I mainly shoot on the large file jpg setting on my 20D. I have an option i think to shoot in RAW. What is the difference?
Post Edited (20:38h)
Post Edited (20:38h)
Hi Sharen.
If you choose JPG's, the camera will compress and 'process' your pictures - the picture gets sharpened, white-balance, contrast, saturation etc. will be applied to the image. In the camara-preference you can control a bit how these processing should be applied, for example how much sharpening or color saturation should be applied to the picture or if the picture should be B/W only.
Spoken in terms of analog photogrphy, a JPG-File is a processed print of a picture (the positive), where a RAW-File represents the unprocessed picture, the 'negative'.
The advantage of taking Pictures in RAW-Format is that you can chance certain settings later on your PC, *after* you took the picture and convert it then into a JPG-File. You can set the White-Balance, The color-temperature, the after-sharpening amount, the amout of saturation - even an electronic exposure-correction is possible!
And of course you can convert your pictures to B/W and play with the different virtual color-filters in B/W-Mode without loosing the color information.
Or, the other way around, if you set your cam to B/W-Mode and take pictures in RAW-Format, it will keep the color-information, so you can still make a color-print if you wish.
The disadvantage is, that you *have to* preprocess - or at least convert - your pictures with canons raw-image converter. And of course RAW-Images take much more space on the CF-Card and on your Computer than JPG-Images.
Nevertheless, I almost always use the RAW-Format.
Post Edited (11:35h)
If you choose JPG's, the camera will compress and 'process' your pictures - the picture gets sharpened, white-balance, contrast, saturation etc. will be applied to the image. In the camara-preference you can control a bit how these processing should be applied, for example how much sharpening or color saturation should be applied to the picture or if the picture should be B/W only.
Spoken in terms of analog photogrphy, a JPG-File is a processed print of a picture (the positive), where a RAW-File represents the unprocessed picture, the 'negative'.
The advantage of taking Pictures in RAW-Format is that you can chance certain settings later on your PC, *after* you took the picture and convert it then into a JPG-File. You can set the White-Balance, The color-temperature, the after-sharpening amount, the amout of saturation - even an electronic exposure-correction is possible!
And of course you can convert your pictures to B/W and play with the different virtual color-filters in B/W-Mode without loosing the color information.
Or, the other way around, if you set your cam to B/W-Mode and take pictures in RAW-Format, it will keep the color-information, so you can still make a color-print if you wish.
The disadvantage is, that you *have to* preprocess - or at least convert - your pictures with canons raw-image converter. And of course RAW-Images take much more space on the CF-Card and on your Computer than JPG-Images.
Nevertheless, I almost always use the RAW-Format.
Post Edited (11:35h)
Markus,
Thanks so much for the explanation. Some of what you said sounds familiar. But, I havent ever applied any of it to see what I can do. It may be something that i have to experience with. (on something that isnt important). Just incase I screw it up.
Thanks again for the explanation.
Sharen
Thanks so much for the explanation. Some of what you said sounds familiar. But, I havent ever applied any of it to see what I can do. It may be something that i have to experience with. (on something that isnt important). Just incase I screw it up.
Thanks again for the explanation.
Sharen
Its definitely advisable to use RAW if you can, you have to get aquainted a bit with it but in the end you will see this in your results. If you want to make quality prints its best to convert from raw into tiff. If you use the tiff files to print you will have better colours, saturation and no problems with jpeg artefacts due to compression.
I always work on RAW.
I always work on RAW.
raw lets you choose more option after you have taken the image. example is over/under exposure...and many other things...also your file is larger...you will get approx. 1/3 less images on a card..for that higher quality.
I always shot in RAW, it gives complete control of the process, both in the camera and at the computer. I,m corently using a Canon D300, and the Canon software that comes with it allows you to adjust exposure by +/- 2 stops. You can also adjust your white balance, sharpness, contrast, and ect. As mentioned by another member....I always save as a TIFF. This allows for better prints than JPG. And if for some reason you have to supply a jpg to a printer or to upload to the net, you can convert the TIFF to JPG and life is good.
NOTE: everytime you save a JPG it recompresses the file, degrading the file more and more everytime its saved. TIFF doesn't do this.
I hope this helps.
NOTE: everytime you save a JPG it recompresses the file, degrading the file more and more everytime its saved. TIFF doesn't do this.
I hope this helps.
If you shoot in RAW, do you save it to a TIFF in the camera setting, or when you download the raw image to the pc? At Which time do you change it to a tiff? Before you shoot the picture or when you download your images to your computer? This part is new to me. Forgive me for my ignorance.
07.07.05, 21:40
Post 8 of 36
Hi Sharen - I use my cameras CD software or PS to convert the file to a TIFF on my PC. It allows you to adjust the image before saving to TIFF to compensate for things such as exposure, colour balance, sharpness, etc etc ... I have only just started to use RAW and find it a pain because my XP folders dont display RAW files in thumbnail. So looking through the downloaded files is laborious. Regards, Paul.
Paul, have a look at Microsoft.com, they have just launched a new plug in to XP which makes it posible to read raw in XP as well.
I usually take my pictures in RAW, then proces them as far as i need and then convert the end result into jpg for use on the net. The RAW files i keep on a cd as a sort of negative, If later i want to make a quality print i reproces the RAW files into a tiff and use that for printing. I could also ofcours safe all my tiffs on hard disk but that will take a bit too much space.
I usually take my pictures in RAW, then proces them as far as i need and then convert the end result into jpg for use on the net. The RAW files i keep on a cd as a sort of negative, If later i want to make a quality print i reproces the RAW files into a tiff and use that for printing. I could also ofcours safe all my tiffs on hard disk but that will take a bit too much space.
08.07.05, 00:26
Post 10 of 36
Thanks Ruud ... i will take a look ... when you have several 1000 images it is a real pain not seeing them in thumbnail so this update will be a lifesaver. regards, Paul.
Hi! I have just tried out this RAW-plugin... well, it works.
But I still prefer Picasa as a viewer, that's much faster...
Free (!) download from www.picasa.com
But I still prefer Picasa as a viewer, that's much faster...
Free (!) download from www.picasa.com
08.07.05, 18:28
Post 12 of 36
Hi MU - I have Picasa but dont use it so I will look at that as well.
I myself use nowadays Photostation Pro 5 for archiving and paintshop pro 9 for processing. After i am ready with the processing i use Nikon Capture editor for unsharp masking which was a tip by Ingo, and i use Neatimage 5 pro in case of too much grain.
The advantage also of Nikon Capture is also a very large possability to ajust RAW files.
So Slowly after 1 1/2 year i start to develope my prefered workflow.
The advantage also of Nikon Capture is also a very large possability to ajust RAW files.
So Slowly after 1 1/2 year i start to develope my prefered workflow.
Sharen, I have just started with RAW files from my Canon 10D. I started to use the Canon software but I don't rate it at all. So, I downloaded Photoshop Elements 3 trial version. What a program, converting RAW to TIFF is a dream with lots of options. I think I will buy it after the 30 days, a lot cheaper than Photoshop.
Give it a go....
Steve
Give it a go....
Steve
Steve,
I would definitely suggest paint shop pro 9 iso photoshop elements.
I found that paintshop pro gives almost exactly the same poss as photoshop CS ! with a much more friendly interface
against a very interesting price of about 1/10 of photoshop!
I would definitely suggest paint shop pro 9 iso photoshop elements.
I found that paintshop pro gives almost exactly the same poss as photoshop CS ! with a much more friendly interface
against a very interesting price of about 1/10 of photoshop!