what's the point of shooting raw?

[88888888]

:confused: im new.

[ayeying]

raw is like a negative film. you have more control on how to edit that photo then with jpeg.

raw also stores all the information captured by the imaging chip so no data is lost.

[sushi]

I would say always shoot at the best quality and resolution since usually you cannot go back and recreate the original picture.

You can always convert the RAW image to a JPG if you want a smaller file.

[88888888]

hmm so raw= better picture quality than jpeg..?:confused:

[ayeying]

Yes.

[LittleCanonKid]

The tradeoff being that they take up way more space, and as a result you'll have a smaller buffer during continuous shooting and backing things up will take up some more time/space.

I usually shoot jpeg unless there's a tricky lighting situation or I want to scrounge every detail possible. Or if I know I'll want to be playing around with editing later, which isn't usually that often.

[CrackedButter]

But raw is not an image format, remember that.

When you get a jpeg from the camera, the camera has done the processing. When you shoot raw you're letting the computer process the file to how you desire which then converts to jpeg.

[toxic]

hmm so raw= better picture quality than jpeg..?:confused:

no. RAW is simply a recording of light hitting the sensor. you need some sort of software to decode it, like Aperture or Adobe Camera Raw. the difference between RAW and Jpeg is that all the light information is retained, while in Jpeg the camera processes the light and throws away whatever wasn't used. RAW lets you edit the photo without losing information, but at the cost of making you edit all of your photos.

in summary, if you plan on editing your photos (beyond cropping and minor edits), it's best to shoot in RAW. otherwise, Jpeg is fine.

[88888888]

^
hmm ok.Thanks. i think ill just shoot in jpeg for the time being. :)

[TheReef]

I tend to use RAW in tricky white balance and exposure situations such as sunrises and sunsets (and offering more flexibly with long exposures under these lighting conditions - I can buy an extra second at the expense of slight over exposure and underexpose the image in pp with better results).

Trying to correct off white balance in JPEGs doesn't always give optimal results.

[Doylem]

RAW, for me = more effort, greater control and the potential to get the most out of every image...

[bertpalmer]

hmm so raw= better picture quality than jpeg..?:confused:
No - RAW contains more information so that when you come to editing your images you have lots of options. RAW images come out 18% grey so they may will have less contrast and saturation than jpegs which are compressed file formats.

If you have no intention of ever editing your images then shoot jpeg. Otherwise shoot RAW as you may want to come back to images to edit them at a later date. RAW does have large file sizes though. For my Canon 5DMKII they are about 25mb a file.

On a 4GB card that is 125 shots. I have just had to order two 16GB cards :o

[bking1000]

hmm so raw= better picture quality than jpeg..?:confused:

Not exactly. Raw gives you the POTENTIAL for better quality, if you learn how to develop it correctly. There is a learning curve which you may not want to take or may not be ready to take (you did say you were new).

[wheelhot]

Yup, once you start using and editing RAW, you will never want to shoot in lousy JPEG unless situation demands it. I sometime shoot for some event and although no one is paying me yet, I will soon be cause I guess better get some money even though little cause Im keeping all those picture for the future.

I once took a photo of this dance competition, get back and was frustrated that my attempt in making the photo better is all lost due to I shoot in JPEG. It was a 6 hour event and I only got a 2GB SD Card so yea, you get the idea.

Heck, I love RAW so much and it seems I will be the event photographer for my college club I end up buying 2x 4GB SDHC C6 card, I know its not the best card but hey I'm no pro yet so guess I wont be needing those really fast cards. But I have a question though, with now SD card supports 8GB, 16GB and some more bigger size in the future, can you use this on your DSLR? I bought 2 4GB instead of 1 8GB cause of fear that I wont be able to use the 8GB SD Card and the shop I bought to (they buy in bulk so they sell to the consumer cheaper, only downside is no testing) accept refunds if the product is broken.

For my Canon 5DMKII they are about 25mb a file.
Yikes, I thought the 5D MKII is only 21mp, how the heck the file gets 25mb? Where do the extra 4mp come from? I thought RAW size depends on the max mp your camera have, meaning if you own a 10mp DSLR, your RAW file will be around that size.

[bertpalmer]

Yikes, I thought the 5D MKII is only 21mp, how the heck the file gets 25mb? Where do the extra 4mp come from? I thought RAW size depends on the max mp your camera have, meaning if you own a 10mp DSLR, your RAW file will be around that size.

Yes - it is ONLY 21MP as you say...

If you shoot a black image you might get a 21MB file but realistically they go up to 25MB and sometimes 26MB...

[Cliff3]

hmm so raw= better picture quality than jpeg..?:confused:

Raw = a less processed image than a jpeg. A raw file is a container for the data that was recorded by the camera's sensor. The format of the file is proprietary to each camera manufacturer. You need to use special software such as Adobe Camera Raw, Canon Digital Photo Professional, Nikon NX2, etc. to process the file. You have much greater latitude in adjusting a raw image in post processing than you do a jpeg. A jpeg from a camera is largely a final product using the settings you have specified in the camera's configuration for white balance, brightness, contrast, tone, hue, sharpening, color space, etc. Many of those attributes are not fixed at the point of capture and can be adjusted if the capture is saved as a raw file. Depending on the software you use (aka: workflow), processing a set of raw files from your camera may be little or no more work than processing a set of jpegs.

I figure I've only got one opportunity for each capture, so I should record that image using the format that captures the most data and which gives me the greatest flexibility in subsequent processing. That format is raw.

[Kronie]

:confused: im new.

Raw gives you more control over the image. Especially when it comes to exposure, white balance and sharpening. If you nail the exposure and the white balance then RAW is just an extra step you don't really need.

That being said, I switched over to RAW last year and cant imagine it any other way! I love working with a file from the RAW forward. Of course I don't have to edit hundreds of files at a time so its not bad for me.:D:D

[fiercetiger224]

Yes - it is ONLY 21MP as you say...

If you shoot a black image you might get a 21MB file but realistically they go up to 25MB and sometimes 26MB...

HAHA ONLY 21MP? Most cameras are now 12MP...I laughed when he said that. :D

RAW filesizes on the 5D Mark II sound about right. My old XTi had RAW filesizes of around 10MB, while the 5DII is a little more than twice the filesize. I've heard the 50D has around the same filesizes as the 5DII, which I find kind of weird...Since it has 15MP...Ahh, well maybe Canon has something special with RAW. :rolleyes:

That being said, I LOVE my 5DII. It takes such beautiful pictures...

[leandroc76]

Raw gives you more control over the image. Especially when it comes to exposure, white balance and sharpening. If you nail the exposure and the white balance then RAW is just an extra step you don't really need.

That being said, I switched over to RAW last year and cant imagine it any other way! I love working with a file from the RAW forward. Of course I don't have to edit hundreds of files at a time so its not bad for me.:D:D

This would have been my exact reply, other than the fact I've been shooting RAW since I got my first DSLR, the D70!

[wheelhot]

HAHA ONLY 21MP? Most cameras are now 12MP...I laughed when he said that.

RAW filesizes on the 5D Mark II sound about right. My old XTi had RAW filesizes of around 10MB, while the 5DII is a little more than twice the filesize. I've heard the 50D has around the same filesizes as the 5DII, which I find kind of weird...Since it has 15MP...Ahh, well maybe Canon has something special with RAW.

That being said, I LOVE my 5DII. It takes such beautiful pictures...
Wow, thats interesting, but too bad 50D image quality does not hold up to Nikon D300 :( .

Would love to try a 5D MKII :(

[Abraxsis]

On a 4GB card that is 125 shots. I have just had to order two 16GB cards :o

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

[bertpalmer]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

I know but I've never had any problems and am careful with my cards. I think I can only get a few hundred images on these anyway so it isn't as bad as it sounds. 2GB cards I get about 50 images and 4 GB aren't much better. Maybe I should have gone for 8GB but as they were roughly the same price as 16GB I went with the high capacity. Card reliability is a lot better than it used to be.

[fiercetiger224]

Wow, thats interesting, but too bad 50D image quality does not hold up to Nikon D300 :( .

Would love to try a 5D MKII :(

Hmm, I think the 50D is on par with the D300, ONLY if you're using the best optics though. This is rather true for any camera. 50Ds noise is a little noisier, obviously due to the megapixel increase. Otherwise, if Canon did put it at 12MP like the D300, it'd probably be nearly equal in performance.

And the 5DII is amazing! The video is even more amazing. The ISO performance on this camera is just astonishing at 21MP! :D

[ChrisA]

:confused: im new.

For many people there is no advantage. If you can get the shot you need using JPG then you are better off doing that.

RAW is best if you know you will need to adjust the image in post processing. If you are planing to do some heavy Photoshop work or if the lighting is "tricky" and you don't think you can nail it dead on or the contrast is to high then RAW allows you to adjust it later when you have lots of time.

In the end you will have a JPG image the difference is where the raw --> jpg conversion is done. Either in the camera or later on the computer. Shooting raw allows you more control over the raw-->jpg converson process.

Thing of it this way. Shooting jpg is like shooting slide film. What you get is what you get. There is no way to do much "magic" in the darkroom. But RAW is like shooting negatives, you get a change to correct the image when it is printed.

[wheelhot]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

Wow, great tip. Glad I bought 2 4GB SD Card, one of my reason was actually cause I never heard photographers say they use 8GB SD card. Guess there is a reason for that but bertpalmer say is not wrong also, considering that now the image size is bigger, 4 GB might not be that ideal anymore compared to 10mp DSLRs.

Hmm, I think the 50D is on par with the D300, ONLY if you're using the best optics though. This is rather true for any camera. 50Ds noise is a little noisier, obviously due to the megapixel increase. Otherwise, if Canon did put it at 12MP like the D300, it'd probably be nearly equal in performance.

Oh right, totally forgot that the 50D has higher mp count. But seriously, I dont see the point of kept increasing mp for each iteration and boost the ISO more if image quality still suffers from noise. Fix noise first then only boost mp, that what I will do rather then keep boosting mp and get unusable high ISO images, this applies greatly to APS-C sensor DSLRs

[Abraxsis]

Wow, great tip. Glad I bought 2 4GB SD Card, one of my reason was actually cause I never heard photographers say they use 8GB SD card. Guess there is a reason for that but bertpalmer say is not wrong also, considering that now the image size is bigger, 4 GB might not be that ideal anymore compared to 10mp DSLRs.

Every Pro I rub elbows with only use 4GB cards unless they are the Extreme III version, and then they go 8GB. Once those are filled they are off-loaded to either laptop/multiple hard drives, or a data storage/viewer like the Epson P-3000. Last night I was at a Photography seminar with Bill Fortney (author/photog of America From 500 Feet (I and II), bunch of other books, as well as a Nikon Marketing Rep) and this was one of the "Pro" tips he gave as well.

On a personal note, I recommend Lowepro Memory card clamshell cases for field work. I've literally seen them ran over by an SUV and survive. Not a bad price either (I get them for 15.99 at Best Buy, Adorama carries them for 19.99)

http://products.lowepro.com/product/PixelPak-V1,1993,42.htm

I place them face up when I leave the house and as I use them up I return them to the case upside down (contact pens facing up) to know they're full at a glance. Obviously you could also lock them to ensure data integrity.

[fiercetiger224]

Oh right, totally forgot that the 50D has higher mp count. But seriously, I dont see the point of kept increasing mp for each iteration and boost the ISO more if image quality still suffers from noise. Fix noise first then only boost mp, that what I will do rather then keep boosting mp and get unusable high ISO images, this applies greatly to APS-C sensor DSLRs

Well actually, the noise is virtually the same when you view the images at 100%. It only "seems" noisier because the image is slightly bigger. Noise gets reduced even more if you shoot at the native 15MP, and reduce it to 12MP. This is true when you shoot with any camera. So in essence, they have improved the ISO performance to use with the increase in MP. Otherwise, it'd probably be much noisier if they hadn't improved it. Looks like they've already hit the point where the APS-C sensor is hitting a wall in squeezing more detail...Oh well, hopefully these masterminds will figure out another process technique that'll squeeze even more detail! :eek:

As for people shooting with smaller cards like 2GB and 4GB, say what you will. For more demanding cameras such as the 50D and up, which have RAW filesizes of 20MB and up, shooting with 2GB and 4GB isn't nearly as convenient as it used to be. I personally have a 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB. My 4GB card is 233x, while my 8GB and 16GB are 266x. I shoot with my 16GB the most, and haven't had any corruption problems with it for over a year of shooting thousands of photos. I was able to hold 1000 10MP RAW files on my old XTi, and now it's about 500 for my 5DII. Always filled up the card to full, and reformatted after transferring files.

[wheelhot]

Thanks guys!, Im learning something new everyday ^^, yippie!

Well actually, the noise is virtually the same when you view the images at 100%. It only "seems" noisier because the image is slightly bigger. Noise gets reduced even more if you shoot at the native 15MP, and reduce it to 12MP. This is true when you shoot with any camera. So in essence, they have improved the ISO performance to use with the increase in MP. Otherwise, it'd probably be much noisier if they hadn't improved it. Looks like they've already hit the point where the APS-C sensor is hitting a wall in squeezing more detail...Oh well, hopefully these masterminds will figure out another process technique that'll squeeze even more detail!

Yup, I wonder who will tops Canon MP Count, I have a feeling I know though and this company as usual will fail giving the photo quality expected, not to mention cause Canon to do the same thing but with a better job at it. For those who got an idea who this company is, good for those who didn't get it....the company I was referring to is Sony.

Every Pro I rub elbows with only use 4GB cards unless they are the Extreme III version, and then they go 8GB. Once those are filled they are off-loaded to either laptop/multiple hard drives, or a data storage/viewer like the Epson P-3000. Last night I was at a Photography seminar with Bill Fortney (author/photog of America From 500 Feet (I and II), bunch of other books, as well as a Nikon Marketing Rep) and this was one of the "Pro" tips he gave as well.

Ah, IC....so SandDisk Extreme III means ultimate reliability? Hence suitable for 8GB?

[FX120]

Hmm, I think the 50D is on par with the D300, ONLY if you're using the best optics though. This is rather true for any camera. 50Ds noise is a little noisier, obviously due to the megapixel increase. Otherwise, if Canon did put it at 12MP like the D300, it'd probably be nearly equal in performance.


IQ at lower ISO might be comparable, but the rest of the argument goes away once you consider AF, metering, on-body features, shooting speed, and high ISO performance the D300 is the clear winner, and it should be considering that the price is higher than the 50D.

IMO Canons next release after a 1D/1Ds update should be a D300 competitor, by either making the 60D more serious, or coming out with a new model, APS-C sensor in the 12MP range with great low light performance, very well built, very fast, with a more serious attempt at AF than their current 9-point system, priced at $1600 for the body only.

[SWC]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

This is all relative to the camera you are using. If using the 5D II at 21 MP you'd want a bigger card compared to say a 40D at 10 MP to keep the same number of pictures on a card. I went from the 40D to 5D II and 4 GB to 8 GB cards and get roughly the same number of pictures on a card.

[pprior]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

Well let's see there. My 1dMIII shoots about 13MB RAW files (and that's only a 10MP camera). So your 2GB card will hold around 100-150 shots (depending on ISO). Shoot 5-10 frames per second, that gives me about 10-20 bursts before I have to change a card. Not very practical when doing sports shooting. I am much more likely to lose a card when carrying the 20 or more I would need by using your system than I am to lose one due to a defective card. Different shooting needs = different demands. Personally I use nothing but 8GB cards, and if it's a critical shoot, I use the 1d dual write to double burn to two different cards. I've never seen a corrupted card in 40,000+ shots.

Now to the original poster, I was a jpg shooter for years and finally switched to RAW about 3 years ago. with modern software I see absolutely NO reason not to shoot RAW for the vast majority of shooters. If you are shooting high volume on a deadline and can nail your exposure and white balance every time, then JPG is a great option. But drive space is cheap, and modern programs like aperture, lightroom, etc have taken the pain out of the RAW format.

You gain tremendous flexibility in pulling down overexposed shots and also tremendous flexibility in adjusting white balance. You just can't do that with jpg.

Yes it takes more drive space, yes it takes a bit more horsepower to process and a bit more time, but not as much as it used to, and it's just a matter of time before that shot that was junk in jpg can be salvaged in RAW.

[KettyKrueger]

Can I just ask; is there another format to shoot in?

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Are there any cameras out there that shoot in .png or .tiff? Would this be even possible? I confess I have no idea of the workings of a camera.

[wheelhot]

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Huh? JPEG is not a lossy format, its a heavily compressed format. TIFF is lossy, but RAW still beats TIFF.

RAW Rules!!! Now if only future version of Aperture is faster and use less power :rolleyes:

[Cliff3]

Can I just ask; is there another format to shoot in?

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Are there any cameras out there that shoot in .png or .tiff? Would this be even possible? I confess I have no idea of the workings of a camera.

Nikon pro-level bodies (D300/D700/D3/D2/etc) will record TIFF files. My guess would be that they have one or a few very large customers who have workflows that demand this format. Like NASA or some other governmental entity of similar size (and clout) and with a similar potential for legacy systems. The TIFF format produces very large files with no advantage other than interchange with other systems or applications.

[RaceTripper]

I only shoot RAW. Try correcting WB on a jpeg and you'll be a quick convert. I don't worry about the larger file sizes. flash memory has gotten so cheap. I just got 3 x 4 GB Sandisk Extreme III for less than $5 total after mail-in rebate. The other main reason I use RAW is for the support of non-destructive editing and history since changes are written to sidecar files and not the image data itself. That also means I'm not constantly backing up large files anytime I make a minor edit to the image.

Programs like Lightroom make it very easy to batch convert RAW images to jpeg.

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. ....+1
Last year I lost a 4 GB card to corruption shooting the 12 Hours of Sebring (sports car race). I lost a couple hours of shooting. If that had been a 16 GB card that would have meant losing the entire race. The only way I'll ever use anything larger than 4 GB is with a camera that takes two cards and writes to both redundantly, but only the top end pro DSLRs do that now.

BTW: the bad card was a Lexar. That company made it extremely difficult to get a warranty claim honored. I only got a replacement card after many months of waiting, ignored email inquiries on status, and excuses when calling. Worst customer service experience ever.

[KettyKrueger]

Huh? JPEG is not a lossy format, its a heavily compressed format. TIFF is lossy, but RAW still beats TIFF.

RAW Rules!!! Now if only future version of Aperture is faster and use less power :rolleyes:

.tiff is lossy??

Sorry, I probably should have said I didn't want my photos to be compressed not lossy.

Roughly then, if my JPEGs are about 3.3MB and a RAW file is 21MB, the compression ration is roughly 7:1. Can any pros out there see the artifacts produces by a JPEG as opposed to a raw file?

[Edge100]

The only way I'll ever use anything larger than 4 GB is with a camera that takes two cards and writes to both redundantly, but only the top end pro DSLRs do that now.

I have never lost a card of data, but this is my nightmare. I just bought a used 1DmkII and one of the things I love the most about it is being able to shoot to CF and have a backup automatically created on an SD card. Highly unlikely that two cards will go bad in one incident. It's just another little thing that the pro-level bodies have over consumer and pro-sumer bodies.

.tiff is lossy??

Sorry, I probably should have said I didn't want my photos to be compressed not lossy.

Roughly then, if my JPEGs are about 3.3MB and a RAW file is 21MB, the compression ration is roughly 7:1. Can any pros out there see the artifacts produces by a JPEG as opposed to a raw file?

TIFF is lossless, and offers a lossless compression format, LZW (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format)

JPEG artifacts can be hard to see, unless you're really pushing it. But keep in mind that every time you save a jpeg, you're adding artifact. Those will build up over time. Thus, if you shoot JPEG, save as TIFF before you begin editing.

IMHO, the introduction of artifacts is a minor reason to avoid shooting JPEG. The ability to alter WB and to regain blown highlights are much bigger reasons, I think.

[Apple Ink]

Imo, the ability to post process WB with 100% detailing preserved is alone worth shooting in RAW.
Also, the 'Recovery' best works in RAW and is the best way to recover details in the burnt out areas...
And finally a 30MB image as compared to a 3MB is pretty reassuring and satisfying... LOL!

[mrkgoo]

TIFF is lossless, and offers a lossless compression format, LZW (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format)

JPEG artifacts can be hard to see, unless you're really pushing it. But keep in mind that every time you save a jpeg, you're adding artifact. Those will build up over time. Thus, if you shoot JPEG, save as TIFF before you begin editing.

IMHO, the introduction of artifacts is a minor reason to avoid shooting JPEG. The ability to alter WB and to regain blown highlights are much bigger reasons, I think.

iPhoto is completely non-destructive. No matter how many edits you make on a photo, it will only make the edits 'once'. Even further edits.

[Edge100]

iPhoto is completely non-destructive. No matter how many edits you make on a photo, it will only make the edits 'once'. Even further edits.

You are correct; iPhoto creates a preview based on the initial file, and works on that. It doesn't "apply" the changes until you export.

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.

[mrkgoo]

You are correct; iPhoto creates a preview based on the initial file, and works on that. It doesn't "apply" the changes until you export.

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.

Incorrect - I believe iPhoto applies the changes as soon as you hit 'done' on an edit - it saves it to the modified folder. When you open the file for more edits, it pulls the original, reapplies the edits, applies any new edits, and then saves again. If you ever "Revert to Original", it deletes the modified version entirely.

During export it uses the Modified version, if it exists, and if you don't select to export the original.

[thebassoonist]

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

When I used my Canon rebel, I always shoot in raw and convert the images to tiff (lossless) to print. They look beautiful.

[wheelhot]

Nikon pro-level bodies (D300/D700/D3/D2/etc) will record TIFF files. My guess would be that they have one or a few very large customers who have workflows that demand this format. Like NASA or some other governmental entity of similar size (and clout) and with a similar potential for legacy systems. The TIFF format produces very large files with no advantage other than interchange with other systems or applications.

Wow, didn't know Nikon pro level bodies accept .TIFF, but correct me if Im wrong, isn't a .TIFF image size is most of the time bigger then a RAW image?

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

Yup, JPEGs are compressed, a 10MP camera will produce average 10mb photo size, JPEG will make those photos around 4MB so that should give you an idea of how compressed your photo end up. I find Aperture Recovery tool work best in RAW, Tiff will produce not so pleasing result while JPEG is just...forget it.

One of the biggest good thing about RAW is fully adjustable WB in later post processing, sometime due to the variety of lighting, we tend to forget to change our WB, imagine if you are back from an event and half of your images are ruined just cause you forgot to change the WB setting :eek:. That would ruin any Photographers day, that's for sure.

[RaceTripper]

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.In the case of Lightroom, if you are working with RAW and edit in PS, it exports the RAW to tiff and sends that to PS for editing.

[RaceTripper]

One of the biggest good thing about RAW is fully adjustable WB in later post processing, sometime due to the variety of lighting, we tend to forget to change our WB, imagine if you are back from an event and half of your images are ruined just cause you forgot to change the WB setting :eek:. That would ruin any Photographers day, that's for sure.When I shoot an auto race, I can easily take 1500 shots in a day. With moving around the track and paddock and changing light conditions, I mostly don't bother with WB settings. I just put it on Auto WB. Later on I'll fix WB after I'm done culling photos and left with ones I'm interested in.

[mrkgoo]

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

When I used my Canon rebel, I always shoot in raw and convert the images to tiff (lossless) to print. They look beautiful.

JPEGS are compressed - but compressed just means you use shortcut methods to 'describe' a file. Like - all the sky is blue, so instead of saying: "Pixel 1 is blue, pixel 2 is blue, pixel 3 is blue ...", you can just say "Pixel 1 through 87 are blue". It doesn't NECESSARILY mean a loss of quality itself. You can have very low compression in a JPEG. Maximum quality (minimum compression) actually retains most data, but high compression (low quality) assigns even close coloured pixels as the same, reducing definition, but reducing file size. Of course, successive edits of a JPEG are editing the pixels, so every step typically requires another compression step.

The 'compression' or loss of quality when shooting JPEG comes from the inherent process of converting the RAW data. The camera captures much more data than is necessary to make an image. Let's say a RAW captures this much data *holds hands out wide*, but the the converted JPEG displays this much *narrows hands*. JPEGS cannot carry more info, so it HAS to be converted down.

Shooting in RAW allows you to control that conversion - and as people say the biggest allowance is in the area of highlights and white balance. That is you can mitigate blown out skies or bright areas contrasting with dark, and changing colour temperature and tint is much more accurate, as you are converting differently as opposed to editing pixels.

I don't believe sending your TIFF files off to print are necessarily any better than sending processed JPEGS, or even out of camera JPEGS, depending on the shot.

My point is that shooting JPEGS doesn't necessarily mean you are 'losing quality' - you are just letting the camera decide what parts of the data to use, and that this may not be what you want.

[Edge100]

In the case of Lightroom, if you are working with RAW and edit in PS, it exports the RAW to tiff and sends that to PS for editing.

True. This (I believe) also holds if you shoot JPEG and work with LR-->PS, which is great.

If you open JPEGs directly in PS, edit, and save as JPEG, you are increasing the "generation" of the file; artifacts will build up.

[Edge100]

When I shoot an auto race, I can easily take 1500 shots in a day. With moving around the track and paddock and changing light conditions, I mostly don't bother with WB settings. I just put it on Auto WB. Later on I'll fix WB after I'm done culling photos and left with ones I'm interested in.

My WB setting hasn't ever left "AWB"; what's the point? I'm going to process the RAWs later anyway, so I might as well do proper WB later on too.

[Edge100]

Incorrect - I believe iPhoto applies the changes as soon as you hit 'done' on an edit - it saves it to the modified folder. When you open the file for more edits, it pulls the original, reapplies the edits, applies any new edits, and then saves again. If you ever "Revert to Original", it deletes the modified version entirely.

During export it uses the Modified version, if it exists, and if you don't select to export the original.

I see. I was under the impression that iPhoto worked like Aperture or LR; making a preview of the file for display, and not rendering until you export.

Good to know that, however it's done, iPhoto is not propagating artifacts.

[mrkgoo]

I see. I was under the impression that iPhoto worked like Aperture or LR; making a preview of the file for display, and not rendering until you export.

Good to know that, however it's done, iPhoto is not propagating artifacts.

I don't have Aperture nor Lightroom. So both these programs never save an image until export (even JPEGS?)? I guess that's part of the workflow for more 'pro' apps - it's expected that you are editing and exporting. It makes sense.

iPhoto is much more consumer-oriented. People expect a file, or it's just easier to do it since people aren't changing the file formats or adjusting any export settings. I really should move away from it, but I like it's management function.

[Edge100]

I don't have Aperture nor Lightroom. So both these programs never save an image until export (even JPEGS?)? I guess that's part of the workflow for more 'pro' apps - it's expected that you are editing and exporting. It makes sense.

iPhoto is much more consumer-oriented. People expect a file, or it's just easier to do it since people aren't changing the file formats or adjusting any export settings. I really should move away from it, but I like it's management function.

LR and Aperture are completely non-destructive. They create a preview of your original file, which encompasses all of the edits you've made in that program, so you're never working on the original file. In fact, you can view the preview even if the original file is offline; you can't edit the preview without the original, but you can view it. The edit settings are stored as metadata in the catalog, and you can transport that catalog to other machines and keep working.

Once you export, the program applies the edit settings to the output file; the original remains completely untouched. Moreover, you don't have any edit versions of the file; this would get really big, really fast for large catalogs. You only have a small (relatively) file that describes the edits. My LR catalog is about 9000 images totaling about 60GB, and the catalog file itself is only 100MB.

[RaceTripper]

I don't have Aperture nor Lightroom. So both these programs never save an image until export (even JPEGS?)? I guess that's part of the workflow for more 'pro' apps - it's expected that you are editing and exporting. It makes sense.I would not want Lightroom to ever create and export a jpeg automatically. That would be a waste of disk space. I might generate 4000 RAW files in a shoot and only ever use 100 or less in jpeg form.

In the case of Aperture I believe iPhoto treats the Aperture database as a library automagically so you can always view and make jpegs on the fly. Lightroom does not have iPhoto integration, but there is an export to iPhoto plugin for it.

disclaimer: I don't really use iPhoto.

[RaceTripper]

One thing to add about Lightroom (and Aperture) is that since the edits are done in sidecar files and not on the actual image data, you can have multiple sidecar files for a single RAW source file, each with different edit histories, such as one for web, one for print, or for different crops, etc.

Also, notice I mention "histories"? With sidecar files you can instantly go back to any point in your edit history without loosing previous or subsequent edits, and even take snapshots at any point. very powerful, very flexible, very cool.

[Edge100]

One thing to add about Lightroom (and Aperture) is that since the edits are done in sidecar files and not on the actual image data, you can have multiple sidecar files for a single RAW source file, each with different edit histories, such as one for web, one for print, or for different crops, etc.

Also, notice I mention "histories"? With sidecar files you can instantly go back to any point in your edit history without loosing previous or subsequent edits, and even take snapshots at any point. very powerful, very flexible, very cool.

I usually make multiple edits in LR using virtual copies. Is there an easier way that I'm missing?

[RaceTripper]

I usually make multiple edits in LR using virtual copies. Is there an easier way that I'm missing?That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

[Edge100]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

Good to know I was doing it the right way all along. ;)

I love this ability to quickly make different versions of the same shot. Along with the new and improved Photomatix plugin (with the ability to automatically reimport), this feature makes my LR experience absolutely terrific.

[mrkgoo]

LR and Aperture are completely non-destructive. They create a preview of your original file, which encompasses all of the edits you've made in that program, so you're never working on the original file. In fact, you can view the preview even if the original file is offline; you can't edit the preview without the original, but you can view it. The edit settings are stored as metadata in the catalog, and you can transport that catalog to other machines and keep working.

Once you export, the program applies the edit settings to the output file; the original remains completely untouched. Moreover, you don't have any edit versions of the file; this would get really big, really fast for large catalogs. You only have a small (relatively) file that describes the edits. My LR catalog is about 9000 images totaling about 60GB, and the catalog file itself is only 100MB.

I realise that it keeps an edit file, but I didn't know about a complete history (but not unexpected) or that it doesn't create any files until you export.

iPhoto really is quite good for a consumer management program - it too keeps an edit file (obviously, since it is no destructive). You have no access to it, of course, but you can copy the changes made in one photo across to other photos and so on.

One day, when my actual photography on the camera side gets good enough, I will move to aperture/LR.

Thanks for the comments.

[RaceTripper]

Good to know I was doing it the right way all along. ;)

I love this ability to quickly make different versions of the same shot. Along with the new and improved Photomatix plugin (with the ability to automatically reimport), this feature makes my LR experience absolutely terrific.HDR is not really something I can take advantage of with cars racing by me at triple digit speeds. But LR is really pretty nice.

I tried to evaluate Aperture at one point, but it does not support LR sidecar files so there was no chance to migrate my work. Since a sidecar file is just XML that seems like a missed opportunity for Apple to convert Adobe customers. Otherwise, Aperture is just not compelling enough for me to start over for new shoots and maintain LR for older ones.

[Edge100]

HDR is not really something I can take advantage of with cars racing by me at triple digit speeds. But LR is really pretty nice.

Maybe...but maybe not. Try doing some pseudo-HDRs using a single RAW, processed as -2, 0, +2 in LR; not really HDR, but a cool effect in moderation.

I tried to evaluate Aperture at one point, but it does not support LR sidecar files so there was no chance to migrate my work. Since a sidecar file is just XML that seems like a missed opportunity for Apple to convert Adobe customers. Otherwise, Aperture is just not compelling enough for me to start over for new shoots and maintain LR for older ones.

I tried Aperture as well (and I have a copy handy for compatibility), and it just didn't suit me. It's still slower than LR2 on my MBP, and there are just things about it that bug me (the plug-in architecture is nice, though).

[RaceTripper]

Maybe...but maybe not. Try doing some pseudo-HDRs using a single RAW, processed as -2, 0, +2 in LR; not really HDR, but a cool effect in moderation.Thanks, I'll try that for fun sometime, but my shooting is more about action anyway. Contrast isn't really as important.

[jaduffy108]

^
hmm ok.Thanks. i think ill just shoot in jpeg for the time being. :)

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I'll read the rest of the thread before commenting further.

[jaseone]

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I wouldn't say it is essential, sure it helps in recovery if you mess something up but if you can nail every shot with the right exposure and white balance then RAW isn't essential for high quality results.

[fiercetiger224]

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I'll read the rest of the thread before commenting further.

Your mom shoots RAW. ;)

Kidding aside, I agree with your assessment. Yes, shooting RAW requires the step of processing the photos to JPEG (or to whatever format you choose), but the end result is always better shooting with RAW. In-camera processing of JPEGs usually softens images, especially if you have a higher megapixel camera.

[gangzoom]

^
hmm ok.Thanks. i think ill just shoot in jpeg for the time being. :)

As other people here have said, if your camera gives you the option to shoot in RAW use it!! I only recently upgraded to DSLR from a compact superzoom, and find post processing images in RAW so much easier...

Been able to adjust the "white balance" and exposure (to some degree) is worth the large file size alone..if you've never thought about doing it before, give it a go and your wonder how you managed all this time with JPEGs!! (bur you may need to ditch iPhoto and go for Apeture or Lightroom)

[jaduffy108]

I wouldn't say it is essential, sure it helps in recovery if you mess something up but if you can nail every shot with the right exposure and white balance then RAW isn't essential for high quality results.

I guess "essential" is relative. My perspective: Try submitting a 8bit jpeg image to a publication, stock house or simply printing larger than A4...then get back to me. I can't believe it's necessary to argue the enormous benefit of avoiding jpeg compression. Depth of 256 vs 65,000 (8bit vs 16bit). This is true whether you "nail" the shot or not.

RAW is **not** in the realm of pixels....so staying in the non-destructive realm of RAW as long as possible before committing your decisions to pixels is extremely wise. There are more reasons for working in RAW than simply correcting exposure or WB. If you or someone else uses Adobe Camera Raw...it "misinterprets" dynamic range like crazy even on RAW files...how much worse must it be on jpeg??? yowsa.

I recommend reading Bruce Frazier's books and online articles as a good resource.

[jaduffy108]

JPEGS are compressed - but compressed just means you use shortcut methods to 'describe' a file. Like - all the sky is blue, so instead of saying: "Pixel 1 is blue, pixel 2 is blue, pixel 3 is blue ...", you can just say "Pixel 1 through 87 are blue". It doesn't NECESSARILY mean a loss of quality itself. You can have very low compression in a JPEG. Maximum quality (minimum compression) actually retains most data, but high compression (low quality) assigns even close coloured pixels as the same, reducing definition, but reducing file size. Of course, successive edits of a JPEG are editing the pixels, so every step typically requires another compression step.

The 'compression' or loss of quality when shooting JPEG comes from the inherent process of converting the RAW data. The camera captures much more data than is necessary to make an image. Let's say a RAW captures this much data *holds hands out wide*, but the the converted JPEG displays this much *narrows hands*. JPEGS cannot carry more info, so it HAS to be converted down.

Shooting in RAW allows you to control that conversion - and as people say the biggest allowance is in the area of highlights and white balance. That is you can mitigate blown out skies or bright areas contrasting with dark, and changing colour temperature and tint is much more accurate, as you are converting differently as opposed to editing pixels.

I don't believe sending your TIFF files off to print are necessarily any better than sending processed JPEGS, or even out of camera JPEGS, depending on the shot.

My point is that shooting JPEGS doesn't necessarily mean you are 'losing quality' - you are just letting the camera decide what parts of the data to use, and that this may not be what you want.

Sorry to be so blunt...but this is simply wrong. This thread is making my head hurt.

I wonder...what is your goal? If you invested in a dslr camera capable of high resolution images ......why would you then negate much of it's benefit over shooting with a p&s by shooting / printing as 8bit jpeg? I love jpegs for convenience....family emails, etc....but for the love of God...SHOOT RAW!:eek:

If you want to see what your dslr is capable of....shoot raw....edit as much as possible non-destructively before converting to pixels (16bit Tiff or PSD). For edit tools beyond the abilities of your raw conversion app....open the 16bit file in PS or the plugin of your choice such as Nik or onOne software.

When done....save a copy as a jpeg. Print both the 16bit and jpeg files at A3.

The difference will be obvious.

Lastly...shooting RAW allows you to return to images taken years ago and use the latest and greatest raw conversion applications. Hopefully, they continue to improve. Adobe Camera RAW, for example, isn't anything to be thrilled about.

[Phrasikleia]

If you shoot in RAW, you have everything the sensor is capable of capturing. If you shoot JPEG, you're accepting some subset that the camera deems appropriate. The latter might be sufficient for casual snapshots, but if you really care about the images you're recording, you'll want control over how they turn out.

[mrkgoo]

Sorry to be so blunt...but this is simply wrong. This thread is making my head hurt.

I wonder...what is your goal? If you invested in a dslr camera capable of high resolution images ......why would you then negate much of it's benefit over shooting with a p&s by shooting / printing as 8bit jpeg? I love jpegs for convenience....family emails, etc....but for the love of God...SHOOT RAW!:eek:

If you want to see what your dslr is capable of....shoot raw....edit as much as possible non-destructively before converting to pixels (16bit Tiff or PSD). For edit tools beyond the abilities of your raw conversion app....open the 16bit file in PS or the plugin of your choice such as Nik or onOne software.

When done....save a copy as a jpeg. Print both the 16bit and jpeg files at A3.

The difference will be obvious.

Lastly...shooting RAW allows you to return to images taken years ago and use the latest and greatest raw conversion applications. Hopefully, they continue to improve. Adobe Camera RAW, for example, isn't anything to be thrilled about.

Sorry for being wrong.

I do understand your point.

[dmz]

Huh? JPEG is not a lossy format, its a heavily compressed format. TIFF is lossy, but RAW still beats TIFF.

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

Compression is of two types - lossy and lossless. Lossless means no data is missing when the file is compressed and then de-compressed. If anything is changed in this process, it is lossy compression.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

JPEG is a lossy format - there is no way to recover the original data from any JPEG file, even on the lowest compression setting. JPEG does offer variable lossiness, and a lower compression does retain more of the original data, but never all of it.

RAW can't "beat" TIFF, because they are not the same thing. While TIFF and JPEG are published file formats, RAW is not. RAW is type of file produced by a digital camera's sensor incorporating an enormous, uncompressed colour-space, defined and refined by the camera-maker themselves, and not in a format that is standardized in any way.

JPEGs were only introduced because back in the bad old days, no one could imagine sending full-resolution images via modems, or anything less than the high-speed internet we have today, or saving hundreds of images on a hard drive that was less than a gigabyte in size. JPEG solved that problem early on for camera-makers, but unfortunately, that low-speed legacy has followed us into the world of high-speed, high-capacity devices.

So, I see the question the other way around - what's the point of shooting JPEG? In fact, why use JPEG at all? For sending smaller files the PNG format is far more useful than GIF or JPEG to web-designers and allows for decent, lossless compression.

Yes, JPEG compression in the camera allows for faster "bursts" of motor-drive like shooting, but I'm sure we'll see the camera-makers improve on this one aspect of digital photography that seems to still somewhat justify the existence and use of JPEG.

And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

[mrkgoo]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

Compression is of two types - lossy and lossless. Lossless means no data is missing when the file is compressed and then de-compressed. If anything is changed in this process, it is lossy compression.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

JPEG is a lossy format - there is no way to recover the original data from any JPEG file, even on the lowest compression setting. JPEG does offer variable lossiness, and a lower compression does retain more of the original data, but never all of it.

RAW can't "beat" TIFF, because they are not the same thing. While TIFF and JPEG are published file formats, RAW is not. RAW is type of file produced by a digital camera's sensor incorporating an enormous, uncompressed colour-space, defined and refined by the camera-maker themselves, and not in a format that is standardized in any way.

JPEGs were only introduced because back in the bad old days, no one could imagine sending full-resolution images via modems, or anything less than the high-speed internet we have today, or saving hundreds of images on a hard drive that was less than a gigabyte in size. JPEG solved that problem early on for camera-makers, but unfortunately, that low-speed legacy has followed us into the world of high-speed, high-capacity devices.

So, I see the question the other way around - what's the point of shooting JPEG? In fact, why use JPEG at all? For sending smaller files the PNG format is far more useful than GIF or JPEG to web-designers and allows for decent, lossless compression.

Yes, JPEG compression in the camera allows for faster "bursts" of motor-drive like shooting, but I'm sure we'll see the camera-makers improve on this one aspect of digital photography that seems to still somewhat justify the existence and use of JPEG.

And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

This puts it much more clearly (and accurately) than I did and ever could. Thank-you!

I admit I was all over the place in my description. I swear, the more time I spend on the more time I spend on the internet, the more confusing I become.

[wheelhot]

Thanks for your reply DMZ, made me realize that they are still many things I dont know and stupid mistakes that I made :eek:

How do you know so much about these anyway? Cause it seems you got the topic about file conversion covered pretty much.

Sorry that your head hurts :(

[dmz]

I am very fortunate to have been "exposed" to photography from a very young age, I grew up in a darkroom you might say. In the sixties, my father was a professional news and feature photog for UPI/CP. In fact, his best friend invented the Nikon motor drive - a fact I can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. In the early seventies, my Dad moved into cinematography, and I followed. I also was fortunate to meet and be friends with a lot of other great photogs - portrait guys, sports guys, combat photogs (remember Vietnam?), etc. I even managed to meet and work with Yousuf Karsh and his brother Malak. So I got a great, practical education in all kinds of photography.

For some reason, probably because I was surrounded by amazing photographers and was somewhat in awe of them, I did not pursue photography as a career, though I worked in several still and motion picture film labs through my teen years. Instead, I got involved in computers in the early 80's. The company I worked for was pioneering some electronic publishing technologies with Xerox and Kodak - digital scanners, imagesetters, and typography - and because of my background, I was soon brought into the circle to help develop the imaging side of digital publishing.

Long story short - the high-tech company went the acquisition route and I found myself looking for work. The Mac had just come out, but more importantly, Linotype released it's first PostScript imagesetter, and I found myself an expert in a field that did not yet exist - digital imaging. I have kept myself at the bleeding edge of this technology, and with my background in traditional techniques and awareness of current technologies, find myself well-equipped to help others understand the science and the art of photography, or, digital imaging. I have taught for years at the college and university level, and have just received approval to go ahead with my first book, a pixel primer!

I thank my Dad and all those others who helped me along the way. Those guys were awesome, and I'm still in touch with several who have also made the journey from film to digital. Now, finally, I can help them!

dmz

[Wakakanada]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this...
And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!


dmz

HuH?!? ack, now MY head hurts! :eek:

I'm new to DSLR and appreciate reading these forums for your insights, but this comment made my mind boggle. Are you saying that a smallish jpeg occupies as much computer memory as a RAW file upon editing? If so, this is fascinating and I would appreciate you or someone expanding on this concept a little.

As a beginner, I intend to shoot basic vacation-type shots in jpeg but important shots in RAW, on the premise that the RAW shots are ones I may want to edit/re-edit for years to come. But I assumed that the RAW files would take more space on the computer not just on the memory card.

Is your comment referring to the fact that a single jpeg file opened for editing will occupy as much memory as a similar RAW file opened for editing, or that 10 edited jpegs will occupy as much space as the same ten edited RAW files. :confused:

[pdxflint]

I used to scan lots of film, and generally saved it as .tiff files, non-compressed. Some of these files were easily 28-30MB as saved files. If I would edit, and "save as" any of them converting to .jpg files keeping the originals intact, they might be 1, 2, 3 or 5 MB in size, depending on the .jpeg settings I used, and the complexity of the image (the more complex the image with little large areas of same tone/color the more 'data' required to be saved while compressing as .jpg)

If I were to re-open a saved .jpg file in photoshop and check the size of the file I was working on in the application, it would show something identical to, or very similar to the original .tiff image size. That's because photoshop uncompressed/decoded the image from .jpg format into some kind of 'temp' file in order to edit it. Once I "save" the changes, it would simply recompress back using the .jpg settings I had originally set, although now it's compressing a file that had been opened from a previously compressed file, complete with all the 'lost' data from that compression. So, again, it's tossing data out as it re-compresses back to the .jpg. Open it again, edit, and save again... more data lost. After two or three of these straight "save's" without preserving the original.... well, you get the picture. Yet, the file size would remain similar, especially when re-opened in photoshop, (i.e. decoded back to a 'temporary' .psd file, or whatever format it's in before saving.)

And... file size isn't really a matter of displayed/captured pixels - file sizes are defined in megabits or megabytes of data. Images can be described in various ways, depending on the intended output, and dimensions. Print is one thing, usually dpi and dimensions; screen display usually as pixel height and width. Neither have anything to do with describing file size.

Anyway... now my head hurts...;)

[compuwar]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

Yes, let's- LZW is lossless, not lossy compression.


IMO Canons next release after a 1D/1Ds update should be a D300 competitor, by either making the 60D more serious, or coming out with a new model, APS-C sensor in the 12MP range with great low light performance, very well built, very fast, with a more serious attempt at AF than their current 9-point system, priced at $1600 for the body only.

Canon and Nikon don't do "match the last body" arms races, and frankly we'd be much worse off if they did.

I've never seen a corrupted card in 40,000+ shots.


I've seen lots of corrupted cards, but I'm probably out in worse conditions- I probably average a card a year or so, but usually the older ones that I don't shoot that often because of their age/sizes.

My WB setting hasn't ever left "AWB"; what's the point? I'm going to process the RAWs later anyway, so I might as well do proper WB later on too.

The point is that many raw converters can apply that setting automatically so when you have to batch 5,000 pictures from an event you'll be able to let the computer do the work and may not have to go back and re-balance any of them depending on the lighting.