Reading mode: Light Dark

Raw vs SHQ and Print Size

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beth
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
B

Beth

Guest
Okay, this question has been buried in a couple of other threads, but I need an answer, so I've moved it to a thread of its own. Here goes...if wishing to make large prints, does shooting in raw make an appreciable difference compared to SHQ mode? Could I reasonably expect to be able to hike a print up a size shooting in raw rather than SHQ?

I just recently downloaded and started using the ORF plug-in for PS and have been using raw mode for the past couple of days. I miss the ease of SHQ mode AND the image count. If it doesn't make that much difference, I'm going back. Tell me, oh please, DOES it make that much difference?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
 
Beth,

For what it's worth, I've had this conversation with the manager of the camera shop I usually deal with. I do mostly Equestrian events. It is his belief that for the slower write times and additional memory space used there is no real gain. Please bear in mind that I frequently need to clear the buffer quickly and rarely print larger than 8x10, 16x20 being the largest print sold to date. However his comments may only apply to my particular situation and needs. Short answer, guess it depends on your needs.
Bill
http://www.redline-race-pics.com
Beth said:
Okay, this question has been buried in a couple of other threads,
but I need an answer, so I've moved it to a thread of its own. Here
goes...if wishing to make large prints, does shooting in raw make
an appreciable difference compared to SHQ mode? Could I reasonably
expect to be able to hike a print up a size shooting in raw rather
than SHQ?

I just recently downloaded and started using the ORF plug-in for PS
and have been using raw mode for the past couple of days. I miss
the ease of SHQ mode AND the image count. If it doesn't make that
much difference, I'm going back. Tell me, oh please, DOES it make
that much difference?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
 
Beth,

The problem with this whole issue is that you're stretching the camera's basic resolution across varying areas and that the opinion of the results will be based on viewing distances, taste, and the subject's requirement for detail.(more exactly the viewer's requirement for detail in that type of scene or subject matter)

It seems to me the best method is to take a few test shots, on a tripod, in both RAW and SHQ(2.7:1 compression, full resolution) and then process them for yourself. Take a 1/4 or 1/16th crop of the images and resample and print them to a size that represents what the file would look like if you printed the entire image to your required dimensions and see if the quality is high enough for your needs at the viewing distances you feel adequate.

This lends itself especially well to testing a variety of printing methods at low cost because you can crop and print at whatever economical sizes they reproduce to test their basic method without buying a LARGE print. Even better, because of the low cost you can afford to try various resampling methods or even submit the basic captured pixels and see how well their processor can perform the enlargement on it's own!(My best guess is this is increasingly going to be the BEST method as they know more about the limitations of their dithering method, etc., than anyone else ever will.)

Good luck!
 
WDM,

that is an interesting answer and it is the reasoning I have been going by for some time now, the thing is, write times and memory space (sic) have absolutely NO BEARING on print output. If the objective is the BEST PRINT, then those two factors dont factor in.

My 2 cents.

GageFX
WDM said:
Beth said:
Okay, this question has been buried in a couple of other threads,
but I need an answer, so I've moved it to a thread of its own. Here
goes...if wishing to make large prints, does shooting in raw make
an appreciable difference compared to SHQ mode? Could I reasonably
expect to be able to hike a print up a size shooting in raw rather
than SHQ?

I just recently downloaded and started using the ORF plug-in for PS
and have been using raw mode for the past couple of days. I miss
the ease of SHQ mode AND the image count. If it doesn't make that
much difference, I'm going back. Tell me, oh please, DOES it make
that much difference?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280
 
This is all very true.

I will be performing tests tomorrow. Will post by sunday evening.

GageFX
Gerald M. Payne said:
Beth,

The problem with this whole issue is that you're stretching the
camera's basic resolution across varying areas and that the opinion
of the results will be based on viewing distances, taste, and the
subject's requirement for detail.(more exactly the viewer's
requirement for detail in that type of scene or subject matter)

It seems to me the best method is to take a few test shots, on a
tripod, in both RAW and SHQ(2.7:1 compression, full resolution) and
then process them for yourself. Take a 1/4 or 1/16th crop of the
images and resample and print them to a size that represents what
the file would look like if you printed the entire image to your
required dimensions and see if the quality is high enough for your
needs at the viewing distances you feel adequate.

This lends itself especially well to testing a variety of printing
methods at low cost because you can crop and print at whatever
economical sizes they reproduce to test their basic method without
buying a LARGE print. Even better, because of the low cost you can
afford to try various resampling methods or even submit the basic
captured pixels and see how well their processor can perform the
enlargement on it's own!(My best guess is this is increasingly
going to be the BEST method as they know more about the limitations
of their dithering method, etc., than anyone else ever will.)

Good luck!
Click to expand...
--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280
 
This will include "UV noise" tests.

GageFX
gagefx said:
I will be performing tests tomorrow. Will post by sunday evening.

GageFX
Gerald M. Payne said:
Beth,

The problem with this whole issue is that you're stretching the
camera's basic resolution across varying areas and that the opinion
of the results will be based on viewing distances, taste, and the
subject's requirement for detail.(more exactly the viewer's
requirement for detail in that type of scene or subject matter)

It seems to me the best method is to take a few test shots, on a
tripod, in both RAW and SHQ(2.7:1 compression, full resolution) and
then process them for yourself. Take a 1/4 or 1/16th crop of the
images and resample and print them to a size that represents what
the file would look like if you printed the entire image to your
required dimensions and see if the quality is high enough for your
needs at the viewing distances you feel adequate.

This lends itself especially well to testing a variety of printing
methods at low cost because you can crop and print at whatever
economical sizes they reproduce to test their basic method without
buying a LARGE print. Even better, because of the low cost you can
afford to try various resampling methods or even submit the basic
captured pixels and see how well their processor can perform the
enlargement on it's own!(My best guess is this is increasingly
going to be the BEST method as they know more about the limitations
of their dithering method, etc., than anyone else ever will.)

Good luck!
Click to expand...
--
E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox,
Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280
Click to expand...
--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280
 
gagefx said:
This is all very true.

I will be performing tests tomorrow. Will post by sunday evening.
Click to expand...
I think it's reasonable, and I'm certainly not the first to suggest it...

However, I forgot to add my buck three eighty five(adjusted for inflation, natch.) and say that for all but the fussiest(sp?) photographers/viewers or most detailed images I'd guess the difference wouldn't be worth the trouble. But, I'm also going to temper that a bit and suggest that RAW certainly has advantages in terms of exposure latitude and possibly preservation of very fine color detail since there is no color compression going on. In terms of scaling up the lack of color compression may yield smoother transitions, but I'd also temper that with my belief that most sharpening will kill that advantage anyhow. An edge based sharpening routine may make it worth the slight advantage?

Some people will swear up and down RAW is a must, most will be happy with SHQ(2.7:1) and even 4:1. Then again, some people (apparently?) actually buy, and quite possibly actually perversely enjoy, Grey Poupon... My insincerest apologies to all the Rolls owner's(and RAW mode afficiandos) I've offended. ;-)
 
Hi Beth,

I've just written to DrBob in this message and it could be informative for you too!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=3963633
Kind regards,
Bart
Beth said:
Okay, this question has been buried in a couple of other threads,
but I need an answer, so I've moved it to a thread of its own. Here
goes...if wishing to make large prints, does shooting in raw make
an appreciable difference compared to SHQ mode? Could I reasonably
expect to be able to hike a print up a size shooting in raw rather
than SHQ?

I just recently downloaded and started using the ORF plug-in for PS
and have been using raw mode for the past couple of days. I miss
the ease of SHQ mode AND the image count. If it doesn't make that
much difference, I'm going back. Tell me, oh please, DOES it make
that much difference?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
 
Beth wrote:

Thanks everyone! I think for today, I'm setting my camera back to SHQ! But I will wait for Gage's tests before making a final decision. If he gets significant results, I may have to up the anti to RAW. (Hope not!)
Beth
bartP said:
Beth said:
Okay, this question has been buried in a couple of other threads,
but I need an answer, so I've moved it to a thread of its own. Here
goes...if wishing to make large prints, does shooting in raw make
an appreciable difference compared to SHQ mode? Could I reasonably
expect to be able to hike a print up a size shooting in raw rather
than SHQ?

I just recently downloaded and started using the ORF plug-in for PS
and have been using raw mode for the past couple of days. I miss
the ease of SHQ mode AND the image count. If it doesn't make that
much difference, I'm going back. Tell me, oh please, DOES it make
that much difference?
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top