Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Raw, Tiff or Jpeg

  1. #1
    Lance
    Guests

    Default Raw, Tiff or Jpeg

    Hi everyone,

    Just bought a 2nd S2....anyone care to advise me on the appropriate mode to use...I know the diff btw Tiff and Jpeg...but not too much on Raw.... also the setting enables me to choose between Normal, Fine and High....1440, 2304, 3024, 4256. Enlighten me pls.

  2. #2

    Default

    Thread moved to General, Reviews/Previews, Technical Discussions.


    Try the manual.

  3. #3

    Default

    Actually, im still looking for a justification to shoot RAW as for all we know it's a very large file size that can accomodate 'space' from our storage device.. I always shoot JPEG. When it comes to post processing some peopole say that they can do a lot with RAW, but it's still depends on your skills of post processing. So, I will still continue to shoot in JPEG.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Justification? How's about:

    • Usually Lower noise
    • Much easier to change WB
    • Higher bit per channel permitting more editing/change


    There are a few other reasons but these suffice if I want high quality output but require significant post-processing.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Justification? How's about:

    • Usually Lower noise
    • Much easier to change WB
    • Higher bit per channel permitting more editing/change


    There are a few other reasons but these suffice if I want high quality output but require significant post-processing.
    C'mon! I can do all of these with my Jpeg. As ive said it all depend on your skills of post-processing. My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW.

  6. #6
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    You also have a GREATER lattitude of exposure compensatino with RAW with zero loss. WB adjustment is also more accurate with RAW than jpg. yes u can do with jpg, but which produces a better result and takes a shorter time?




    Quote Originally Posted by AntZ
    C'mon! I can do all of these with my Jpeg. As ive said it all depend on your skills of post-processing. My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AntZ
    C'mon! I can do all of these with my Jpeg. As ive said it all depend on your skills of post-processing. My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW.
    Depending on what you are working with, RAW/TIFF formats usually have higher bit precision. There is lesser chance of posterization when making colour and brightness adjustments.

    Take a look at an adjusted histrogram before/after from a 8bit jpeg compared to one from a RAW file or a 16bit TIFF source.

    Also, jpeg is a lossy compression alogrithm. The differences may be subtle, but they can be observed in some cases.

  8. #8
    selwoodstudios
    Guests

    Smile

    I find as a general rule that I use Normal 3024 for shooting general shots that don't require photographs larger than 10" x 8" whilst I use Fine 3024 for photographs up to 16" x 20" and Fine 4256 for larger images up to 30" x 40".

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AntZ
    C'mon! I can do all of these with my Jpeg. As ive said it all depend on your skills of post-processing. My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW.
    • JPEG has only 8 bits per channel. Do tell how you can recover the additional 4 bits per channel of data back. When you make significant changes, like bringing up the shadows, you can run out of bits, causing banding and posterization. With 12 bits, it is much more unlikely.
    • WB change is just a slider away, instead of the usual PS gymnastics that one has to go through to get it right. I said "easier", not "not possible in JPEG". I too can make changes to a JPEG image's WB as well.
    • Lower noise is because the fact that JPEG causes artifacts in images that you can spot. RAW does not cause the image to degrade.
    • Better quality theoretically as saving in RAW (again) does not degrade the quality of the image vs JPEG on the camera.

    Why are you so confrontational? "My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW"? With equal skills and same amount of time for post-processing, I doubt it.

    There are situations that JPEG is better than RAW, but also vice versa. FYI, I've shot more in JPEG than RAW on my D100, but I still prefer RAW.
    Last edited by Watcher; 29th September 2003 at 12:31 PM.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Australia
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote:"If you use a RAW format, ... ... This process llows you to maipulate the image as you like without causing a drop in image quality - even if the same data is treated over and over. But again, no amount of treatment later can fix a picture that was taken a wrong exposure, out of focus, or... ..."

    From: EF Lens Work III. The eyes of EOS, pg. 142.

  11. #11
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    well said. i was wondering myself abt the confrontatinoal tone of the poster


    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    • JPEG has only 8 bits per channel. Do tell how you can recover the additional 4 bits per channel of data back. When you make significant changes, like bringing up the shadows, you can run out of bits, causing banding and posterization. With 12 bits, it is much more unlikely.
    • WB change is just a slider away, instead of the usual PS gymnastics that one has to go through to get it right. I said "easier", not "not possible in JPEG". I too can make changes to a JPEG image's WB as well.
    • Lower noise is because the fact that JPEG causes artifacts in images that you can spot. RAW does not cause the image to degrade.
    • Better quality theoretically as saving in RAW (again) does not degrade the quality of the image vs JPEG on the camera.

    Why are you so confrontational? "My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW"? With equal skills and same amount of time for post-processing, I doubt it.

    There are situations that JPEG is better than RAW, but also vice versa. FYI, I've shot more in JPEG than RAW on my D100, but I still prefer RAW.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    well said. i was wondering myself abt the confrontatinoal tone of the poster
    maybe he has bad experiences with raw
    1stJournal - Painting your life journals since 2008
    Email / Facebook / Instagram

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    RAW is not a cure-all. Like the quote from the Eyes of Canon, you have more latitude with RAW but it cannot cure all your problems if the photo is badly shot.

    Given all these advantages of RAW, why not RAW all the time? Size and speed is the main reason. During the previous D100 Salon, someone asked John why was RAW not popular before. His answer? Cost of storage has come down, the CPU power has gone up, tremendously in the last 2-3 years.

    Machines 3 years ago was around PIII/AMD 600-900 MHz, 128-256MB, 12-20GB HD. Now? P4-2.8-3.2GHz or AMD64 3200+, 512MB-1GB, 120GB HD. Compare the cost and speed of CF cards that has advanced in the past 2-3 years as well.

  14. #14

    Default

    “My end-product from jpeg could be a lot better than yours from RAW"
    Don’t get carried away by this clause, it only means that other people end-product from jpeg could be a lot better from others from RAW. “My and Yours” are just referring to 2 different people, not Antz and Watcher. So, you dont have to get over-reacted on this one.

    Ok, if your justification of shooting RAW is for “extensive” editing, then I will still continue shooting jpeg. For fine-tuning the WB and exposure, slight color correction, removing of slight noise, recovering underexposed image up to 1-2 stops, I think I can still get what I want from jpeg. Quality wise, for not so high standards like me is quite pleasing.

    It’s really depends on individual skills on post processing.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SianZronG
    maybe he has bad experiences with raw
    Yah, you are right because it takes a lot of space.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •