Is RAW really THAT much better?

2»

Comments

  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited February 14, 2008
    tsk1979 wrote:
    I havent shot in jpg for a year, except for a few shots in auto mode when I have asked people to take pictures of us against some landmark.

    Actually, that's a case where I would still leave it in Raw (through Program mode, which on my Canon is still quite automatic). Because, if I'm letting Joe Tourist take a picture, and they don't know how to operate the exposure controls, I may have to rescue the shot in post. If I'm going to have to do that, I want a Raw.
  • tsk1979tsk1979 Registered Users Posts: 937 Major grins
    edited February 14, 2008
    colourbox wrote:
    Actually, that's a case where I would still leave it in Raw (through Program mode, which on my Canon is still quite automatic). Because, if I'm letting Joe Tourist take a picture, and they don't know how to operate the exposure controls, I may have to rescue the shot in post. If I'm going to have to do that, I want a Raw.
    I switch to full auto and give them the camera... If I give any other mode they often put the center focus point somewhere other than our face.
    I guess in Auto mode, it takes into consideration the nearest focus points while selecting F-stop
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    tsk1979 wrote:
    I switch to full auto and give them the camera... If I give any other mode they often put the center focus point somewhere other than our face.
    I guess in Auto mode, it takes into consideration the nearest focus points while selecting F-stop

    In my XT's Program mode, the focus mode is switchable from being locked on the one point I choose (which I prefer) to letting the camera pick the focus points (which I can't stand, of course). But I would probably forget to turn off the manual focus point selection mode for Joe Tourist, and end up with exactly the problem you described...I guess Auto would be the easy way out, but I would still prefer the Raw.
  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    Seefutlung wrote:
    on a Canon:... RAW is always just RAW, but with the Canon you can control the JPEG size from small to large (the larger the JPEG the higher the quality.)Gary
    On my 20D (and several other cameras I've seen) I can chose JPG format not only by size, but also by quality. Each JPG size choice has two selections. There's a small icon beside each choice. If the icon is stepped (looks like a set of stairs) the JPG is stored with compression. (Smaller file size, but some loss of data.) If the icon is more like a curve, the JPG is saved without compression, meaning the file in larger, but you can edit it without already having lost data.

    I use Raw+JPG for all 'serious' shooting, but only JPG for most day-to-day work.
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • bhambham Registered Users Posts: 1,303 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    davev wrote:
    I've always thought of RAW as a safety net for those that don't take the time
    to check their settings before they start shooting.

    I have a chimping screen, and I use it.
    I have a histogram, and I use it.
    I look at my settings quite often through the course of shooting.
    Rarely do I think that I've missed anything by shooting JPG's.mwink.gif

    And really, with the newer Photoshops, CS3 and Lightroom, I think you can do just about anything to a JPG that you can do to a RAW file.
    Please note I said "Just about anything."

    Oh, btw, I shoot JPG's only.

    Flame away.

    I used to feel this way but after a few shoots playing with RAW and seeing its ability I now shoot everything RAW & Largest least compressed jpeg. The big thing was the ability to play with the color temperature for shots in low light or indoors with no flash. BIG difference than adjusting jpeg in anything from what I've seen. I get the benefit of speed to upload the jpgs to my site immediatley, but have the raws if needed and to use for printing. Drive space is gotten so cheap this route for me gives me the most confidence and best of both worlds.
    "A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
  • BigAlBigAl Registered Users Posts: 2,294 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    xris wrote:
    If the icon is more like a curve, the JPG is saved without compression, meaning the file in larger, but you can edit it without already having lost data.
    jpegs are always compressed regardless of the setting. It's a lossy compression, so some data is thrown away in creating the jpeg.
  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    BigAl wrote:
    jpegs are always compressed regardless of the setting. It's a lossy compression, so some data is thrown away in creating the jpeg.
    So then what's "lossless JPEG" all about? It's been around for several years now?

    BTW - I do basically the same thing. Except that for most event and grip-and-grinn stuff, I don't need the RAWs. If I do, I generally have a split second to change before setting.
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    xris wrote:
    So then what's "lossless JPEG" all about? It's been around for several years now?
    thumb.gif

    that must be the actual committee....................jpeg committee of course:Drolleyes1.gif

    This maybe what you're referring to as lossless: JPEG2000
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • xrisxris Registered Users Posts: 546 Major grins
    edited February 15, 2008
    BigAl wrote:
    jpegs are always compressed regardless of the setting. It's a lossy compression, so some data is thrown away in creating the jpeg.
    Try this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG-LS

    "Lossless JPEG was developed as a late addition to JPEG in 1993, using a completely different technique from the lossy JPEG standard...."

    I do admit, however, that the 'fine' resolution on the 20D does indeed use lossy compression, though the file size is roughly twice that of the 'normal' JPEG setting.
    thumb.gif
    X www.thepicturetaker.ca
  • BigAlBigAl Registered Users Posts: 2,294 Major grins
    edited February 16, 2008
    xris wrote:
    Try this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG-LS

    "Lossless JPEG was developed as a late addition to JPEG in 1993, using a completely different technique from the lossy JPEG standard...."

    I do admit, however, that the 'fine' resolution on the 20D does indeed use lossy compression, though the file size is roughly twice that of the 'normal' JPEG setting.
    thumb.gif
    Lossless jpeg is not used in cameras (which is what we are talking about mwink.gif). Art is correct, lossless jpeg has only been implemented in jpeg2000. AFAIK, png is more popular as a lossless compression than jpeg.
Sign In or Register to comment.