Raw, Tiff or Jpeg


Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lance

Guest
#1
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.
 

AntZ

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
282
0
0
Visit site
#3
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.
 

Watcher

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2003
2,307
0
0
The heart of the Abyss
Visit site
#4
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.
 

AntZ

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
282
0
0
Visit site
#5
Watcher said:
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.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#6
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?

:)


AntZ said:
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.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#7
AntZ said:
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.
 

S

selwoodstudios

Guest
#8
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".
 

Watcher

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2003
2,307
0
0
The heart of the Abyss
Visit site
#9
AntZ said:
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.
 

#10
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. :)
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#11
well said. i was wondering myself abt the confrontatinoal tone of the poster


Watcher said:
  • 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.
 

Watcher

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2003
2,307
0
0
The heart of the Abyss
Visit site
#13
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.
 

AntZ

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
282
0
0
Visit site
#14
“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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom