Shooting RAW vs Large Fine JPEG

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

In article ,
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

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.

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

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.

RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
way they can correct the errors. However if you take the photo right in the
first place jpeg is all you need and can print well above what most printers
can print. The lossyless crap is only when you keep saving the file and
changing the compression. But with beauty of digital its an option to make
all happy.

"Jimmy Smith" wrote in message
.. .
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

In article , "YoYo" says...
RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
way they can correct the errors. However if you take the photo right in the
first place jpeg is all you need and can print well above what most printers
can print. The lossyless crap is only when you keep saving the file and
changing the compression. But with beauty of digital its an option to make
all happy.



The above statement is one of the most assinine remarks I have ever read in
this NewsGroup, and I have been reading it for a LONG time.

This goes right up there with all of the Foveon fans claims about it being a
13mp camera, and rates right up there with believing the earth is flat.

Not shooting RAW if you have the ability (and with some cameras the time) is
like destroying your negatives when you shoot with film.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

"Jimmy Smith" wrote in message
.. .
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

"Jimmy Smith" wrote in message
.. .
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

"YoYo" _ wrote in message ...
RAW is for those that can't take the photo right in the first place! This
way they can correct the errors. However if you take the photo right in
the
first place jpeg is all you need and can print well above what most
printers
can print. The lossyless crap is only when you keep saving the file and
changing the compression. But with beauty of digital its an option to
make
all happy.


Yes, you really are a yo-yo. Do some research before you make statements
which have little basis in fact.

Mark