Canon G3, Fine, Superfine, and Raw image modes.

Canon G3, Fine, Superfine, and Raw image modes.

Any opinions????

I have been using "Fine", which creates a 1.1 Megabyte file on the average according to Canon. Is that too much compression for high print quality. I've printed one 11x14 and it certainly looks good! I'd like some posters to tell what their experiences are using Raw and Superfine, as oppossed to Fine.

• Shel

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue, as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Thoughts/comments??

Cheers. ...jww
http://jww.instantlogic.com/

I've been using the pano mode lately and was wondering why those pics didn't look as good as usual @ 100%... until I noticed they were taken at fine instead of superfine. So yes, I can see a difference, especially in landscape shots. I think it's well worth using superfine, especially since the files aren't that much bigger.

jww said:

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious
about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I
want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue,
as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a
pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Thoughts/comments??

Cheers. ...jww
http://jww.instantlogic.com/

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
FuBenChu

My vaguely interesting pictures:
http://www.pbase.com/benp

jww said:

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious
about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I
want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue,
as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a
pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Click to expand...

If space isn't an issue, why not shoot raw ? It will give you most options when you get home. Once you shoot something in jpeg, you've already lost some of the image since is a lossy compression.

Steve
--
Spongebob: I can’t understand what we’re doing wrong.
Patrick: I can’t understand anything.

ScoringPosition said:

jww said:

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious
about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I
want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue,
as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a
pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Click to expand...

If space isn't an issue, why not shoot raw ? It will give you most
options when you get home. Once you shoot something in jpeg,
you've already lost some of the image since is a lossy compression.

Steve
--
Spongebob: I can’t understand what we’re doing wrong.
Patrick: I can’t understand anything.

Click to expand...

So if I take a RAW shot - what exactly does it do for me compared to superfine jpeg?

Cheers. ...jww
http://jww.instantlogic.com/

At least on my s400 I see noticeable difference between super fine and fine. In camera processing understandably sucks.

If you want to reduce the size to around 1M it is betst to take the picture in super fine and then store the file (using phtotoshop or any freeware) at 0.75 or 0.8 quality jpeg. These will look much better (essentially same as superfine) than what you get from 'fine'. A computer can do much better processing than the camera. Coverting the files to 0.8 quality can be done in just one command for all the files. G3 uses the same Digic processor as s400, so I would expect the degredation from super fine to fine is equally noticeable.

If the space on the cf card matters than its probably better to use 1600x1200 and superfine. Doe any one have opinions on this?

jww said:

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious
about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I
want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue,
as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a
pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Thoughts/comments??

Cheers. ...jww
http://jww.instantlogic.com/

Click to expand...

Raghu1111 said:

If you want to reduce the size to around 1M it is betst to take the
picture in super fine and then store the file (using phtotoshop or
any freeware) at 0.75 or 0.8 quality jpeg. These will look much
better (essentially same as superfine) than what you get from
'fine'. A computer can do much better processing than the camera.
Coverting the files to 0.8 quality can be done in just one command
for all the files. G3 uses the same Digic processor as s400, so I
would expect the degredation from super fine to fine is equally
noticeable.

If the space on the cf card matters than its probably better to use
1600x1200 and superfine. Doe any one have opinions on this?

jww said:

We are leaving next week for a month in the UK, and I am curious
about whether fine or superfine is much different - especially if I
want to do larger prints afterwards. Storage is less of an issue,
as I have a couple of 256MB cf cards, and will be downloading to a
pc every few days, then burning cds to bring the pics home.

Thoughts/comments??

Cheers. ...jww
http://jww.instantlogic.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you shoot in raw you can alter the white balance saturation contrast sharpness after the pic is taken on your pc without any loss, its like a digital negative..........................Lenny

Sheld said:

Canon G3, Fine, Superfine, and Raw image modes.

Any opinions????

I have been using "Fine", which creates a 1.1 Megabyte file on the
average according to Canon. Is that too much compression for high
print quality. I've printed one 11x14 and it certainly looks good!
I'd like some posters to tell what their experiences are using Raw
and Superfine, as oppossed to Fine.

• Shel

Click to expand...

I'm new at this so bear with me. I am getting the impression that taking pictures on any setting other than RAW means that I can't improve them with software. If that is true, then it seems to me that if the picture is important to you, ie vacation, then you better take them in RAW to ensure you get the shot. Is this true?

Why then do cameras offer all the other settings. Is the size of the picture determined by the setting you use? Lets say, I shoot in RAW or the highest jpeg setting my camera offers. Can I print that in a 4x6 or do I have to print it in 11 x 14?

What setting in a cannon S50 would utilize the memory size best and be able to produce good 4x6 prints?

Wes

Excuse the intrusion but I'm wondering about this statement in Steve's (you know, from Steve's Digicams) wrote about the S45/50:

"Even when the camera is set to record images in one of the JPEG settings, the PowerShot S50 allows the captured image to be saved as a RAW file after it is recorded."

So what does it really mean? That I can shoot a picture in any given JPEG mode but then later one am free to decide to change it to a RAW file? How can this possibly work? I mean, if you shoot in JPEG mode, then the image, as has been amply outlined, already gets compressed in the camera. Just wondering...

Evanryan said:

I'm new at this so bear with me. I am getting the impression that
taking pictures on any setting other than RAW means that I can't
improve them with software. If that is true, then it seems to me
that if the picture is important to you, ie vacation, then you
better take them in RAW to ensure you get the shot. Is this true?

Click to expand...

Here is my reply to a similar question in another thread just now:

Yes, of course you can post process. If you use RAW you have the greatest ability to do so as the camera has made no assumptions or alterations. If you use JPG superfine you can still post process, but a little flexibility/capability especially in white balance is lost. If you use any any of the other JPJ formats you lose greater amounts of flexibility and of image detail. This is of two kinds:

Superfine, fine and normal (a misnomer that). These set the amount of compression, losing fine detail in the process. So post processing a 'normal' compression file to say upsample for a poster would not give as good a result as using fine or superfine. In these modes (and in RAW) you get your full 5Mpixels or whatever.

Large, medium and small. Here the camera simply drops the number of pixels resulting in less detailed information being available and losing the ability to enlarge so much without quality loss. In these modes the megapixels reduce below the mayimum (5Mpixels or whatever).

You can still post process all, but some lest effectively.

Many people find, or think they will find, RAW rather a lot of work (I am one of them). Many nearly always use superfine and large, some say fine and superfine are so close they will save CF card space by using fine and large.

With modestly priced storage cards the lower sizes and higher compressions are, I would think, rarely used. They do make for more rapid multiple pictures though.

Chris Beney

Somber Soul said:

Excuse the intrusion but I'm wondering about this statement in
Steve's (you know, from Steve's Digicams) wrote about the S45/50:

"Even when the camera is set to record images in one of the JPEG
settings, the PowerShot S50 allows the captured image to be saved
as a RAW file after it is recorded."

So what does it really mean? That I can shoot a picture in any
given JPEG mode but then later one am free to decide to change it
to a RAW file? How can this possibly work? I mean, if you shoot in
JPEG mode, then the image, as has been amply outlined, already gets
compressed in the camera. Just wondering...

Click to expand...

Yes you can change the picture to raw from jpg only while the picture is being displayed right after you took it ,, you must press the wb button while the image is displayed after this you cant change it page 47 in s50 manual..........Lenny

jww said:

So if I take a RAW shot - what exactly does it do for me compared
to superfine jpeg?

Click to expand...

Maybe nothing significant to you.

I want a lossless format for subsequent Photoshop work: raw.

I am pretty sure the G3 will not do its auto eq and other digic processing with raw, as it irrevocably does with the lossy formats.

I am also pretty sure that you can get more (12) bits of color information per channel with raw.

OTOH, the G3 may be a bit less flexible in its mode choice(s) when using raw. Raw may take longer to write to a card or buffer. Also, raw will only shoot a fixed number of pixels - I don't think you can choose 640 by 480. You would have to crop after the fact.

Whether any of this matters to you is for you to guess or see through comparative testing, as above.

BTW, I am new to this subject. I hope people will issue corrections in that spirit for my benefit. Thanks.

No, once you shoot in JPG you can't later convert it to RAW. The RAW option is an in-camera option.

Somber Soul said:

So what does it really mean? That I can shoot a picture in any
given JPEG mode but then later one am free to decide to change it
to a RAW file? How can this possibly work? I mean, if you shoot in
JPEG mode, then the image, as has been amply outlined, already gets
compressed in the camera. Just wondering...

Click to expand...

You can convert to raw while the image is being previewed. The in camera setting is set for 2 seconds for a preview. If you shot in jpeg by accident and wanted to convert to raw you can do so within the preview period. You cannot alter it after the preview period.

Also I don't shoot in raw yet and have been more than pleased with jpeg superfine mode. I have many pictures that I have enlarged to 11 x 14 and they look very good.

Todd

Mick Ruthven said:

Somber Soul said:

So what does it really mean? That I can shoot a picture in any
given JPEG mode but then later one am free to decide to change it
to a RAW file? How can this possibly work? I mean, if you shoot in
JPEG mode, then the image, as has been amply outlined, already gets
compressed in the camera. Just wondering...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/blade35

pix with many diff light sources are better done in raw imo
the wb pipette in canon fileviewerutility can turn out pix to real

Sheld said:

Canon G3, Fine, Superfine, and Raw image modes.

Any opinions????

I have been using "Fine", which creates a 1.1 Megabyte file on the
average according to Canon. Is that too much compression for high
print quality. I've printed one 11x14 and it certainly looks good!
I'd like some posters to tell what their experiences are using Raw
and Superfine, as oppossed to Fine.

• Shel

Click to expand...

this is the org. raw pic
wb in auto mode

Todd B. said:

You can convert to raw while the image is being previewed. The in
camera setting is set for 2 seconds for a preview. If you shot in
jpeg by accident and wanted to convert to raw you can do so within
the preview period. You cannot alter it after the preview period.

Click to expand...

It should be pointed out I think that the Preview-time can be set from 2 to 10 sec. So there will be time to change to RAW.

Leif G-n

or like this

Leif G. said:

Todd B. said:

You can convert to raw while the image is being previewed. The in
camera setting is set for 2 seconds for a preview. If you shot in
jpeg by accident and wanted to convert to raw you can do so within
the preview period. You cannot alter it after the preview period.

Click to expand...

It should be pointed out I think that the Preview-time can be set
from 2 to 10 sec. So there will be time to change to RAW.

Click to expand...

And pressing the function key freezes the option, giving you time to think.

Furthermore if you keep the shutter button fully depressed (and some people use this for reviewing the picture) you can press the function button any time before you release the shutter and still convert to RAW. In the latter case it is rather easy to release the shutter button accidentally.
Chris Beney

Evanryan said:

I'm new at this so bear with me. I am getting the impression that
taking pictures on any setting other than RAW means that I can't
improve them with software. If that is true, then it seems to me
that if the picture is important to you, ie vacation, then you
better take them in RAW to ensure you get the shot. Is this true?

Click to expand...

No, this is not correct. I have a G3 and have been taking my photos in all three modes (F, SF and RAW). I had absolutely no trouble improving and working with the photos in Photoshop 7 or Photoshop Elements. I prefer not to use the RAW image mode because it seems a hassle to use those photos. I cannot download them on my Mac using Image Capture so it is a pain.

I have now learnt that it is better to take all my photos without the use of the digital zoom which, in superfine and fine mode, has produced great, high quality photos.

Amber