Image quailty.

[Charm8]

Hi.. im kinda confused on what to choose for image quality.

Got any difference in it?

like compared to RAW + JPEG fine , to just JPEG fine? The size is kinda a big difference also, 16.9mb to 6mb..


Any bros can recommend me the best image quality?


P.S i just tired RAW + FINE and FINE alone.. Got difference meh? LOL/


Thanks in advance

 

[evo-lution]

RAW + FINE got two files lah

RAW alone or FINE alone got one file lah.

As for which setting, u gonna see what u use ur pic for lor.

The bigger the file size, the less pic u can squeeze into the mem card. And oso expect to transfer slower....

I dun really shoot RAW lah, but I heard RAW is better for processing....

FINE will be in JPEG....

 

[phan_vinh_nguyen]

If you don't know how to do with the RAW file, just choose FINE and that's enough. Choosing RAW+FINE does not make you FINE Jpeg file better.

 

[btrenkel]

No question - for ultimate quality and later processing via Photoshop/etc. - always use RAW. No need to have RAW+JPG.

You create your JPG files as part of the post-processing.

If you just need some quick and easy files; minimal retouching. Shoot in JPG only; and don't worry about RAW.

Time to read up on RAW and post-processing

 

[calebk]

Do you know what to do with the RAW file? Do you know that you cannot send your layman friend a RAW file for them to view as is? RAW ≠ JPG.

 

[Lolrence]

You've more post-processing options opened up to you when you shoot raw. The biggest advantage I find is the ability to fine tune your white balance.

 

[.Hack]

RAW = 1 file
JPEG = 1 file
RAW + JPEG = 2 files

If you are into post processing of your pics, then shoot RAW.
Else JPEG will be fine.
RAW allows you to make lots of adjustments to your pic.
If you do not know already, your PC will not recognised the RAW format, you will need to convert them first.
And each manufacturer has their own RAW format, so its not universal.
Do a google on it, you will find more info.

 

[Charm8]

hm. Thanks for the help man !

 

[NovJoe]

I uses RAW + JPEG and I'm moving to RAW only as I feel that the JPEG is pretty redundant as I'm only editing RAW then convert to JPEG and further edit in Photoshop and Paint.net.

 

[squall]

You need to decide what you mean by quality.

RAW is undoubtedly more flexible and a better start state vs jpeg (which is already compressed and gone thru one round of processing in camera) but this is not quality.

If quality = image resolution, then RAW to TIF conversion will more or less equal JPEG fine ON SCREEN. If print out, if keep to 300ppi resolution ie 8MP camera can keep this resolution up to 8R size then you will not see differences with your NAKED EYE. If you use a 10x loop, you may see differences in some edges but this is due to subtle aberrations in the compression algorithm when it encounters unusual edge transitions. I mean SUBTLE...you cannot see this at normal viewing distances.

Why JPEGS occasionally get a bad rep is because someone shoots a 6MP P&S at ISO 800 at JPEG Normal and then blows up to 8R expecting gr8 results. This example is clearly confounded by other issues such as lens quality/ CCD noise etc on the P&S.

If quality = colour "richness"/ "depth", then RAW wins....and visibly so. JPEG is a 8 bit format, it discards all colour information above its 8 bit range. Most SLRS capture RAW at 12 bit color depth, the high end ones at 14 bit and then down samples to 12. Medium format backs (with the exception of the ZD) are all true 16 bit RAWs hence why the "more 3D lifelike" effect of these backs. When you capture RAW and convert to TIF (16 bit not the 8 bit option), you keep as much color data as possible. IF you use only in-camera jpeg, you permenently discard colour info for your files as it creates 8 bit jpegs.


A helpful link: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/page-2.php

 

[squall]

sorri...."If you use a 10x LOUPE......"....type too fast.......

 

[Charm8]

Thanks for the Detailed reply.