 Senior Member
 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 1,608
|
For a better understanding of RAW, I'd like to point fellow Yoppers to THIS comprehensive article. It also outlines the pros and cons of shooting RAW vs JPEG.
Apparently Nikon & Kodak use a lossy compression algorithm when saving raw files
Apparently Nikon & Kodak use a lossy compression algorithm when saving raw files
|
Kit 1 Canon 5D MKII Canon 400mm f5.6 L Canon 70-200mm f4.0 L Canon 17-40mm f4.0 L |
Kit 2 Canon 50d |
 Admin Team
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 15,385
 |
Cheers Dj will have a look - but they are already wrong on one point, my Nikon has three settings for RAW:
Uncompressed
Lossless compressed
Compressed
Uncompressed
Lossless compressed
Compressed
|
Kit 1 Nikon D300 Nikon 55-200mm VR |
Kit 2 Nikon D40 Nikon 18-55mm |
|
|
My Compact/P&S: Panasonic Lumix TZ7 |
|
Junior Member
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 12
|
I forgot to mention recovering burnt out areas. One of the big advantages. It can also be done later, but better in Raw.
Nav
Nav
|
Junior Member
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azz
Spot the difference: Which one was shot in jpeg and which one was shot in Raw?
Can you tell the difference?
Camera was set to shoot in RAW and Large Fine Jpeg.
Jpeg was opened and saved in CS3.
Raw opened in Nikons own software and exported as jpeg.
Both resized to 1290 pixels wide, both saved at highest quality settings.
Can you tell the difference?
Camera was set to shoot in RAW and Large Fine Jpeg.
Jpeg was opened and saved in CS3.
Raw opened in Nikons own software and exported as jpeg.
Both resized to 1290 pixels wide, both saved at highest quality settings.
Not easy to see. I had to look at the histograms to see if there was any difference. Even so, I was'nt sure - so I cheated
and looked at the Exif.Nav
 Senior Member
 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 4,033
|
Azz. Lossless compressed was introduced onto the D300, earlier Nikons dont have that 
|
Admin Team
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 15,385
|
Ah right thanks K, in that case I will use compressed on my D300. If it's good enough for the D200 it's good enough for me! 
Nav - you're meant to use the naked eye to tell, which was my point - you can't tell the difference just by looking at it
Nav - you're meant to use the naked eye to tell, which was my point - you can't tell the difference just by looking at it
|
Kit 1 Nikon D300 Nikon 55-200mm VR |
Kit 2 Nikon D40 Nikon 18-55mm |
|
|
My Compact/P&S: Panasonic Lumix TZ7 |
|
Junior Member
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 12
|
What you should do is provide a shot, not perfect from the box. You keep the jpg.
Give us the raw file. Even Picasa opens Raw files now.
Then we can preprocess the raw and return it, converted into dng (Adobes dng converter is free and doesn't change anything) and we dont have to remember to embedd the metadata file with the corrections.
The the dngs can be compared with your jpg. The aim will be to determine the best starting point for postprocessing.
Nav
Give us the raw file. Even Picasa opens Raw files now.
Then we can preprocess the raw and return it, converted into dng (Adobes dng converter is free and doesn't change anything) and we dont have to remember to embedd the metadata file with the corrections.
The the dngs can be compared with your jpg. The aim will be to determine the best starting point for postprocessing.
Nav
|
Admin Team
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 15,385
|
But what if you don't want to 'waste' time post processing? I just want to take shots and be able to quickly and easily post them on the web with little or no PP
By sticking with jpeg (or raw and your cameras own editing suite) you don't need to faff around as much
By sticking with jpeg (or raw and your cameras own editing suite) you don't need to faff around as much
|
Kit 1 Nikon D300 Nikon 55-200mm VR |
Kit 2 Nikon D40 Nikon 18-55mm |
|
|
My Compact/P&S: Panasonic Lumix TZ7 |
|
Junior Member
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 12
|
Well, time is important, It is all about workflow. I load the "keeper" raw file in bridge and generally spend a minute or two before I transfer it to CS. Where I do the remaining postprocessing. I'm not a good enough photgrapher to get away without any processing. Besides, I enyoy it. Anyway - the time spent preprocessing the Raw image is not added to the time I would spend postprocessing. Sometimes the total processing time is shorter, because somethings are much easier/quicker done in Raw. Sometimes, all I do in postprocessing is sharpening.
Tom
Tom
|
Senior Member
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: uk/usa
Posts: 10,146
|
I am more confused than ever
I bought Practical Photgraphy as it has a huge guide to shooting in RAW, so I have been reading that.
From what I can understand from what you experienced people are saying, it is personal preference, and if you like to fiddle about with the images , then RAW gives you more scope and room. Have I got that right?
I bought Practical Photgraphy as it has a huge guide to shooting in RAW, so I have been reading that.
From what I can understand from what you experienced people are saying, it is personal preference, and if you like to fiddle about with the images , then RAW gives you more scope and room. Have I got that right?