 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006RAW vs. RAW + JPEG
I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + JPEG? I also use PSE3 to organize and edit photos. I downloaded the latest RAW plugin. Will I be able to view the RAW photos in the organizer or will I have to change themto .psd files before this is possible? Thanks, Alan > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + > JPEG? The only option is lowest quality jpegs which is kind of a bummer. I copy over the jpegs first, sort through them, delete crappy ones, put seconds in a subfolder then copy back the choice jpegs back onto the disk as a guide to copy only those raw files because I'm impatient to wait for downloading and I'd fill up my hard drive too fast if I downloaded all of them. > I also use PSE3 to organize and edit photos. I downloaded the latest > RAW plugin. Will I be able to view the RAW photos in the organizer or > will I have to change themto .psd files before this is possible? > > Thanks, > Alan > > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wait for downloading and I'd fill up my hard drive too fast if I > downloaded all of them. I have a Rebel XT so the workflow is a little different since the JPEGS are highest quality, I'd actually like them lowest quality as the only thing I use the JPEGs for is to quickly throw images up on the web. When I want to watch TV I review my CF cards on a laptop (that doesn't have a RAW converter) so I look at the JPGs and delete unwanted files direct from the CF card. When I have just the keepers or possible keepers then I take that CF card to my Mac desktop and go to town. > > I also use PSE3 to organize and edit photos. I downloaded the latest > > RAW plugin. Will I be able to view the RAW photos in the organizer or > > will I have to change themto .psd files before this is possible? I believe you can view the images in the organizer if you have the RAW plugin installed but I haven't used PSE3 for awhile. Greg >I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + >JPEG? There is all ready a jpeg image stored in the raw file. Here's a link to some software which can extract it. http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/ No need to waste space on the card in the camera!  SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >>What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/ >No need to waste space on the card in the camera! Wrong. The thumbnail in the Raw isn't what you get when you shot a JPEG only in camera. Your RAW data is forever lost as it's converted to a JPEG by what ever parameters you have set in the camera. JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color space. The only way to work is with RAW in a ProPhoto color space and at a full 16bits. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >>>What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >JPEG only in camera. Your RAW data is forever lost as it's converted >to a JPEG by what ever parameters you have set in the camera. Pull you head out of your a** and read what was posted. There is a full jpeg in the raw data so there is no need to show raw+jpeg. Nothing was said about shooting in jpeg only! SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color >space. The bits of 12 RAW and the compressed 8-bits-per-channel of JPEG are completely different things. Your statement makes it sound like the 4 least significant bits are dropped, but it is much more complicated than that. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >least significant bits are dropped, but it is much more complicated than >that. Yes, it is but using any form of a JPEG is throwing data away.. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Yes, it is but using any form of a JPEG is throwing data away.. Your eyes throw away data too, why don't you gouge them out? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, it is but using any form of a JPEG is throwing data away.. I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? Because you may not need to if using a Nikon? http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/ SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >>I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? > > Because you may not need to if using a Nikon? > http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/ I still wouldn't. Why go through an extra step when I can have the JPG readily available on this OpenBSD laptop? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? You have more and better images with RAW. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? > >You have more and better images with RAW. But he already said he has *more* than enough storage, so an increase has no value. Regardless, what you say is not true for most cameras, if configured correctly. Saving every file as both RAW and as JPEG uses less space for *all* of the JPEGs than 1 or 2 RAW images need! Or, rather, that will be true if it is done right (with the size and quality of the JPEG adjusted for something appropriately small). Of course anyone who shoots RAW+JPG and actually *uses* the JPEG for anything other than a large thumbnail is spinning a lot of wheels in the wrong direction! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You have more and better images with RAW. Big f.cking deal. I don't need better images in my JPGs. I use them for workflow and quick snapshots to the web. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You have more and better images with RAW. That said, setting my camera to store RAW + a tiny (RAW+S2 on my 1Dm2 is 8-9MB for the RAW & only 500-800KB for the JPEG) is quite handy, because the JPEGs open both faster & with more software than y RAW files, so they make a handy "quick index / contact sheet" when I'm trying to find particular photos in my increasingly scary collection of archive disks. :) Also, it means I can quickly burn copies of one or two archive disks (DVD-Rs) & be able to view them on on other peoples' computers without needing to install any RAW software on them. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- John A Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:53:53 -0800, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> >>> Yes, it is but using any form of a JPEG is throwing data away.. >>I have more than enough storage so why should I not do RAW+JPG? > You have more and better images with RAW. If he has a 1 GB card (probably good for 80-90 exposures) and makes just 40 exposures, How will he have more than 40 images with RAW-without-JPEG? How will he have any better images with RAW-without-JPEG? Care to explain? -Wolfgang >>>JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. >>>You've thrown out 4 bits of color data and gone to a smaller color [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, it is but using any form of a JPEG is throwing data away.. Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with no adjustments. I can tell no difference from the tiff and low compression jpeg, no matter how close I look. Print them both out, no difference can be seen even with a magnifying glass. I abandoned raw some time ago >Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with >no adjustments. Really? Then why do people get such different results from different RAW converters? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with >>no adjustments. > >Really? Then why do people get such different results from different >RAW converters? He most have low standards for prints. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with >>no adjustments. > >Really? Then why do people get such different results from different >RAW converters? If this is a worry, use a raw converter that uses the in camera settings at the time as the defaults. You will then get what the camera will have gotten as jpeg, especially if using the camera manufacturers's converter. SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>>Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with >>>no adjustments. >>Really? Then why do people get such different results from different >>RAW converters? > >If this is a worry, use a raw converter that uses the in camera settings at >the time as the defaults. You will then get what the camera will have >gotten as jpeg, especially if using the camera manufacturers's converter. I replied to someone who said RAW conversion is the same as the JPEG with the defaults. I then asked why different converters give different results, to pick argue that statement. Context is king. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff >>>>with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with the defaults. I then asked why different converters give different > results, to pick argue that statement. Context is king. I didn't suggest they were the same, I said the difference is not noticeable. I now only use RAW if it's a shot I'm spending a lot of time setting up. 98% of my work is now jpeg (fine setting of course.) My workflow is far easier and my results are just fine. >I replied to someone who said RAW conversion is the same as the JPEG >with the defaults. I then asked why different converters give different >results, to pick argue that statement. Context is king. Not as you edited the OP. If that was the case you need ed to add more of your quoting of the OP. SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff with > no adjustments. If that's all you're doing with the raw file, then yeah, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in shooting raw. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff >> with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > absolutely > no point whatsoever in shooting raw. Precisely. I used to do the editing thing, now I rarely do. >>> Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff >>> with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Precisely. I used to do the editing thing, now I rarely do. Is there supposed to be some significance to that? Is that the way *everyone* should do it? Is that the way *I* should do it? Is that what the OP or Jeremy should do? Or is that just nothing more than a bit of trivia, which isn't even interesting? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>> Take a RAW/JPEG combo, open the raw in the raw editor and save as tiff >>>> with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or is that just nothing more than a bit of trivia, which isn't > even interesting? Too many questions.....floyd John A Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote: > JPEG is just about the worst format for storing any image possible. You prefer GIF? BMP (in 8 bit per channel)? Any 1-bit-per-pixel format? > You've thrown out 4 bits of color data You've compressed away some bits that your eye wouldn't be able to distinguish any way. > and gone to a smaller color space. That, surely, depends on the colour space before turning to JPEG. > The only way to work is with RAW in a ProPhoto color space and > at a full 16bits. I gather that David Douglas Duncan, whom you quote in your .sig, did not use ProPhoto, did not use any bits, especially not 16 and did not use RAW. I understand he didn't even use _COLOUR_! Care to tell him that his way of working was not only wrong, but completely, physically and morally, impossible and stupid, and that he did not take pictures? That he, at best, produced some snapshots? Care to tell the webmaster of the HRC Online Exibition that he is not doing his work right, since the images being displayed there ... are JPEGs? -Wolfgang >I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + >JPEG? Read this and you'll never use a JPEG again. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >>What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + >>JPEG? > >Read this and you'll never use a JPEG again. Missed the paste. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml There go and stop using JPEG and throwing data away... ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >>>What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Missed the paste. You've been missing a *lot* more than just the paste... :-) >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml > >There go and stop using JPEG and throwing data away... >********************************************************** Shooting RAW+JPEG does *not* throw away any data. The OP never suggested, or asked about, shooting JPEG only as opposed to RAW only. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >>>>What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >suggested, or asked about, shooting JPEG only as opposed to RAW >only. They JPEG throws away data so why waste space with it. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ John A Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:33:17 -0900, Floyd Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> >>Shooting RAW+JPEG does *not* throw away any data. The OP never >>suggested, or asked about, shooting JPEG only as opposed to RAW >>only. > They JPEG throws away data so why waste space with it. Your argument only holds if the added data produced by the JPEG (e.g. 430k for every 7,3+MB RAW, that's less than 6%![1]) is critical. However, if you are THAT short of storage that 6% makes a difference, you REALLY better use the smaller JPEGs! In other words, if your argument makes sense, using RAW doesn't make sense. On the other hand, these JPEGs are usable for judging composition and (usually) sharpness, they display *much* faster in many more viewers, are still too large enough for the Web, etc. Yes, you could batch-convert all RAWs to JPEGs first. Which is no problem for a few dozen images --- but how long does it take for a few hundred or thousand images? -Wolfgang [1] Canon 20D, RAW + "small" normal JPEG. >I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. >What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + >JPEG? More than anything else it depends on your particular work style. I have one camera which does not have a RAW+JPEG mode and one camera that does. With the one that does not, when I copy the CF card to a hard disk, I then run a batch process that generates JPEG files. It takes about 1 second per image, so if there are 120 images I'm waiting for 2 minutes... With the camera that does have a RAW+JPEG mode that two minutes wait time is spread over time I'm using the camera and adds a slight addition to the time transferring the CF card files to the hard disk, so I'm not annoyed by it as much as the wait time with the other camera. I'd class that in the realm of insignificant differences... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + > JPEG? I dont shoot with RAW + JPEG. I have the Microsoft RAW viewer powertoy installed, and that lets me view RAW thumbnails (although not Adbove DNGs.. yet). And for sorting/deleting, I use RSE anyway. I generally prefer to post-process my images myself anyway, so having pre-done JPEGs isnt a huge help anyway. So as you can see, the JPEGs dont do anything to speed up my workflow. With the cameras where I cannot turn them off (like the LX1), I simply delete them first thing. Vandit > I have the Microsoft RAW viewer powertoy installed, and that lets me > view RAW thumbnails (although not Adbove DNGs.. yet). Try renaming *.DNG to *.TIF and see if it will open then :) > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Alan Hi Alan, have you thought of downloading Microsoft's Raw Image Viewer plug-in (assuming you are using Win XP)? You can view RAW images in My Pictures, or basically anywhere then. You would still need the right RAW plug-in in PSE to actually open and work on the image though. Regards, Brian > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks, > Alan The JPEGS in RAW+JPEG are low resolution. I use this mode when on vacationn etc, as I have a quick jpeg (read, little or no post processing) that I can quickly emaill or post to a website for anyone who might be interested... which is likely few anyway :) . The rest of the time I trun off the jpeg option. I use a USB2.0 reader and just drag the pics from the card into a "RAW CAMERA" direcotry on my hard drive. I use Mac OS X Tiger which shows the NEF images in the Finder window while browsing. I use Adobe CS2 and Bridge to browse or Nkon Capture 4 to browse and toss the obviously bad. I don't know about PSE3 and RAW. Apple has built raw processing into the OS and all its applications. Which RAW filters do I like best? Nikon's works real well in Capture and it doesn't make any changes to the underlying file. Adobe's Camera RAW also works very well and offers some excellent fine tuning on the way in. In Photshop, I prefer Adobe's Camera RAW to Nikon's Adobe plug-in. Apple's RAW convertors have no control, but they seem do a decent job for the applications invloved. Once the photo has been edited it gets saved as a photoshop or tiff depending on its use. The NEF raw files get archived to DVD. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo > I am a novice with a D70S and want to begin experimenting with RAW. > What are the practical applications of just shooting RAW versus RAW + > JPEG? Not much point in it for most people. Some news photographers like it because it lets them immediately send a low quality JPEG for their editor to review and they still have the NEF file for the photos selected by the editor. Some amateurs do something similar. Most photo organizers read the JPEGs faster than the NEF files, so you review the JPEGS and then just import the NEF files you want. Apple Aperture is designed from the ground up to work with RAW files, but it is even slower than Bridge. Adobe's new workflow organizer might be more promising. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.