Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: boku on May 31, 2004, 08:31:05 pm

Title: shooting raw
Post by: boku on May 31, 2004, 08:31:05 pm

[font color=\'#000000\']Please read this:

http://www.kulon.net/imaging_right_frame_whyraw.html (http://www.kulon.net/imaging_right_frame_whyraw.html)

I collected these pearls of wisdom and have been happily shooting RAW ever since.[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: dlashier on May 31, 2004, 11:17:39 pm

[font color=\'#000000\']> I just don't see the difference.

Some images won't be that different but others are night and day, both regarding color and tonality. If you don't see this in at least some images then perhaps you just aren't as demanding or discriminating as some of us. Sometimes whether the difference matters or not depends on intended use. This is aside from the ability to correct EC and WB after the fact, which can be hugh - or inconsequential if your need is basically for snapshots.

- DL[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: Dan Sroka on June 01, 2004, 07:53:53 am

[font color=\'#000000\']Your camera has a number of attributes it sets when you take the picture: including such things as exposure, white balance, sharpness. When you take a JPEG, these attributes are locked into the image. When you take a raw image, these attributes are still directly editable (through your raw processing software). This gives you more control over these attributes, which sometimes is a big deal.

If your style of photography works well with JPEG, then don't worry about shooting raw. JPEG has the advantage of compression, which is why it is often used by sports photographers. But if you find yourself manipulating your files a lot, you should try , since it lets you edit those basic attributes without degrading the image data.

Dan[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: Fabrice C. on June 03, 2004, 05:50:15 am

[font color=\'#000000\']What takes a lot of time when taking raw files is the actual writing on the medium. Jpeg files are much smaller and thus do not take a long time. Processing raw to Jpeg while it is on the memory buffer is quick as there are some dedicated microprocessors for this. Now you will probably ask why it is so slow to convert from raw to Jpeg on a desktop computer which is supposed to be much more powerful than a camera.. one of the answers is that your desktop computer utilises a microprocessors that has not been designed to do uniquely jpeg compression. Also since most people utilizing a raw converter expect high quality, raw converters are bundeled with a much more complicated algorithms for processing the raw files (the actual Jpeg conversion is very quick).

Fabrice[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: lenzzzcap on May 31, 2004, 08:08:27 pm

[font color=\'#000000\']I have always shot in jpg and happy with the results. Anyone reading here would be tempted to shoot raw, it is suppose to be better. Well I tried it, using the converter in breezebrowzer, it worked well but slow. Now I am using C1, faster and no complaints.
I just don't see the difference. Jpg was faster and a few less steps.                                                                         RAW is better because ???? More information, but where will I see it. In print or on screen? I have not printed anything raw yet, just moved,printer not set up. So what is it I am looking for that will show me why I need to take two more steps in conversion and store these larger files.[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: Ray on May 31, 2004, 10:53:26 pm

[font color=\'#000000\']The link doesn't work. Generally, RAW allows you to extend the dynamic range of your camera and better fix up mistakes in the shooting, such as underexposure or overexposure. There are also lots of other minor issues which you probably wouldn't notice if the lighting conditions of the shot were not demanding.[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: jwarthman on May 31, 2004, 11:23:39 pm

[font color=\'#000000\']

Quote

The link doesn't work.

Actually, the link worked for me - although it took quite a long time for the page to come up.

And I agree, RAW provides many opportunities to "fix" shots which, if captured in JPG, might show visible artifacts of having "fixed" them.

Of course, if all your shots are perfect, spot on...

Enjoy!

-- Jim[/font]

Title: shooting raw
Post by: HiltonP on June 03, 2004, 03:57:50 am

[font color=\'#000000\']A question arising from the link shown above . . . If we're saying that all digital cameras capture RAW anyway, and then convert the images to JPG, then why is it that RAW's are slow to be written to the card while JPG's are quick?  It should be the other way around.



Even if we accept that a JPG is a lower quality image the camera is still capturing the full RAW image, reducing it (dropping detail?), interpolating it, and writing it . . . in less time than it takes to simply capture the original RAW file.



If this is not the case, then what am I missing?

 

Regards, HILTON[/font]