CP8800 Image mode information please

I'm interested in learning more about the image mode's available on the CP8800.

I have been using RAW - though I hate the horrendous wait times - for photos I want to have the most control over. So far I'm not convinced that this is giving me any great advantage over EXTRA, but I'm interested in learning.

I don't see any use for HI mode, because it takes way more space/time than RAW, and offers less authentic data.

I have used EXTRA since I bought the camera in February. It was my first choice as the most logical compromize between quality and speed. It may still be the best choice for me.

FINE, NORMAL and BASIC seem to offer progressively higher compression of the JPG data. When I have studied these in the past, I found that, yes, you can find differences, but most of them are not noticeable in the printed image until you get really high compression, higher than any of these, I think.

Sooooooo... from a practical point of view, are there any suggestions about the real differences among these modes?

Thanks

I've been using FINE, which I feel is a good balance of quality and speed. I don't see the use of HI or EXTRA -- if you're going to wait that long you might as well shoot RAW. Also, I couldn't tell any difference between EXTRA and FINE except in the file size.

As a reminder, the compression ratios are:

EXTRA 1:2
FINE 1:4
NORM 1:8
BASIC 1:16

I also use FINE. Seems to be pretty artifact-free to me. A good balance.
--
Darlene
My main cameras - Nikon 5700 and 8800
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

Thanks, both of you - exactly the kind of answers I was hoping for.

I generally use Extra for most wildlife/insect shots and raw if I think I'm going to "use" the picture or want to do serious post-processing.

On vacation I shot 400 to 500 snapshots jpeg extrahigh (about 2.4 Gb) target - web or 5x7 maybe a few 8x10

Today I had a 6-hour livingroom foamcore/lightbox session for some long-term projects, and shot about 120 (mostly raw) pictures, but I now have about a week or more post-processing ahead of me. Target size is 11x14 or bigger.

Bill
web52

Have you ever noticed a difference between Extra and fine? - I shot the same scene twice (a complex landscape), once in each mode and couldn't tell the difference

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/arizona
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/grand_canyon
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/arizona_flowers
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, D-50, (pbase supporter)
PAS #19, MAA

I only use RAW when I do shots for others, or special events. For travel I use fine or extra. I see a difference when I do post work on shots. It seems to me that the less the compression the better the results in post (PS) work.
Good question.
John D.

I haven't done any testing like you did with the two landscapes, and that is exactly what I am interested in knowing - the results of any tests like that. Yours are quite convincing for me to use FINE.

I think most photographers feel that a really good shot is inherently better if it is done in the very best mode - and technically I guess it is. There are shots I have taken in RAW that I am so pleased with that I take extra satisfaction knowing they couldn't have been made better in this way.

But is it really worth it? If I had taken the same shot in FINE, would anyone ever be able to see the difference? If so, how? And, would I have got another even better shot in the 12 seconds I waited for the RAW shot to get written to the card, when a FINE shot would have been written in a fraction of the time? Obviously, there are advantages on both sides of these questions. But I am interested in knowing the real, practical advantages to using the lower compression or RAW modes.

Thanks for your answer.

Could you expand a little on the differences you see in PS work? Could you post an example that I might be able to relate to?

I don't question that there is a difference... there has to be. But I'm interested in knowing the kind of difference that makes viewing the same photo done in different modes a different experience, even if it is so subtle that a person wouldn't be able to put his finger on what was causing the better or worse experience.

For example, a broader dynamic range is a type of differnce that a person can't really point to in any part of a photo, but makes a real difference in the appreciation of the photo.

I have been using Raw Shooter Essentials to process my RAW shots. I haven't figured out how to make the best use of that program yet, but I see it has excellent, though subtle, potential. Photoshop seems to allow much more extreme alterations. What advantages will I eventually be able to find using RAW and processing with RSE compared to FINE and processing with PS?

CanadianCoolPix said:

I have been using Raw Shooter Essentials to process my RAW shots.
I haven't figured out how to make the best use of that program yet,
but I see it has excellent, though subtle, potential. Photoshop
seems to allow much more extreme alterations. What advantages will
I eventually be able to find using RAW and processing with RSE
compared to FINE and processing with PS?

Click to expand...

Consider that every image the camera captures is initially captured as a RAW file. If the camera has been set to one of the JPEG file types or TIF, the camera will do it's best to process the initial RAW image, collapse it down to 8 bits per channel and compress the image according to the chosen level of compression.

Once this has been done, the ability to carry out further edits will be somewhat limited compared to what could have been done with the original RAW file at 12 bits per channel. In many cases, the camera can do a perfectly good job editing the image on it's own, but in cases where you'd rather have the additional control, shooting RAW files is the only way to maintain that level of control. Once you've finished editing the RAW file it will eventually need to be converted to an 8 bit TIF or JPEG before it can be printed or published on the web, and whatever differences exist between the RAW file that you've converted vs one that the camera has converted will depend on any differences in editing choices made, either by you or by the camera itself.

In short, whatever advantage the RAW file format offer lies in the formats enhanced potential during editing. Once any editing has been completed, we're left with an 8 bit image that isn't particularly different than any 8 bit image the camera could have produced on it's own.

--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

Tom, your posts are always right on target and helpful. Thanks.

I've been experimenting for a few months with raw vs jpeg. (with my 8800--way too big files for me, and my nikon 3700 with hacked firmware that gives me 4.5 meg raw files. I adjust them in a combination of RawSE, PS 7, and Picasa. At first it took me a Long time to get the colors right. They looked quite different with each program. I am getting a bit better now and quicker. Where I really notice improvements over compressed files from the camera is in the range of color available and the possibility of opening up the shadows. If your photo needs greater dynamic range and big color choices go RAW.

Example--take a near sunset pix to the east where you have some clouds, a white and grey cloud sky, and some dark shadows in the foreground. (you had to get dark shadows to hope to expose the sky and get more than blown out sky). (Take a jpeg one too for comparison.) With raw the shadows open up and the colors that you hardly noticed in the sky can be enhanced in many different ways. Sort of like painting. A little more red, or yellow, or blue, etc. Much fun but time consuming unless you really like to play with your pictures. Raw is definately a must have but only for some shots.
--
ireno

These are really interesting and informative comments about the potential of the RAW mode image.

I realize this is a process, and specific comparisons are not necessarily informative. However for the sake of those who haven't got the facility with their editing to find these differences, does anyone have example images processed from RAW that illustrate some cases of these advantages? It would be great to see effects in a particular scene that are possible from RAW, but not possible from the camera produced jpeg file.