Is RAW smoother looking than JPG?

eileen68597 · Feb 9, 2004

RAW images and JPG images are captured, on camera, with different algorithms. JPG captures are processed in such a way that the resulting image is what the camera "believes" it saw. RAW captures are processed in such a way that the resulting image is what the camera "really" saw. Simple enough.

In the studio, RAW serves me much better than JPG does due to its WYSYWYG, rather than "interpretive" processing. In RAW, my colours are spot-on straight out of the camera, whereas with JPG + 10D I, more often than not, had to do colour correction. (Remember - I'm the one that shoots weird flowers whose colour is manipulated via disparate light sources, gels, etc. - and, yes, I do all of my work on-camera.) In the field, I shift between RAW and JPG. That shift depends on my subject matter, my mood, my ready access to my laptop, etc.

I believe I'm one of the few people that finds RAW to be faster and easier to process. Since the colours, white balance, focus, etc. are correct straight out of the camera, I don't have to "correction" steps in PS (which, at times, is painful due to the fact that I'm anal about colour). That, alone, is worth the extra storage space for me. Time is money - and I don't have enough of either

eileen in bc

MatW · Feb 10, 2004

It depends on which program you use to process your RAW images, not all of them use Canon's demosaicing algorithm (Breezebrowser does for example). So IMO the C1 images look "sharper" (without actually being sharpened) if you compare them to unsharpened Adobe CS RAW images and camera JPGs.

I'd recommend using the trial version of C1, process some shots and compare to other RAW converters or camera JPGs.

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt

Katie Piecrust · Feb 10, 2004

Just between the JPEG Fine and RAW shots you referenced I can see a difference. There are definitely visible JPEG artifacts around any hard high contrast edges. I can also see that some of the finer details over smooth and fairly monotoned surfaces have been obscured in the JPEG Fine shot, which is normal I guess since that is the part of the nature of JPEG after all (lossy format). That said it's probably not enough to worry too much about, especially if your happy with JPEG. I was using JPEG myself when it came to snapshots and RAW for the serious stuff. That is up until I shot a bunch of candids at a friends wedding and ended up wishing I had shot in RAW instead, mainly due to the E-TTL flash exposures being all over the place, and also because noise obviously got worse in JPEG mode as the ISO went up. Plus I've found that if you plan on doing a fair bit of interpolating/upsampling, especially with higher ISO images, not having JPEG artifacts in the image helps a bit. Now I only shoot RAW since it's really very cheap insurance, and I don't mind the processing work since it's as close as I can get to working in a dark room these days (which I miss). Some people don't like the time they have to spend working on RAW images a home, but really it's just a matter of when you like to do such work. If not in RAW at home, then in JPEG in the field. In either case, some work has to be done at some point to make sure exposure and WB is correct, it's all just a matter of where you prefer to do it. Regarding RAW in general, I think that this post by MichaelT sums it up the best:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7569945

Regardless, the most important thing to realize is that nothing is set in stone and that nothing is just black & white, which for some reason human nature doesn't seem to want to allow around here. I say use whatever works for you and makes you happy.

Michael Louis said:
I hardly see any difference at all, but Phil addressed the issue
too and here is what Phil said:

"If you look very closely at the edge of the black arc on the watch
surface you can see that the RAW image is cleaner, the JPEG
exhibiting some slight artifacts. JPEG Fine would seem to be the
best compromise between size and quality, JPEG Normal delivering
more artifacts."

Now here is a link to the photo he is referenceing...I think I see
the artifacts Phil is refering to, but I'll be darn if both these
photos don't look near identical to my eyes.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page12.asp

Michael Louis · Feb 10, 2004

a snapshot and 'more serious stuff'? You lose me right there. I see absolutly no difference.

I did go ahead and read MichaelT's post, and I find it not altogether correct as I see it. He said there was no 'downside'. I think it's a big downside to worry about space on long outings andk/or buying more space in the field or ways to download images in the field. Another 'potential' downside is the known sloppiness that comes with using such a huge safety net.

While I agree there are definate 'upsides', to say it's all one way is a bit ingenious; at least for all people.
Good Day Miss Piecrust (is that really your name?)
Michael

Katie Piecrust said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7569945

Regardless, the most important thing to realize is that nothing is
set in stone and that nothing is just black & white, which for some
reason human nature doesn't seem to want to allow around here. I
say use whatever works for you and makes you happy.

Michael Louis said:

I hardly see any difference at all, but Phil addressed the issue
too and here is what Phil said:

"If you look very closely at the edge of the black arc on the watch
surface you can see that the RAW image is cleaner, the JPEG
exhibiting some slight artifacts. JPEG Fine would seem to be the
best compromise between size and quality, JPEG Normal delivering
more artifacts."

Now here is a link to the photo he is referenceing...I think I see
the artifacts Phil is refering to, but I'll be darn if both these
photos don't look near identical to my eyes.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page12.asp

Click to expand...

Michael Louis · Feb 10, 2004

to lonnit who, I believe, is using CS. First it was soft, then it became crisp. She didn't use another program, it seemed the properties of the photo changes. All this reaffirms what I have known about Raw. People like the idea of Raw so much that it's 'virgin' and they have wrought with thier own hands something special they give it attributes it doesn't possess. Just my opinion.

I have used C1, the 30 day trial, and man I am telling you the photos came out looking horrible. I know it was me, because I just couldn't get into any logical work flow, and the image preview is so small; who can tell anything that's going on? I liked BB a lot better and found I could work with it's style easier, but I still found the quality of the finished product no better, and often worse than the JPEG counterpart. Sure, once again, it was probably me, but darn who needs another year's learning curve just to get what comes out of the camera! Besides, I meter all my shots so by and large I don't need the xposure saftey net Raw gives to a lot of others who rely on the camera.
Thanks Mat for taking the time,
Michael

MatW said:
It depends on which program you use to process your RAW images, not
all of them use Canon's demosaicing algorithm (Breezebrowser does
for example). So IMO the C1 images look "sharper" (without actually
being sharpened) if you compare them to unsharpened Adobe CS RAW
images and camera JPGs.
I'd recommend using the trial version of C1, process some shots and
compare to other RAW converters or camera JPGs.

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt

Katie Piecrust · Feb 10, 2004

Michael Louis said:
a snapshot and 'more serious stuff'? You lose me right there. I see
absolutly no difference.

A snapshot entails little to no processing, and probably nothing larger than a 4x6 print (if a print is to be made at all). Serious stuff would entail fine art work that may have a good deal of tweaking done for optimal image quality (retaining all 12 bits really helps here), plus enlargements that may require a good deal of upsampling. You may not see a difference, but I'm sure many would agree with me there is an obvious and pretty clear difference between a snapshot and 'more serious stuff'.

Michael Louis said:
I did go ahead and read MichaelT's post, and I find it not
altogether correct as I see it. He said there was no 'downside'. I
think it's a big downside to worry about space on long outings
andk/or buying more space in the field or ways to download images
in the field. Another 'potential' downside is the known sloppiness
that comes with using such a huge safety net.

Well, if your one of those "do it right everytime the first time" kind of folks who are at the top of your game and always do flawless work, then space shouldn't really be a concern with either RAW or JPEG. Other than that, prices are coming down all the time on storage thankfully, so personally I don't see how the "size of RAW' enters into the decision making process at all. Epseically when there are well known benefits to shooting both fomats depending on the situation.

Michael Louis said:
While I agree there are definate 'upsides', to say it's all one way
is a bit ingenious; at least for all people.

Maybe you didn't read my entire post. I said use whatever works for you and makes you happy. Nothing is ever truly black & white. Sure, I chose to use only RAW based on a bad experience with JPEG, but that only applies to me and the fact that I don't mind using RAW at all. In my case I found I have nothing to lose by shooting RAW, and gain a few things in the process. Some feel they do lose something, such as time (especially pros) or CF card space, and that's just fine. You have to remember there are lot's of factors that also apply to whether one should shoot RAW or not. It's not just about the techincal aspects of the format, other things can effect the decision to use it such as software and ones skills in both the field and on the PC. Personally I like spending just as much time and care on a photo on the PC as I do in the field.

Katie Piecrust · Feb 10, 2004

Man, I wish every circumstance I shoot under could be perfectly measured by my 10D every time. Unfortunately there are times when it fails for me. E-TLL exposure is often one of those areas. It's not so bad if it's a circumstance that allows the use of FEL, but unfortunately for good candids that's just not an option. And I like to recompose unfortunately, that's just part of good photography after all. Definitely looking forward to E-TTL II. The other is dim light and especially dim mixed light. That's where I've been very thankful for RAW in the past, and also when JPG just couldn't handle it even with careful WB selection. For me I've found JPG really falls apart when you combine higher ISO's with dim mixed lighting. You should try shooting sometime in a dimly lit church that has a bit of day light, flourecent light, and incandecent light all in equal amounts, lol.

Michael Louis said:
Besides, I meter all my shots so by and large
I don't need the xposure saftey net Raw
gives to a lot of others who rely on the camera.

Ann Chaikin · Feb 10, 2004

I just switched over awhile back and really like using raw. Yes, it takes longer to post process - though not much if you are happy with the out of camera image - but the best part is getting the most out of your image. Case in point, my recent eagle photograph. The day was foggy. I had to take at a high ISO and used P mode on the camera because of movement and changing light conditions. As a result this particular picture was under exposed and somewhat noisy. Using raw mode I was able to save the shot. I actually did two different versions, the firt too processed. The second time I got it right. That's another good thing about raw. You can do different experiments to see what works best. I find raw very handy for situations like this. I admit, I don't get it perfect every time and raw allows me to rescue pictures that I am later very happy to have in my portfolio. Here is the eagle I was talking about. Ann

--
also known as PT Kitty > ^..^
http://www.pbase.com/ptkitty/galleries
http://www.achaikin.com/
My favorite picture is the one I'm taking right now

Hal Fisher · Feb 10, 2004

In those images because color and contrast/brightness are correct anyway, a jpeg-fine/no sharpening would be as good as RAW.

Hal

Michael Louis said:
Michael

Michael Holm said:

Yeps, that's how much JPG trashes your images.

Now you know why everybody's interested in 2GB+ memorycards. We all
shoot RAW and nothing but RAW.

And with a prober conversion software http://www.phaseone.com - look for
Capture One Pro (C1Pro)

--Michael

Click to expand...

Bob Schwartz · Feb 10, 2004

I shoot RAW with an embedded Large/Fine JPEG. With most of my shots I can just extract the JPEG in BreezeBrowser and do a little touching up in PS CS. It's the same as if I shot in JPEG to start. If I have a difficult shot, I use the RAW version to start. The only downside I see to this approach is the space used on the CF cards due to the larger embedded JPEG. However, I was recently able to get hold of on of those MuVos for $200 and extract the 4GB Hitachi microdrive. So space is now less of a concern. Although, I was shooting in RAW + Large/Fine JPEG even when my largest CF card was 1GB.

--
Bob

wloud · Feb 10, 2004

hi lonnit, i too seem to think raw looks great even though im new at this,anyway is it normal for a raw file to take long when opening in photoshop cs,it seems to me like the file viewer utility is much faster,just looking for someone elses opinion,thanks

lonnit said:
Since I recently upgraded to Photoshop CS, and now have my new,
faster computer and a card reader built in, I decided it's time to
check out RAW for real. I shot 1 lousy, quick sample shot, just to
have something to openup in photoshop, in order to check out the
user interface (which I loved BTW). Is it my imagination or is it
only RAW that gives the 10D shots that classic high end softness
that is so beautiful? I've never been able to capture that quality
and then when I downloaded that sample shot out of the camera, I
was shocked to see that finally I had an image that had that look
(even though it was a crummy, nothing snapshot). Does JPG cut out
that much in it's compression, that even on its highest setting
there is so much loss that the look I'm seeking is lost?

Thanks,
Lonnit

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

MatW said:
It depends on which program you use to process your RAW images, not
all of them use Canon's demosaicing algorithm (Breezebrowser does
for example). So IMO the C1 images look "sharper" (without actually
being sharpened) if you compare them to unsharpened Adobe CS RAW
images and camera JPGs.
I'd recommend using the trial version of C1, process some shots and
compare to other RAW converters or camera JPGs.

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

Michael Louis said:
to lonnit who, I believe, is using CS. First it was soft, then it
became crisp.

I said soft. Someone else said crisp. I agrreed to crispness of color.

Lonnit

Michael Louis said:
properties of the photo changes. All this reaffirms what I have
known about Raw. People like the idea of Raw so much that it's
'virgin' and they have wrought with thier own hands something
special they give it attributes it doesn't possess. Just my opinion.
I have used C1, the 30 day trial, and man I am telling you the
photos came out looking horrible. I know it was me, because I just
couldn't get into any logical work flow, and the image preview is
so small; who can tell anything that's going on? I liked BB a lot
better and found I could work with it's style easier, but I still
found the quality of the finished product no better, and often
worse than the JPEG counterpart. Sure, once again, it was probably
me, but darn who needs another year's learning curve just to get
what comes out of the camera! Besides, I meter all my shots so by
and large I don't need the xposure saftey net Raw gives to a lot of
others who rely on the camera.
Thanks Mat for taking the time,
Michael

MatW said:

It depends on which program you use to process your RAW images, not
all of them use Canon's demosaicing algorithm (Breezebrowser does
for example). So IMO the C1 images look "sharper" (without actually
being sharpened) if you compare them to unsharpened Adobe CS RAW
images and camera JPGs.
I'd recommend using the trial version of C1, process some shots and
compare to other RAW converters or camera JPGs.

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt

Click to expand...

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

Dave Deacon said:
The downsides so far are the extra storage space,

CDs are cheap enough and I jsut got a new computer with a 160 gig hard drive.

Dave Deacon said:
camera response

I'll have to see if that bugs me. I don't think I've ever had to wait for the camera in jpg - the flash yes, the camera, no.

I process everything anyway so that won't count against me. Actually, the great PS CS interface will speed things up on that.

Dave Deacon said:
though. I recently added a 1GB MD and before that a DVD writer.

I've got a DVD writer now too, but I'm still burning CDs b/c I bought a 50 pack a few weeks before I got the new computer. LOL!

Dave Deacon said:
I think weighing both, I shoot RAW if I have the time and storage
space or feel WB/exposure might be awkward or want a little extra
quality or all. One other thing RAW offers is the ability to use
AdobeRGB and its wider colour space - RAW is the full 12-bits.

I'm taking the Epson Print Academy course (I love it!) and one of thier 'expert users' recommended the color match RGB space because you get much less clipping. A huge color space is useless if you dont' have anything to output it to. I shoot in Adobe RGB but in PS I work in colormatch to most closely emulate what I can print.

Warmly,

Lonnit

Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

eileen said:
RAW images and JPG images are captured, on camera, with different
algorithms. JPG captures are processed in such a way that the
resulting image is what the camera "believes" it saw. RAW captures
are processed in such a way that the resulting image is what the
camera "really" saw. Simple enough.

Ugh! I want what's there! If I want it manipulated I'LL manipulate it!

eileen68597 said:
In the studio, RAW serves me much better than JPG does due to its
WYSYWYG, rather than "interpretive" processing. In RAW, my colours
are spot-on straight out of the camera, whereas with JPG + 10D I,
more often than not, had to do colour correction. (Remember - I'm
the one that shoots weird flowers whose colour is manipulated via
disparate light sources, gels, etc. - and, yes, I do all of my work
on-camera.) In the field, I shift between RAW and JPG. That shift
depends on my subject matter, my mood, my ready access to my
laptop, etc.

I do find I'm usually color correcting a bit. I was used to that from always drastically correcting in my olly 3030.

eileen68597 said:
I believe I'm one of the few people that finds RAW to be faster and
easier to process. Since the colours, white balance, focus, etc.
are correct straight out of the camera, I don't have to
"correction" steps in PS (which, at times, is painful due to the
fact that I'm anal about colour). That, alone, is worth the extra
storage space for me. Time is money - and I don't have enough of
either

I'm sure that I will feel precisely the same way. I'm itching to get out of the house and actually shoot a few frames to test it out. Maybe tomorrow.

Thanks,
Lonnit

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

Ann Chaikin said:
I just switched over awhile back and really like using raw.

Ann, is that perhaps part of that sudden leap you've taken in the quality of your work?

Ann Chaikin said:
takes longer to post process - though not much if you are happy
with the out of camera image - but the best part is getting the
most out of your image. Case in point, my recent eagle photograph.
The day was foggy. I had to take at a high ISO and used P mode on
the camera because of movement and changing light conditions. As a
result this particular picture was under exposed and somewhat
noisy. Using raw mode I was able to save the shot. I actually did
two different versions, the firt too processed. The second time I
got it right. That's another good thing about raw. You can do
different experiments to see what works best. I find raw very handy
for situations like this.

And I'm always in situations like that!

Ann Chaikin said:
time and raw allows me to rescue pictures that I am later very
happy to have in my portfolio. Here is the eagle I was talking
about. Ann

We certainly know that eagle!

WArmly,
Lonnit

Ann Chaikin said:
--
also known as PT Kitty > ^..^
http://www.pbase.com/ptkitty/galleries
http://www.achaikin.com/
My favorite picture is the one I'm taking right now

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

Then you're the person to ask about this. I was wondering about the size of the jpg I should capture with the RAW. The way I see it, RAW will NOT increase my workload, and in fact will probably decrease it. Is there any reason not to go with the tiniest jpg to save on storgage space? I've only got (2) 512 cards. I don't believe that I'd bother with switching back and forth between the 2 modes. I'd pretty much want to shoot RAW, but then if I was getting nervous that I was getting low on card space, I'd probably completly switch over to jpg to shoot the 2nd card after the first runs out. So, based on that, wouldnt' the highest jpg size as a sidecar to RAW really just only gobble up space for me? Is there an option to completely eliminate the jpg, or do I just have to be stuck with the smallest? Is there some flaw or foolishness in my thinking?

Thanks Bob,
Lonnit

Bob Schwartz said:
I shoot RAW with an embedded Large/Fine JPEG. With most of my shots
I can just extract the JPEG in BreezeBrowser and do a little
touching up in PS CS. It's the same as if I shot in JPEG to start.
If I have a difficult shot, I use the RAW version to start. The
only downside I see to this approach is the space used on the CF
cards due to the larger embedded JPEG. However, I was recently able
to get hold of on of those MuVos for $200 and extract the 4GB
Hitachi microdrive. So space is now less of a concern. Although, I
was shooting in RAW + Large/Fine JPEG even when my largest CF card
was 1GB.

--
Bob

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

m5laser · Feb 10, 2004

I dont think there is.

I usually shoot JPG, but do switch to RAW when i dont want to blow the shot. I think the big thing is that RAW does not add sharpening, like JPG usually does. That might give it that 'smoother' look to it

Duncan

lonnit said:
Since I recently upgraded to Photoshop CS, and now have my new,
faster computer and a card reader built in, I decided it's time to
check out RAW for real. I shot 1 lousy, quick sample shot, just to
have something to openup in photoshop, in order to check out the
user interface (which I loved BTW). Is it my imagination or is it
only RAW that gives the 10D shots that classic high end softness
that is so beautiful? I've never been able to capture that quality
and then when I downloaded that sample shot out of the camera, I
was shocked to see that finally I had an image that had that look
(even though it was a crummy, nothing snapshot). Does JPG cut out
that much in it's compression, that even on its highest setting
there is so much loss that the look I'm seeking is lost?

Thanks,
Lonnit

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

--
http://www.actionimages.ca

Dave Deacon · Feb 10, 2004

lonnit said:
lonnit said:

The downsides so far are the extra storage space,

Click to expand...

CDs are cheap enough and I jsut got a new computer with a 160 gig
hard drive.

I have 320GB storage

but I am sick of a growing number of CDs - I have way too many and I doubt I or anyone else will ever look at most of them again. DVDs offer a better (fewer) solution but are for now more expensive.

lonnit said:
lonnit said:

camera response

Click to expand...

I'll have to see if that bugs me. I don't think I've ever had to
wait for the camera in jpg - the flash yes, the camera, no.

I process everything anyway so that won't count against me.
Actually, the great PS CS interface will speed things up on that.

I meant it takes a longer to process and longer for RAW to be converted - especially if you have a card full. C1 offers a very quick working file. Then you go to PS. I do not believe in batch processing since most shots are different. I don't process everything. though - only those I like.

lonnit said:
lonnit said:

though. I recently added a 1GB MD and before that a DVD writer.

Click to expand...

I've got a DVD writer now too, but I'm still burning CDs b/c I
bought a 50 pack a few weeks before I got the new computer. LOL!

lonnit said:

I think weighing both, I shoot RAW if I have the time and storage
space or feel WB/exposure might be awkward or want a little extra
quality or all. One other thing RAW offers is the ability to use
AdobeRGB and its wider colour space - RAW is the full 12-bits.

Click to expand...

I'm taking the Epson Print Academy course (I love it!) and one of
thier 'expert users' recommended the color match RGB space because
you get much less clipping. A huge color space is useless if you
dont' have anything to output it to. I shoot in Adobe RGB but in PS
I work in colormatch to most closely emulate what I can print.

The idea of a larger colour space is that after processing and saving in say tiff, you will have more choices later. If you keep the proprietary RAW file and think you can reprocess later for a wider colour space you might be mistaken. It is only applicable to Canon who might well change its format over time. Choosing a more general lossless format, say tiff, with a wide colour space - even 16-bit - offers a better future general solution. BTW I would only use 16-bit for special files since they tend to be rather big files. Printing, now, is only done in the printer's colour space - how else can it be done!

lonnit said:
Warmly,

Lonnit

Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

--
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/shootist

lonnit · Feb 10, 2004

Dave Deacon said:
lonnit said:

Dave Deacon said:

The downsides so far are the extra storage space,

Click to expand...

CDs are cheap enough and I jsut got a new computer with a 160 gig
hard drive.

Click to expand...

I have 320GB storage

Gulp!

Dave Deacon said:
I have way too many and I doubt I or anyone else will ever look at
most of them again. DVDs offer a better (fewer) solution but are
for now more expensive.

I haven't even priced the DVDs. What do they typically run?

Dave Deacon said:
Dave Deacon said:

Dave Deacon said:

camera response

Click to expand...

I'll have to see if that bugs me. I don't think I've ever had to
wait for the camera in jpg - the flash yes, the camera, no.

I process everything anyway so that won't count against me.
Actually, the great PS CS interface will speed things up on that.

Click to expand...

I meant it takes a longer to process and longer for RAW to be
converted - especially if you have a card full.

I"ll have to see how long it takes to download a full card of RAW into the computer. That was more than half the reason I stopped attempting RAW when I first got the camera. With the quicker computer and the built-in card reader I should see a difference. I'll have to determine if it's difference enough and if it's worth me being patient.

Dave Deacon said:
quick working file. Then you go to PS. I do not believe in batch
processing since most shots are different.

So true - even when you have the same subject, you end up shooting from different angles anyway and that changes everything. If you're shooting in studio I guess batching would work great - OTOH, if your in studio you've got complete control so probably don't have tons of color correction to batch process in the first place! LOL!

Dave Deacon said:
everything. though - only those I like.

Of course. I cant' even keep up with processing the stuff I want to keep!

Warmly,
Lonnit

Dave Deacon said:
Dave Deacon said:

Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when
you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you
like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

--
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/shootist

--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. The fastest way for me to learn is when you tell me what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, what you like and what you don't. I welcome all opinions.

WARNING: 10D-itis is contagious!!!!!!!

Is RAW smoother looking than JPG?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts