Alaing
Member
I've read a lot of things about these two formats on the G2. I'm curious what people are using.
What are you using as your standard?
What are you using as your standard?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RAW vs. Super-fine JPEG
- Thread starter Alaing
- Start date
I'm a new G2 owner and have so far shot 200+ pictures, about a dozen of which are in RAW format. I have found the large Super-fine JPEG setting produces virtually flawless images and apropriate for all the situations that I have shot under so far- constrained by the exposure decisions either I made or let the camera make.
The beauty of the RAW format is that it gives you control over post processing (if you don't trust the camera's processing decisions, or your own), and uses lossless compression so you can store more of them on the CF card.
The beauty of the RAW format is that it gives you control over post processing (if you don't trust the camera's processing decisions, or your own), and uses lossless compression so you can store more of them on the CF card.
StevePas
Active member
Hi - I use SuperFine/JPEG. I don't see a noticable difference between RAW and SF JPEG in the few tests I've done, even when highly magnifying in Photoshop 7. I'd suggest running a few tests yourself and doing your own comparison... It was also fun doing so 
Hope this helps, Steve
Hope this helps, Steve
I shot RAW only. Yes super fine JPEG is acceptable for most of people doing snap shot. RAW is the only way I can adjust white balance afterwards, and I can tell you AWB is normally wrong. Also I can do linear export for RAW image which allow me to rescure some of the picture where part of the picture is over exposed. RAW is the sensor reading dump and have no camera post processing applied and therefore is the equivalent of digital negative.
As far and quality difference is concerned, if you print large size, RAW and super fine JPEG's difference is noticeable. Not a lot, but for me, why mess w/ nothing but the best.
--
Phoenix
http://photo.vitsco.com
As far and quality difference is concerned, if you print large size, RAW and super fine JPEG's difference is noticeable. Not a lot, but for me, why mess w/ nothing but the best.
--
Phoenix
http://photo.vitsco.com
alfred_schiele
Senior Member
Hi!
I normally use JPG
RAW has some minor advantages but to me normally not worth the additional space.
Yes you can decide WB later as well as some processing camera parameters like contrast, saturation and sharpness. The most interesting setting - exposure compensation - isn't availiable...
I prefer "low contrast" / "sharpness 0" / "saturation normal"
I would recommend RAW for cases where you are not sure about the settings or when a maximum flexibility and quality is needed.
Regards, A. Schiele
I normally use JPG
RAW has some minor advantages but to me normally not worth the additional space.
Yes you can decide WB later as well as some processing camera parameters like contrast, saturation and sharpness. The most interesting setting - exposure compensation - isn't availiable...
I prefer "low contrast" / "sharpness 0" / "saturation normal"
I would recommend RAW for cases where you are not sure about the settings or when a maximum flexibility and quality is needed.
Regards, A. Schiele
alfred_schiele
Senior Member
Hi
And what does any WB help (either during shot or afterwards) if you have portions with sunny and shadowed portions? You can only adjust to one part and the other is always wrong...
But I agree that AWB is not the best solution, I prefer mostly the presets.
Regards, A. Schiele
Yes, best quality choice.
This sounds a bit picky...
If you are very critical all colours are always wrong...
And what does any WB help (either during shot or afterwards) if you have portions with sunny and shadowed portions? You can only adjust to one part and the other is always wrong...
But I agree that AWB is not the best solution, I prefer mostly the presets.
There it should be weighted the effort against the value. This is indeed a very personal issue.
For large prints I agree. Just for interest, what would you call "large"?
Regards, A. Schiele
Ruffian
Senior Member
If you're a coucher (read: lazy) or you're one of those guys who couldn't afford a 256mb card, then use SF Large.
If you like work (umm, how many of you REALLY like work?) or are shooting something like fireworks, RAW is better.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2
Maybe I haven't shot enough pics with this camera yet, but I don't think that the G2's AWB is that bad. It is easy to set manually anyway, and I find the results are very predictable.
B
Bob Williams
Guest
Shoot a jpg. Then shoot it again in RAW. Convert the RAW, saving
it as a 48 bit tiff. Open it in your editor. Open the Jpg, and compare
the color in the two shots. Convert the 24 bit Jpg to 48 bit and
compare them. Convert the RAW file again, saving it as a 24 bit
tiff. Open that file beside the others, and convert it back to
48 bit. If you don't see which file is clearly superior to the others,
then there is not reason for you to use RAW. Superfine is
very acceptable, but it is also far from the best your camera can
produce. Play with the files anyway you wish, but the superiority
of the RAW files with remain.
it as a 48 bit tiff. Open it in your editor. Open the Jpg, and compare
the color in the two shots. Convert the 24 bit Jpg to 48 bit and
compare them. Convert the RAW file again, saving it as a 24 bit
tiff. Open that file beside the others, and convert it back to
48 bit. If you don't see which file is clearly superior to the others,
then there is not reason for you to use RAW. Superfine is
very acceptable, but it is also far from the best your camera can
produce. Play with the files anyway you wish, but the superiority
of the RAW files with remain.
I tents to disagree. I have G2 as well as a D30 (with the G2 being kind of a backup camera) and both suffer greatly from WB unless you are shooting under an average sunny day. Although again it's a personal thing.
--
Phoenix
http://photo.vitsco.com
--
Phoenix
http://photo.vitsco.com
I agree most of what I said is kind of personal choice. But then again, I have a Canon D30 as well as the G2 so I normally adopt the same work flow with both D30 and G2.
As for "large" prints, I regularly prints 13" x 19".
--
Phoenix
http://photo.vitsco.com
James_with_C_5050
Senior Member
I believe that RAW (not JPEG) is the only format that is equivalent to negative film. What is recorded in RAW is what the camera 'see's. So I don't see why I should give up this RAW format. I don't have a D60, D30 or G2 but only a S30 and have so far shot more than 3,000 photos with this little S30, all in RAW and in RAW only. I don't see I will ever try the JPEG format at all.
If the RAW format is not needed at all, perhaps it should not be offered in the very first place regardless your camera is a D60, D30 or G2?
James
If the RAW format is not needed at all, perhaps it should not be offered in the very first place regardless your camera is a D60, D30 or G2?
James
Gary Berg
Senior Member
It seems to me that RAW mode has three main advantages:
1) It is a lossless compression of the data. My understanding is that SF JPEG is very good (consider that the files are about 50-75% of the size of RAW), but you are throwing away tiny bits of detail and introducing tiny bits of JPEG artifacts. Neither of which you will likely notice unless you go past 8x10.
2) RAW allows you to "redo" white balance, sharpening, contrast, and saturation after the image is moved to your computer. This is an advantage to someone who will go to the effort of the processing required.
3) RAW carries more bits of information than JPEG - JPEG is 8, and RAW is 10 (or 12??). So if you convert RAW to 16-bit (or better) TIF you can make huge changes to the exposure and still have a full range of brightness in the resulting colors. If your JPEG has 256 possible variants of red (that's 8 bits), and you have to throw half of them away, you've thrown away a "bit" of smoothness in color range. If you have a RAW image, with 10 bits to represent color variation, you can throw half of the possible colors away and still have one more bit of color data than in JPEG.
It appears to me that if you have a good exposure, with a good range of light through dark, that JPEG will capture an image as "good" as RAW, as long as you got the right white balance (manually or automatically).
1) It is a lossless compression of the data. My understanding is that SF JPEG is very good (consider that the files are about 50-75% of the size of RAW), but you are throwing away tiny bits of detail and introducing tiny bits of JPEG artifacts. Neither of which you will likely notice unless you go past 8x10.
2) RAW allows you to "redo" white balance, sharpening, contrast, and saturation after the image is moved to your computer. This is an advantage to someone who will go to the effort of the processing required.
3) RAW carries more bits of information than JPEG - JPEG is 8, and RAW is 10 (or 12??). So if you convert RAW to 16-bit (or better) TIF you can make huge changes to the exposure and still have a full range of brightness in the resulting colors. If your JPEG has 256 possible variants of red (that's 8 bits), and you have to throw half of them away, you've thrown away a "bit" of smoothness in color range. If you have a RAW image, with 10 bits to represent color variation, you can throw half of the possible colors away and still have one more bit of color data than in JPEG.
It appears to me that if you have a good exposure, with a good range of light through dark, that JPEG will capture an image as "good" as RAW, as long as you got the right white balance (manually or automatically).
B
Bob Williams
Guest
My mother turns her camera on, shoots, downloads them to
the computer, and other than sizing or interpolation,and all she
has ever used is instant fix in photo deluxe for editing. I doubt
that she even knows that her camera has a tiff mode, and I
also doubt that she has ever changed the image size, or jpg
compression level from what I set it at the day she opened the
box. She could not edit in 48 bit if she wanted and knew how
to, since she has no such software, and does not intend to spend
any money on software. For her, a RAW format would be
a completely useless option.
I shoot in RAW most of the time. If an image needs any real
editing, I convert the tiff to 48 bit mode in PP to edit, and convert
back for the final touch. I run most G1 ISO 50 images thru Neat
Image to clean up the backgrounds, and all ISO 100 images. I
have PP, PS le, and several ather editing packages on my machine
that each are superior to the others for certain jobs, and may
actually edit in three different programs on some images.
What works and is appropriate for one user, is not always
appropriate for the next user. I long ago realized that as I get
better at editing, and learn new methods, that I needed the
very best images possible to start with as my starting point.
For me, and the processes I use, that is RAW. For someone else,
it may be medium resolution heavily compressed jpg files. No RAW
format, is a deal breaker for me. My mother would never use it.
the computer, and other than sizing or interpolation,and all she
has ever used is instant fix in photo deluxe for editing. I doubt
that she even knows that her camera has a tiff mode, and I
also doubt that she has ever changed the image size, or jpg
compression level from what I set it at the day she opened the
box. She could not edit in 48 bit if she wanted and knew how
to, since she has no such software, and does not intend to spend
any money on software. For her, a RAW format would be
a completely useless option.
I shoot in RAW most of the time. If an image needs any real
editing, I convert the tiff to 48 bit mode in PP to edit, and convert
back for the final touch. I run most G1 ISO 50 images thru Neat
Image to clean up the backgrounds, and all ISO 100 images. I
have PP, PS le, and several ather editing packages on my machine
that each are superior to the others for certain jobs, and may
actually edit in three different programs on some images.
What works and is appropriate for one user, is not always
appropriate for the next user. I long ago realized that as I get
better at editing, and learn new methods, that I needed the
very best images possible to start with as my starting point.
For me, and the processes I use, that is RAW. For someone else,
it may be medium resolution heavily compressed jpg files. No RAW
format, is a deal breaker for me. My mother would never use it.
Jim B (MSP)
Forum Pro
Well said.
I use Raw 95% of the time.
If I am taking "snapshots", I use jpeg. As long as I set the wb correectly, I get very good pictures.
If I am taking "photographs", I use RAW. I then can produce the best output.
--
Jim
Frank Nichols
Senior Member
I agree with most of what you say - but I do take exception to comment #2. Why can't I adjust white balance, sharpening and contrast? I can easily open the jpeg in PS and do what I want to it. Also, I can convert the 8bit data to 16 bit data and have my own way there - which will help preserve some of the "lost" information you mention in #3. Athough I agree starting with 10 or 12 bits is "better", but lets not forget that for years all people had in digital processing was 8 bits (wasnt 16 bit introduced in PS in version 6?) - and they produced some very excellent work.
And while the RAW vs JPEG issue seems to have reached religious levels, it should be remembered that RAW is anything but - as a hardware engineer I can assure you that the data you are getting is far from "RAW" sensor data. Serious processing has gone into it to get it into something resembiling a picture. The JPEG simply adds some default adjustments that "most" point and shooters find more than acceptable. If you want/need to do post processing, then there is no real advantage to JPEG since you are probably going to make similar types of adjustments yourself anyway.
One of the basic postulates of post processing is to do as LITTLE and a FEW changes as possible, since almost every change results in some data loss. Therefore, using a JPEG instead of RAW starts you off with one set of adjustments more than you may need.
fn
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
And while the RAW vs JPEG issue seems to have reached religious levels, it should be remembered that RAW is anything but - as a hardware engineer I can assure you that the data you are getting is far from "RAW" sensor data. Serious processing has gone into it to get it into something resembiling a picture. The JPEG simply adds some default adjustments that "most" point and shooters find more than acceptable. If you want/need to do post processing, then there is no real advantage to JPEG since you are probably going to make similar types of adjustments yourself anyway.
One of the basic postulates of post processing is to do as LITTLE and a FEW changes as possible, since almost every change results in some data loss. Therefore, using a JPEG instead of RAW starts you off with one set of adjustments more than you may need.
fn
--
I plan on living forever - so far so good!
Mickey64564
Senior Member
One neat trick that can be accomplished with RAW in order to solve this problem is converting to two separate TIFFs with different WB settings (from the same RAW file) and compositing the two images in Photoshop. Then just mask out the proper portions to end up with an image that is correctly balanced for the two light temperatures. I've only used this technique a couple of times, but it's worked very well so far.
BTW, I'm a huge advocate for RAW. I love what can be accomplished with the non-Canon RAW converters like Powershovel. Take a look at these two links for some of the differences I've noticed between processing RAW files with Canon's converter and Powershovel:
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_sample.html
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_res-colour.html
(I just posted a new sample in the resolution section of the second link.)
Michael
http://www.pbase.com/mooremwm
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=7178
BTW, I'm a huge advocate for RAW. I love what can be accomplished with the non-Canon RAW converters like Powershovel.
Take a look at these two links for some of the differences I've noticed between processing RAW files with Canon's converter and Powershovel:http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_sample.html
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_res-colour.html
(I just posted a new sample in the resolution section of the second link.)
Michael
--
http://www.pbase.com/mooremwm
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=7178
alfred_schiele
Senior Member
Hi
My expectations using the G2 were very different, 5x7 standard size and sometimes up to somehow 8x11 also I find even this begins to lack some fine detail...
I have no doubts that the difference RAW from G2 can provide gets visible in the sizes you suggest. I saw the differences myself when I tried RAW to decide wether to use it or not.
Maybe this explains as well the very different opinions and it is good that the cameras leave some choice to us users (-:
Regards, A. Schiele
No problem, that was asked for.
This explains better your personal choice.
In my eyes this is very huge... especially from a 4MP file.
My expectations using the G2 were very different, 5x7 standard size and sometimes up to somehow 8x11 also I find even this begins to lack some fine detail...
I have no doubts that the difference RAW from G2 can provide gets visible in the sizes you suggest. I saw the differences myself when I tried RAW to decide wether to use it or not.
Maybe this explains as well the very different opinions and it is good that the cameras leave some choice to us users (-:
Regards, A. Schiele
alfred_schiele
Senior Member
Hi
But during the shot itself you have no chances to make it right for both... Even RAW has only a single characteristic.
Regards, A. Schiele.
Well, you can do it also simpler with nonlinear colour curves adjustment from one file... I didn't intend to target techniques to tweak it later, I know I can do so... no doubt!
But during the shot itself you have no chances to make it right for both... Even RAW has only a single characteristic.
RAW has quaity benefits and introduces additional processing. It's up to everyone to weight this to his personal needs. There never (or very seldom) is only a sigle right way to do things.
I recognized minor differences between RAW and JPG too but to be honest, I couldn find the "big bang" thing in it too (if the processing parameters are ok and no rescue is needed)... When I compare to what I have seen from early 1MP generation cameras RAW or JPG from G2 isn't a real deal... both are MUCH better than what we got years ago...I love what can be accomplished
with the non-Canon RAW converters like Powershovel.
at these two links for some of the differences I've noticed between
processing RAW files with Canon's converter and Powershovel:
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_sample.html
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/ps/powershovel_res-colour.html
Regards, A. Schiele.
db.
Senior Member
On the contrary:
I find it amazingly
good; at least, for
outdoor shots, it's
surprising. And
more so if I com-
pare it to what
the S20 had....
--
Daniel B.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum