fish.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:45:15 AM

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

William Oertell wrote:

> I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a few
> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want to
> shoot everything in both formats.
>
>

While I do not have a 20D, the full capacity is similar to the
1D mark II, so they should respond similarly, and I've quantified
the losses for the 1DII, 10D and S60 cameras:

Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1

Based on the above info, here is what I do: When shooting at ISO
400 and higher, I only do jpeg (unless I'm going astrophotos when
I need linear output). If I'm doing snapshots, I do jpegs.
If I'm imaging at low ISO (e.g. 100), and want the highest
quality, I do raw+jpeg. Jpegs allow me faster preview. If I
like the jpeg, I'll convert the raw. If I'm doing ISO 200
imaging, then depending on subject, I might do raw.
Note that raw conversion to standard curve still has losses in
the highlights compared to a linear conversion, so if you are
losing info in the highlights, do a linear conversion and you
might recover them. When I do jpeg, I only do highest quality.

Roger
Photos, other digital info at:
http://www.clarkvision.com
Related resources
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:15:04 AM

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

William Oertell wrote:
> I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a few
> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want to
> shoot everything in both formats.

I have gotten pretty good about know what scenes will benefit most from
raw, and will shoot those in raw if I really care about the photo.
When I do shoot raw I always shoot raw + jpg, this gives me a fast way
to look at the photo and tell if I should convert the raw file.

Scott
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:23:06 AM

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

I agree you're throwing some white-balance info out the window (or
maybe better you are deciding on white balance then) when you shoot in
jpg, however, have any of you played with jpeg files in Photoshop? You
can play with all the histograms and essentially use any white balance
or whatever you want, takes no time at all and usually gives great
results (far better than *anything* you could do on the camea)...so
much so that my stepbro, who is a pro photographer (mostly nature
stuff) only shoots in jpeg now, after thousands of pictures he sees no
reason to use raw, every item the raw file let's you edit later you can
still edit with a jpeg picture, atleast good enough for the 12"x15"
prints he gets made...raw is very cool no doubt, but IMO not the only
way..

Good Luck...
June 18, 2005 7:21:58 AM

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

William Oertell wrote:

> I guess the subject says it all.

I don't use a canon but the main things to realize with jpegs is you are
throwing away information. You have to make SURE the white balance is on
the money, I'd refrain from setting the contrast very high or using much if
any in camera sharpening etc. The files will need processing to look good
but should be more "saveable" than ones where you try to nail the contrast,
sharpness and everything in camera. The main reason I shoot RAW is to have
the flexability with exposure latitude, contrast and white balance that you
don't get from a jpeg.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:51:22 AM

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

fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com wrote:
> I agree you're throwing some white-balance info out the window (or
> maybe better you are deciding on white balance then) when you shoot in
> jpg, however, have any of you played with jpeg files in Photoshop? You
> can play with all the histograms and essentially use any white balance
> or whatever you want, takes no time at all and usually gives great
> results (far better than *anything* you could do on the camea)...so
> much so that my stepbro, who is a pro photographer (mostly nature
> stuff) only shoots in jpeg now, after thousands of pictures he sees no
> reason to use raw, every item the raw file let's you edit later you can
> still edit with a jpeg picture, atleast good enough for the 12"x15"
> prints he gets made...raw is very cool no doubt, but IMO not the only
> way..
>
> Good Luck...
I agree with you on this one, the white balance can be corrected on
jpegs very effectively and this alone would not make me shoot raw.

The two places where raw can help a lot is if you need some extra
exposure latitude or if you are shooting colors that might go outside
the gamut of the color space you are shooting in.

The best thing to do is try for yourself, shoot raw + jpeg and then
compare what you get with raw vs. jpeg. For many scenes there will be
little difference, but for some you will be able to get a much better
photo from the raw file. A good example is if you are shooting
crashing waves that have some very bright whites to them, the jpeg
version will often blow out these highlights when the raw it likely not
too.

In time you will get a feel for what scenes will benefit the most
having the raw file. So people always shot raw, nothing wrong with
this and it is the safest way to shot. Some people never shot raw and
there is really nothing wrong with this either, you will still get
great looking photos, but in some cases they could have looked better.

Scott
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:35:29 PM

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

"William Oertell" <oertell_NOT@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a
> few
> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want
> to
> shoot everything in both formats.

Take an Epson P-2000 or similar beast with you. These things have a 20 or
40GB disk. (The Epson leaves you with about 35GB of image storage space.)
The Epson is pricey and slow with large folders, but the screen's pretty.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:38:23 PM

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

William Oertell wrote:

> I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a few
> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want to
> shoot everything in both formats.


If you do lots of post processing and are critical of your results,
RAW is the obvious choice.

If you're just taking an image to e-mail or post on e-bay, then JPEG
is just fine for that.


I shoot both..
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:38:24 PM

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

Jim Townsend wrote:
> William Oertell wrote:
>
>> I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D
>> which do you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you
>> want, but it takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a
>> lot
>> of pictures in a few weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with
>> me, and I don't think I want to shoot everything in both formats.
>
>
> If you do lots of post processing and are critical of your results,
> RAW is the obvious choice.
>
> If you're just taking an image to e-mail or post on e-bay, then JPEG
> is just fine for that.
>
>
> I shoot both..

I do, too, both at the same time, raw + L.

The JPEGs are more easily viewed for grading, raws ensure you get all
you might need.

No telling when you might make that "Hang in there, Baby" poster image
and wish the greater latitude was available.

Belt and suspenders, as long as it isn't too costly. You get to
determine what constitutes "cost", and what are its values.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:32:55 PM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42B38ABB.2060908@qwest.net...
SNIP
> Jpegs allow me faster preview.

It'll also allow higher quality on-camera LCD zoom than with Raw alone
(useful for checking focus).

Bart
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:36:57 AM

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

On 6/17/05 9:35 PM, in article d90162$62f$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
> "William Oertell" <oertell_NOT@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
>> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
>> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a
>> few
>> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want
>> to
>> shoot everything in both formats.
>
> Take an Epson P-2000 or similar beast with you. These things have a 20 or
> 40GB disk. (The Epson leaves you with about 35GB of image storage space.)
> The Epson is pricey and slow with large folders, but the screen's pretty.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
IF you can find one-Good Luck!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
June 19, 2005 4:18:05 AM

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

Scott W wrote:


>
> In time you will get a feel for what scenes will benefit the most
> having the raw file. So people always shot raw, nothing wrong with
> this and it is the safest way to shot. Some people never shot raw and
> there is really nothing wrong with this either, you will still get
> great looking photos, but in some cases they could have looked better.
>


I guess I'm more used to shooting medium and large format so I rarely fill
even one card up in a day of shooting RAW, that's like 67 shots. Be like
5-6 rolls of 120 film or WAY more film holders than I own for 4X5! If
someone is used to shooting 35mm and shootings LOTS of frame in hopes of
getting a few keepers, jpegs probably makes more sense to them? And
correcting WB in jpegs, you're starting with 8 bit files so you could
easily run into problems I would think unless you're pretty close. That's
another reason I like shooting RAW, develop them into 16 bit tiffs in any
color space I want.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:03:46 PM

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

George Kerby wrote:
> On 6/17/05 9:35 PM, in article d90162$62f$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
> Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
[]
>> Take an Epson P-2000 or similar beast with you. These things have a
>> 20 or 40GB disk. (The Epson leaves you with about 35GB of image
>> storage space.) The Epson is pricey and slow with large folders, but
>> the screen's pretty.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
> IF you can find one-Good Luck!

Jessops in Edinburgh have one in their display.

David
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 7:15:05 PM

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

On 6/19/05 3:03 AM, in article
CF9te.52545$G8.19811@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>> On 6/17/05 9:35 PM, in article d90162$62f$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
>> Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> []
>>> Take an Epson P-2000 or similar beast with you. These things have a
>>> 20 or 40GB disk. (The Epson leaves you with about 35GB of image
>>> storage space.) The Epson is pricey and slow with large folders, but
>>> the screen's pretty.
>>>
>>> David J. Littleboy
>>> Tokyo, Japan
>> IF you can find one-Good Luck!
>
> Jessops in Edinburgh have one in their display.
>
> David
>
How about a location in the states? Both my local CompUSA and the Epson
website say "available soon" or something such as that.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:53:26 PM

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

George Kerby wrote:
[]
> How about a location in the states? Both my local CompUSA and the
> Epson
> website say "available soon" or something such as that.

My guess is that there is a problem in getting the high-resolution
displays required. (Minolta would call this a 900,000 pixel display - 640
x 480 x 3 - I'd call it VGA). The Epson P-2000 was difficult to get just
after it was released, then there was a good supply, now it's difficult
again. Keep trying. You could perhaps import from the UK or France (and
help our balance of payments!).

<G>

David
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:37:26 PM

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

"William Oertell" <oertell_NOT@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:11b71ilq28suqa2@news.supernews.com...
>I guess the subject says it all. For those who have the Canon 20D which do
> you shoot, JPEG or RAW. Of course, you can do both if you want, but it
> takes a lot of space on the card. I'll be taking a lot of pictures in a
> few
> weeks and taking 6 1Gig and 1 2 Gig CFs with me, and I don't think I want
> to
> shoot everything in both formats.
>
>

I only shoot RAW as the post processing flexibility and increased quality is
vary nice.

If you don't need to do any post processing you can still get your JPG files
by just batch processing. If you use DPP then select the pictures in the
browser window then click batch process and leave it to it.

They do take up about twice the space on the card, but in camera JPGs are
not very efficiently compressed compared to what can be done on the PC.

Reasons to shoot JPG: If you really are running out of space or for buffer
depth.

You could take a laptop with you and process you day shots in the evening,
although you have to be reasonably sober for this.

Alternatively, get a digital storage device to transfer them to.

Lester
!