Why using RAW with 300D doesn't make sense to me

[Just Looking]

The Foveon people make the argument that all the CCD/CMOS -- Bayer
imaging is is a 1x upscale... they make the argument that a 6.3
MP Bayer CMOS is actually a 3.15 MP.... From these manipulations,
they justify their own MP ratings...

what line are you peddling here? Speaking as a Foveon zealot myself, let me say that I've never said anything like that the 6.3 MP bayer is really a 3.15 MP. On the contrary, I avoid such "equivalence" games like a plague. I prefer to just say what's objectively there, in conventional terms. The 6.3 MP Bayer has 3.15 Million green or luma sensors, and 1.575 Million of each of red and blue or chroma sensors. The 10.2 MP X3 in the Sigma has 3.4 Million green or luma sensors, and 3.4 Million of each of red and blue. What's a manipulation about just counting them the same way the Bayer people do?

The original poster did have a good point, which I've verified in my own experiments with images from Canon Bayer cameras. That is, if you downsize to a number of pixels equal to the number of luma sensors, and then later upsize and make a big print, you lose very little relative to just upsizing from the original. Very little doesn't mean not at all, but it takes very close inspection to see the difference, if the prints are made equally sharp looking by the usual sharpening adjustments.

j

 

[a_hamann]

... yep, saw this one on occasion. Thx.

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

 

[a_hamann]

... yep, I think I might do that if the photo-opportunity is worth it.

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[The Big Bad]

Wow, almost everything I see or hear is about people wanting more megapixels. I mean manf's come out with a new camera every 6 months just to increase the MP count for 4 to 5 megapixels.

3 meg files really dont cut it for photo quality 8x10's even in my opinon. Even 6megs is starting to show its limit at that size. Hence the popularity with stitching images. With printing getting so cheap, its finally affordable to make some nice 20x30" photoquality prints. Thing of beauty and only about $20 each. From a 3meg file its not going to be so pretty though

But as you say, its all relative. Some people are happy with the kit lens, other people spend over $1000 for a 16-35L zoom to cover the same range.

Thats why theres options of file size just like theres opinion in lens. For you it sounds like smaller files are the way to go.

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

 

[a_hamann]

Nope, misunderstanding, see my original post.

Wow, almost everything I see or hear is about people wanting more
megapixels. I mean manf's come out with a new camera every 6
months just to increase the MP count for 4 to 5 megapixels.

3 meg files really dont cut it for photo quality 8x10's even in my
opinon. Even 6megs is starting to show its limit at that size.
Hence the popularity with stitching images. With printing getting
so cheap, its finally affordable to make some nice 20x30"
photoquality prints. Thing of beauty and only about $20 each.
From a 3meg file its not going to be so pretty though

But as you say, its all relative. Some people are happy with the
kit lens, other people spend over $1000 for a 16-35L zoom to cover
the same range.

Thats why theres options of file size just like theres opinion in
lens. For you it sounds like smaller files are the way to go.

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

 

[a_hamann]

Thx for your replies. Some of your comments actually did change my mind as to when I will use RAW after all. That choice may also depend the particular shooting situation, your photographic style, and your pacience to spend time on post-processing.

I fired off all my arguments and start repeating myself, and also begin reading repeat objections. Maybe a good way to finish this thread off are some "votes". I'm rather curious if my point of view is a minority here or whether the thread makes sense to others with similar shooting styles.

Put for example "RAW (always)" or "6MP (50%), 3MP (50%) in the subject line. Add a comment or an immage to illustrate your choice if you want.

Cheers, Andy

 

[a_hamann]

80% of the time I can't be bothered to do more than "rotate/crop/levels/usm" on my images, which I do with all "keepers". JPG is good enough for that and loss of detail in downsampling is neglegible as argued above, on Peter iNova's website and in the STF.

20% of the time I think I'll be using RAW, for example if I know it's a really nice shot but I'm running out of dynamic range as indicated by the histogram in instant review:



Also, it's probably worth it if you have a really nice photo opportunity and you know you'll be spending some time optimizing white balance, color saturation, contrast, etc:



Cheers, Andy

 

[bjs1]

I now use three megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for
virtually every shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no
difference in image quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of
camera shake or lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

Agreed...It doesn't take much to nullify the difference between 3mp and 6mp on a 10D/300D. I doubt most people shooting handheld with consumer zooms achieve the benefits of 6mp. Easily seen on this forum where many pictures show softness despite being less than 1 Mp images.

But 6Mp mode is sharper than 3Mp mode. And you can do more with RAW than with a JPG. So I wouldn't dismiss full resolution RAW images so easily. The various permutations all have their place depending on the shooter and his/her needs.

 

[Steve Lupton]

I don't know what you did to this but it looks absolutely awful. Look at the aliasing on the bridge and fence on the right hand side.

If this is the result of letting the camera do the downsizing to 3MP then I think we should all pass...

Regards,

Steve

 

[DRG]

Yea, you are right that storage costs are low. I think it's more
that I like the idea of having just 1 CD or DVD with 95% of the
information, rather than 10 CDs/DVDs flying around with 5% more
data, which really doesn't make all that much of a difference.

I have no CD's or DVD's bouncing around. Storage is so cheap, I backup onto a couple of spare hard drives. If space should somehow clog up, there's nothing preventing me from reverting to your situation - batch converting everything using the in-camera settings contained in the EXIF data and winding up with JPEG files at whatever size and compression I wish. In the meantime, I have the ability to tweak my images to obtain the best possible result, especially on treasured shots, with no downside (given, again, the cheap nature of storage). Even conversion time is minimal - 12 seconds per shot on my PC using C1.

Who will care about that 5% in 2 years when we are all shooting
with 12 MP DSLRs and 4 stops more dynamic range (as I said in
another reply). My 1 DVD will be as good as your 10 DVDs then,
unless you're just a better photographer :^)

I have two problems with this particular opinion. The first is that treasured images will always be treasured, even if newly acquired images happen to be taken with better equipment. So, I don't see how time is a factor here. Besides, as I mentioned, if older images somehow become less desireable in a few years, I can always batch convert to save space. By then, of course, storage will be even cheaper, making this unnecessary.

My second problem with the statement is the idea that 12Mpixel DSLRs with 4x the dynamic range are likely to be around the corner. 12Mpixels perhaps. Such camera are already here and will eventually drop down to affordable prices. 4x the dynamic range is much less likely. Physics is fighting this, and technology can't come to the rescue in all regards. Dynamic range is limited by signal-to-noise ratio, which is limited by the total number of photons captured by any given sensor cell. This isn't likely to increase on a per-area basis, meaning that the only way is to increase pixel size. This goes counter to increasing pixel count. Another way is for the camera to effectively take multiple exposures at the same time, at different sensitivities, and with a different set of subpixels. Fuji's SR sensor does this. However, this also requires additional pixels, meaning a tradeoff again between area and pixel count. Unless sensor size grows even beyond the 35mm full-frame size, I think we'll be reaching a pixel count and dynamic range plateau, with only slow progress.

David

 

[DioDLL]

The Inova piece you mention later in the thread came out a while ago and he actually posted a link in this forum. It was interesting because there was less quality loss then you would expect. If you are just taking snapshots its a pretty good way to go. The reason why a lot of people find this a bit strange is that most people who purchased this camera wanted to do more then snapshots. Notice that everyone is very polite in telling you that whatever you decide for yourself is a great decision.

The storage issue is not importantas has been pointed out, storage is cheap and there are a lot of people who have spent more on their lenses then on their camera body so a $60 harddrive isn't a big deal. I have several thousand RAW files that I have kept and I don't find them to be a storage issue

If you have done any post-processing, you would understand that the jpeg that comes out of the camera and looks acceptable cannot withstand much if any adjustment before it becomes noticable

I am sure that there are many people who would benefit from your shooting strategy, but I think that you presented it wrong. You are trying to compare to RAW data and 6mp and justify your decision. That is why you are causing all the puzzled looks. If you approached from the standpoint that you do not want to commit much storage space to photography, you don't like to post process and you are not able to tell the difference between a 3mp and a 6mp jpeg then you would probably help out a certain cross-section of this forum.

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

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

 

[pbleic]

You are looking at a 100% crop at 72 ppi. At 300 ppi it is another story.

A 300 ppi photo is 2.16 MP. Therefore, you will get the same quality of 4 X 6 print out of a 3 MP and 6 MP jpeg, and you can get a nice larger than screen size 72 ppi photo out of it. But if you have your heart set on an 8 X 10, forget it. Even the 6 MP isn't quite enough for 300 PPI out of the camera.

Paul

The storage issue is not importantas has been pointed out, storage
is cheap and there are a lot of people who have spent more on their
lenses then on their camera body so a $60 harddrive isn't a big
deal. I have several thousand RAW files that I have kept and I
don't find them to be a storage issue

If you have done any post-processing, you would understand that the
jpeg that comes out of the camera and looks acceptable cannot
withstand much if any adjustment before it becomes noticable

I am sure that there are many people who would benefit from your
shooting strategy, but I think that you presented it wrong. You
are trying to compare to RAW data and 6mp and justify your
decision. That is why you are causing all the puzzled looks. If
you approached from the standpoint that you do not want to commit
much storage space to photography, you don't like to post process
and you are not able to tell the difference between a 3mp and a 6mp
jpeg then you would probably help out a certain cross-section of
this forum.

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

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

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[The Big Bad]

Yep, its a vastly different world when your print your shots, especially on a larger size than 4x6.

On one hand some "defects" such as softness and CA and oversharpening halo's arent as noticable in a print, and yet at the same time sizes such as 8x10 and up really start to show that they are "digital" and lacking the megapixels to produce the "photo quality" look.

Now some argue that you dont look at a 12x18 size print from a few inches, but I say " I do !" I love the look of large format prints or high megapixel stitched shots. Being able to look at a 20x30" print thats 300 DPI and didnt require uprezing is a thing of beauty. Every last detail you can see in the print.

But thats my POV and other people are different. Some people take photos just to put on the web and email to friends. THey never print, or maybe just make a 4x6 for a friend. All those MP's are going to waste for them and using small mode is a fine option.

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

 

[skiphunt13]

Regarding 6MP vs 3MP... if you'r only printing 4x6 or shooting for the web, I would agree.. but, it you ever want to go bigger or have the freedom to crop down, I can't imagine ever shooing in anything other than 6MP. If you're shooting a bunch a realestate photos for the web, then yeah, wouldn't make since shooting the hi-res.

Regarding storage... I shot in Europe recently and storage was a big problem. All of my shots from Europe ended up eating up 4GB of space and that wasn't even RAW. But as others have said, storage is getting so cheap.. I should have thought ahead and bought a larger storage device before I went.

Regarding RAW... there is certainly a difference. Especially in the highlights. More data, AND if you upres a hi-res JPEG vs uprezing a RAW image you'll find even more benefit. I too found the hoops you have to jump through to process the RAW images not worth the extra steps, BUT now I have Photoshop CS and bringing RAW images in directly from the card is pretty easy. Plus, in CS you get many more processing features on input with RAW than you get with jpeg. Easy, and very effective noise reduction being one of the best. I can now shoot 1600 and 800ISO RAW images, set a bit of noise reduction in CS RAW import and get almost noise-free high ISO images. I've since changed my mind and only shoot RAW now. I'm not so much a "geek" but with Photoshop CS, it's made the process so much easier and definately worth the storage hit. Especially with hilite data retention and better uprezing.

--
Skip Hunt
Austin, Texas
http://www.poppinfreshmedia.com

• visit me @ http://www.poppinfreshmedia.com (now selling 60+

year archival quality prints in multiple sizes - images named 'Porto
Cat Feed', 'Eiffel', 'Sintra Clouds', and 'Wet Parisian Bliss' were all
shot with a Canon 300D and 'kit' lens)

• you can also view some of my photographic work here:

http://skiphunt.deviantart.com/

• and to purchase images for commercial stock use, visit:

http://www.istockpro.com/file_search.php?action=user&userID=4347

 

[a_hamann]

... I see your point on most things. I guess I'm just not too concerned with the"best possible" if the difference to "good enough" is not easily visible to my eye.

On the 12MP 4 stops dynamic range issue, I aggree that megapixels are cheap. I don't think a 15x24mm sensor with this count would already be easy to make at least with CCD technology. Fuji's dynamic range extension really appears to be the way to go. If you search the Fuji forum you'll find that somebody hacked the firmware got the two seperate images from the sensor, converted the data and merged the two exposures in Photoshop. AMAZING results. The funny thing is that Fuji's in-camera software is not able to do the same thing.

Cheers, Andy

David

 

[a_hamann]

The Inova piece you mention later in the thread came out a while
ago and he actually posted a link in this forum. It was
interesting because there was less quality loss then you would
expect. If you are just taking snapshots its a pretty good way to
go. The reason why a lot of people find this a bit strange is that
most people who purchased this camera wanted to do more then
snapshots. Notice that everyone is very polite in telling you that
whatever you decide for yourself is a great decision.

... yes, people are really polite and to the point. This is a good forum.

well, I think I'm not coming close to a professional photographer but I'm also past the snapshot stage and felt quite limited by equipment sometimes. Hence the investment in 300D (have a look at http://www.pbase.com/anhamann/ if you are interested where I am).

The storage issue is not importantas has been pointed out, storage
is cheap and there are a lot of people who have spent more on their
lenses then on their camera body so a $60 harddrive isn't a big
deal. I have several thousand RAW files that I have kept and I
don't find them to be a storage issue

If you have done any post-processing, you would understand that the
jpeg that comes out of the camera and looks acceptable cannot
withstand much if any adjustment before it becomes noticable

I am sure that there are many people who would benefit from your
shooting strategy, but I think that you presented it wrong. You
are trying to compare to RAW data and 6mp and justify your
decision. That is why you are causing all the puzzled looks. If
you approached from the standpoint that you do not want to commit
much storage space to photography, you don't like to post process
and you are not able to tell the difference between a 3mp and a 6mp
jpeg then you would probably help out a certain cross-section of
this forum.

well, I really see the "puzzled looks" towards my shooting strategy and that honestly puzzels me! To me, my arguments seem not all that unreasonable. It really boils down to utilizing 95% of the camera's capabilities while keeping things really neat, fast, and simple with 3MP basic JPG. From the replies I get, however, it seems that this way I'm rather using 5% of the camera's capability, eh?

Cheers, Andy

... shot at 3MP with 8mm Peleng



100% crop

 

[pbleic]

Andy:

When there is an overwhelming response to something like this, I think you should rethink your strategy. I have seen your gallery and it is very nice. I think you will eventually regret what you are doing, and it will then be too late - all those photos are gone.

Try printing an 8 X10 using your strategy, and and 8 X 10 with a full JPEG or RAW --> JPEG or TIFF. You will see the difference. Can't you imagine making an 11 X 14 one day?

Paul

well, I really see the "puzzled looks" towards my shooting strategy
and that honestly puzzels me! To me, my arguments seem not all that
unreasonable. It really boils down to utilizing 95% of the camera's
capabilities while keeping things really neat, fast, and simple
with 3MP basic JPG. From the replies I get, however, it seems that
this way I'm rather using 5% of the camera's capability, eh?

Cheers, Andy

... shot at 3MP with 8mm Peleng



100% crop

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[KG50905]

Here is what I learned:

1. Why RAW 4 Me:

I always hate my expertise coupled with Canon light meters.
PhotoShop CS helps me change the exposure by 2-3 point for me
and still with lot of needed details. I agree with you if there is a
tool which does the same with same ease on JPEG, You can count me.

2. Why No RAW/6MP 4 Me:

I also do not see phenominal details extra with 6MP/RAW compared to
size growth. Evey bit helps for some but for me balance is important and
it not there in 6MP CMOS.

3. Why 3MP/JPEG_Normal incamera 4 Me:

Well, instead of shooting with 6MP/RAW and waiting like 10secs. to take
the second shot (proven that first shot is mostly not a best shot) by which
you miss the real smile etc., 3MP/JPEG_Normal should let you take 10 shots
along with 300d excellent incamera sharpening.

Also, it will be much faster to process/tune due to smaller size and less storage.

4. Why No 3MP/JPEG_Normal incamera 4 Me:

If I do not know how the next snap will be like if it is going to be photo of the year or not, how can I justfy loosing any single bit?

Conclusion: If I can do exposure compensation, white balancing with the
same ease as I have with Camera RAW, I will use one and only 3MP/JPEG
as I do not need that 10% extra details that much but need to have my
camera always ready for next shot while the current one is in buffer.

 

[DioDLL]

I agree with pbleic, you have some good photography there and you may be very disappointed in the future if you get into post-processing to create higher quality prints or if you decide to make prints larger then 4x6. Also, I personally would not put the number at 95% of the camera's capabilities doing a 3mp jpeg (I would not even put a 6mp jpeg even close to that). It looks like you are having fun, so enjoy. The only person you have to convince is yourself.

Cheers

When there is an overwhelming response to something like this, I
think you should rethink your strategy. I have seen your gallery
and it is very nice. I think you will eventually regret what you
are doing, and it will then be too late - all those photos are gone.

Try printing an 8 X10 using your strategy, and and 8 X 10 with a
full JPEG or RAW --> JPEG or TIFF. You will see the difference.
Can't you imagine making an 11 X 14 one day?

Paul

well, I really see the "puzzled looks" towards my shooting strategy
and that honestly puzzels me! To me, my arguments seem not all that
unreasonable. It really boils down to utilizing 95% of the camera's
capabilities while keeping things really neat, fast, and simple
with 3MP basic JPG. From the replies I get, however, it seems that
this way I'm rather using 5% of the camera's capability, eh?

Cheers, Andy

... shot at 3MP with 8mm Peleng



100% crop

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

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

 

[a_hamann]

... yes, thx for all the feedback. I'll definitely keep on playing with everything. Cheers, Andy

Cheers

When there is an overwhelming response to something like this, I
think you should rethink your strategy. I have seen your gallery
and it is very nice. I think you will eventually regret what you
are doing, and it will then be too late - all those photos are gone.

Try printing an 8 X10 using your strategy, and and 8 X 10 with a
full JPEG or RAW --> JPEG or TIFF. You will see the difference.
Can't you imagine making an 11 X 14 one day?

Paul

well, I really see the "puzzled looks" towards my shooting strategy
and that honestly puzzels me! To me, my arguments seem not all that
unreasonable. It really boils down to utilizing 95% of the camera's
capabilities while keeping things really neat, fast, and simple
with 3MP basic JPG. From the replies I get, however, it seems that
this way I'm rather using 5% of the camera's capability, eh?

Cheers, Andy

... shot at 3MP with 8mm Peleng



100% crop

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

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