I do all of my work in JPEG. If you can set the camera up right you shouldn't need to shoot in raw. Yes, raw has better editing for post, but if you get it right in pre production then you will save a lot of time. Used to own the original 5d now I shoot with the 1ds3. Awsome camera.

echostorm said...

I do all of my work in JPEG. If you can set the camera up right you shouldn't need to shoot in raw. Yes, raw has better editing for post, but if you get it right in pre production then you will save a lot of time. Used to own the original 5d now I shoot with the 1ds3. Awsome camera.

Sorry but I can't agree... when I compare 100% quality JPEGs with RAW converted in Photoshop Lightroom the RAW pix look better every time. That's shooting with a 1ds3 in a studio environment with controlled lighting meter with a proper light meter.

The only time I would shoot jpeg now is when I use the photos for personal use where I don't care much about post production.

echostorm,

When your camera takes a RAW image straight of the sensor and stores in onto the memory card in RAW format there is no processing done at all. If the camera stores JPEG files it will convert the RAW into JPEG. By doing this it will apply specific settings such as white balance, exposure adjustment, contrast, saturation, sharpening etc.

Even though your camera might allow you turn most of those settings either off or to zero it is my understanding from talking to Canon that there are still changes being applied to the image.

If you take the RAW image and convert it to JPEG using a software based RAW converter such as Photoshop CS Camera Raw or Photoshop Lightroom the conversion will be quite different. Pretty much every photographer I know agrees that you will get a better quality JPEG conversion using a RAW converter compared to the in-camera conversion.

Especially when you are looking at up-sizing the image there is definite advantage in using RAW.

That said, I usually shoot either RAW+JPEG (studio, architecture, corporate, stock) or just JPEG (sports, events). Although with memory cards getting cheaper and cheaper and computer ever faster the computing overhead with RAW is in my opinion become less of an issue.

Also, when I shoot RAW I generally convert all RAW images to DNG first.





it's not exactly identical pixels.

Can I add - There is a difference between quality of RAW and JPEG, usually (i know, if set up right and all), especially if you zoom right in I find the image is just sharper, but 99.9% of people CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. I mean you have to really, really look closely and by time the image hits the final medium, print, TV et al you've lost all that quality anyway, and now the quality of the medium is what is most important.

Each to their own though.

Now, you freaks may get off on this:
"I'm proud to finally share this short film with everyone - no time for words - let's let the moving images do the talking. Here is the raw footage (downsized to 1/4 resolution) from the prototype EOS 5D MKII that Canon allowed me to borrow over a 72 hour period. Many thanks to David Sparer and everyone at Canon.. The Behind the scenes video will be up shortly."
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/22/without-further-ado-reverie/

I noticed the new Nikon DSLR also shoots HD video?
chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/

Edit: Bugger! I just got my D80!

Haircut said...

i think the nikon d90 only does 1280x720p but that would still be handy

if u mean your jpegs are sharper, that would most likely be the in camera sharpening that is usually factory preset so ma & pa shooters think their camera is great , which is not applied to raw on most models.

i read somewhere that a famous photographer once said;

amateures worry about sharpness

pros worry about money

photographers worry about light

woohoo!!! i'm a photographer......

i think you mean noise.

jpegs are very noisey, me pet hate.

evlPanda said...

Haircut said...
u probably know all this already - if u mean your jpegs are sharper, that would most likely be the in camera sharpening that is usually factory preset so ma & pa shooters think their camera is great , which is not applied to raw on most models.

No, the RAWS are sharper, but not in the sense you may be thinking of. I'd use clearer, there IS more detail. Again, this goes back to how your camera is processing the RAW image before it saves as JPEG.

Personally I've stopped using RAW as it's just *so* cumbersome, and I'm not selling my pics, and nobody but me can see the difference anyway!

The light in Australia is very bright compared to OS. Anyone know why? Is it just our (for most) proximity to the equator compared to, say, Euroland? I always like my photos from OS more. The light is softer.

wow, i disagree with that. the ozy sun hue is unique. that's why our wild flowers have such vivid colours.

Haircut said...

u probably know this already too - with regards to raw & JPG, it seems many landscape shooters prefer to blow out the pic so the red channel in RGB histogram is hard up against the right hand side and clipping slightly, and this seems to retain the colours and detail in shaded areas better with less noise when lightened, and most of what looks blown out can be recovered providing it's shot in raw and if the blue and green aren't clipped as well + u can fix your white balance, but not so recoverable if shot in JPG + you're pretty much stuck with whatever the cam picked for white balance

5dmk2 now has rgb histogram like 40d - yay, old one didn't

didn't know that the reds are pumped. that explains a lot.

Haircut said...

yeah they seem to clip first most of time

bummer,

my biggest issue wit hthe colour straight out of the camera with windsurfing is the greens and blues not sparkling. seems if i can +1 the coloure tone it might fix the red blowouts.

i found this.

www.photo.net/discuss/threads/canon-picture-styles.308713/

echostorm said...

Arghh.. not this debate again ! Both images are 5616x3717 pixels, just with different bit depth. Both are IDENTICAL in visual quality, just the post processing ability is effected. if you havent set the shot up right in the first place JPEG is a big disadvantage.

We deal with the biggest creative and marketing agencies in the country and not once have we been critised for the quality of our work, aerial images in particular need to be extremely high resolution due to minute content.

Don't get me started on agencies in this country... most of the people I have been working with in agencies don't seem to have a clue. I don't know if it's the skills shortage or perhaps the fact that most high end jobs are done by my pro retouchers. In essence a lot of the big agencies seem to higher the cheapest designers around.

One of the reasons we generally deliver fully re-touched tiffs to the agency. The only time they get untouched files would be when they have to do any effects work.

I think the main thing with aerial work is that you don't have a huge range between highlights and shadows compared to say architectural work. I find JPEG just doesn't give me the flexibility to post process photos to the point were I get the desired effect I am after.

I also find that no matter how hard you try or whatever Kelvin you set the camera to the white balance is always a tad off and needs correcting.

Haircut said...

might also be because of the colour space you are shooting in. i think the 40d comes factory set to srgb which covers a narrower range of gradients per colour as compared to adobe rgb which has a broader gammut range of gradients for some colours, but both colour spaces have the same number of possible gradients. if you've changed your camera to adobe rgb, and not viewed the pix in srgb and checked that they look right before uploading to web, you'll probably find some colours look dull when viewed on the web compared to in photoshop because most browsers only display the srgb colourspace - therefore a colour like a vibrant green in adobe rgb is the equivalent to a duller green in srgb. it appears that if you intend to shoot for the web, it's worth leaving the cam set to srgb, and working solely in srgb in the likes of photoshop (preferably 16bit) until you've completed any editing and colour manipulation, then convert to 8bit & jpeg - then basically what you see in photoshop is what you'll get when you upload, in most browsers.

personal opinion - shoot & view/work in srgb @ 16bit, hit the photos with saturation of red, yellow (makes largest difference to foliage), and green at possibly 25% of each (not blue - makes pic look overdone) then export at 8bit for web

ultimately i am trying to get to the point of getting prints done. so i am using adobe rgb in camera and in photoshop. my colour comment was about viewing in photoshop. guess next time we catch up i am going to bug you with dumb questions.

yes i was using 8bit jpeg. oops. with raw editor i use 16bit. will do jpeg in 16 bit in future in photoshop. cheers.

i tired your saturation tips and liked the results.

cheers.

so much said in this thread, I hope I am no repeating something, but if you shoot in JPEG and resave, dont re save as a JPEG, it compresses the file again, resave as a TIFF.