If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Hi,
I took some inside shots (room with florescent lighting) with my Canon Digital Rebel set to capture both RAW and jpeg images at the same time - same shot. Surprisingly (or, not so surprisingly) the jpeg images looked much better. Now I understand that RAW images have not been tweaked in camera - wheras, jpeg's have been altered with camera software. However, the jpeg images looked very good right out of the box. Michael Guncheon, in his book on Canon Digital Rebel (Magic Lantern Guides), suggests high resolution jpeg's may be very acceptable as an alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space on memory card). It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg. I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and see if there are any differences in final prints in examination. Poor or weak shots might be better helped from RAW files and tweaking - I don't know. OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Conrad wrote: Hi, I took some inside shots (room with florescent lighting) with my Canon Digital Rebel set to capture both RAW and jpeg images at the same time - same shot. Surprisingly (or, not so surprisingly) the jpeg images looked much better. Now I understand that RAW images have not been tweaked in camera - wheras, jpeg's have been altered with camera software. However, the jpeg images looked very good right out of the box. Michael Guncheon, in his book on Canon Digital Rebel (Magic Lantern Guides), suggests high resolution jpeg's may be very acceptable as an alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space on memory card). It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg. I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and see if there are any differences in final prints in examination. Poor or weak shots might be better helped from RAW files and tweaking - I don't know. OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon I kind of liken it to darkroom work. Did you do a lot of burning, dodging, trying various contrast papers for a negative? RAW has a lot more dynamic range for those shots that aren't quite exposed exactly on. If exposure is good, and you don't want to do a lot of tweaking, JPEG can be fine. JPEG does not lose resolution, only tonal scale. Paper prints do not have a lot of tonal scale capability anyway. If the jpeg is close to what you want, and you don't need to do a lot of editing, it is fine. If you need to do a lot of tweaking, you'd be better off with RAW. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Conrad wrote:
Hi, I took some inside shots (room with florescent lighting) with my Canon Digital Rebel set to capture both RAW and jpeg images at the same time - same shot. Surprisingly (or, not so surprisingly) the jpeg images looked much better. Now I understand that RAW images have not been tweaked in camera - wheras, jpeg's have been altered with camera software. However, the jpeg images looked very good right out of the box. Michael Guncheon, in his book on Canon Digital Rebel (Magic Lantern Guides), suggests high resolution jpeg's may be very acceptable as an alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space on memory card). It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg. I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and see if there are any differences in final prints in examination. Poor or weak shots might be better helped from RAW files and tweaking - I don't know. OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon My XT does a great job with jpg too. If you get correct exposures and color balance all the time then maybe you don't need RAW. I am not that good and usually have to tweak mine, so I shoot RAW when I feel that my subject is important enough to need the added security. I do have to admit, I have done some drastic corrections to jpg with very good results. Don't let anyone tell you you can't correct jpg's because you can, just not nearly as much as RAW. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Do you like your photos "good enough" or the best that they can be?
Choose well, for one choice is irreversible and the other infinitely mutable. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Conrad wrote:
OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Conrad- I have never known you to be so trollish! s In any event, there's a time and place for RAW, and same for JPEG in my work flows. One's mileage will vary, IIRC, and TTFN! -- John McWilliams There was a television ad for M$ Outlook with the sequentia "Confutatis" from Mozart's Requiem (K 626) rising in the background. "Where do you want to go today?" flashes on the screen while the chorus sings: 'Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis,' ["The damned and accursed are convicted to the flames of hell."] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
"Conrad" wrote in message oups.com... Hi, I took some inside shots (room with florescent lighting) with my Canon Digital Rebel set to capture both RAW and jpeg images at the same time - same shot. Surprisingly (or, not so surprisingly) the jpeg images looked much better. Now I understand that RAW images have not been tweaked in camera - wheras, jpeg's have been altered with camera software. However, the jpeg images looked very good right out of the box. Michael Guncheon, in his book on Canon Digital Rebel (Magic Lantern Guides), suggests high resolution jpeg's may be very acceptable as an alternative to RAW by some people (and jpeg images take up less space on memory card). A couple of points: As you note, RAW is not "tweaked" so it's not surprising that, for some shots, your jpegs look better "out of the box." However, RAW also offers the possibility for a far greater range of correction. For example, you can recover over-exposed highlights that might otherwise simply appear "blown" on a jpeg, and you can do this on a channel-by-channel basis. There are also programs available that can create an "averaged" image, selectively combining parts of the image to compensate for over- or under-exposure. The net result is far greater dynamic range than is possible with a camera-processed jpeg. Finally, remember that jpeg is a lossy format -- you are losing picture detail right off the bat, which may be an issue if you do much correction to the image, or make large prints. It's interesting to compare same picture under same shoting conditions and evaluate RAW vs. jpeg. I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and see if there are any differences in final prints in examination. Poor or weak shots might be better helped from RAW files and tweaking - I don't know. OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Conrad wrote: I realize the potential benefits of shooting RAW and how popular it is today to capture RAW files. My surprise was how good the same shot high resolution jpegs looked. It might be interesting to print out same shots after tweaking (both RAW and jpeg images), use a blind test, and see if there are any differences in final prints in examination. If you only shoot jpeg then you are loosing a lot of the dynamic range that the camera is capable of. For a lot of shots this might note matter but for a lot of other shots it can me a real lifesaver to have the extra headroom. BTW if you use Canon's raw converter you should get almost exactly the same jpeg from is as you do from the camera, if you use the camera settings for the conversion. Here is an example of what raw can get you, the top is the jpeg image from the camera and the bottom is from the raw image. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61044980 We were on a cruise ship going passed pretty fast and so there were only a few seconds to grab the shot, not nearly enough time to do a careful check for metering. If I had being shooting jpeg only I would have been pretty unhappy with the resulting photo. Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
On 29 Sep 2006 06:30:50 -0700, "Conrad" wrote:
OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Well, it depends. Are you trying to create a fine work of art, or are you simply taking pictures for personal pleasure? RAW implies that you want to spend some time at your computer tweaking the picture to perfection. Is the picture worth the extra time? My Canon 20D has the capability of saving both a JPEG and RAW version of the same picture. If I am in doubt, I set it to this mode, and review the resulting pictures when I get home. If I like the JPEG, I delete the RAW. Most of my shooting, however, is done in the JPEG only mode with minimum compression. I have been VERY happy with my results. Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Another variable is what you use to convert the RAW file. You will get
different results from different RAW conversion software. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be one that is the 'best' some do better in some areas some in other areas. I typically use the RAW conversion built into Photoshop. While overall it is good. I know from experience, there are certain areas where it falls short of the Canon conversion (and vice versa) Gary Edstrom wrote: On 29 Sep 2006 06:30:50 -0700, "Conrad" wrote: OK - fire your best shots why RAW is the best thing since homemade bread. Best, Conrad Well, it depends. Are you trying to create a fine work of art, or are you simply taking pictures for personal pleasure? RAW implies that you want to spend some time at your computer tweaking the picture to perfection. Is the picture worth the extra time? My Canon 20D has the capability of saving both a JPEG and RAW version of the same picture. If I am in doubt, I set it to this mode, and review the resulting pictures when I get home. If I like the JPEG, I delete the RAW. Most of my shooting, however, is done in the JPEG only mode with minimum compression. I have been VERY happy with my results. Gary |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs. jpeg
Hi,
Thanks all for your useful comments. Really appreciated. Best, Conrad Camp Sherman, Oregon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAW or JPG on Canon 1DsMkII | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 28 | September 13th 06 04:54 AM |
Question about zoom | Erica | Digital Photography | 25 | January 9th 06 02:01 PM |
NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits? | AK | Digital Photography | 45 | November 29th 04 10:37 AM |
A short study on digicam's fixed jpeg compression ratio | Heikki Siltala | Digital Photography | 23 | July 28th 04 08:49 AM |
JPEG Questions: Loss In Quality When "Saving" | Xtx99 | General Photography Techniques | 3 | April 8th 04 04:25 PM |