RAW OR JPEG FILES ....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chesham, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. chesham

    chesham Guest

    Hello to you all!

    I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
    recently encountered problems at the photo printers!

    I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
    .... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
    could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
    program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!

    Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
    with a 5 million pixel JPEG?

    Regards,

    Jon
    chesham, Apr 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chesham

    Dan Guest

    Hi,

    There is a small problem with RAW files and that is that they are not
    all compatible between different manufactures of camera's and even
    between different models of cameras made by same manufacturer. This
    creates difficulty opening those files by image editing software.

    Quality difference is not really an issues in your case, as you are
    taking it to printers and the result for standard photo print out like
    10x15 would be the same. On the other hand if you are blowing up the
    images to rather large scale the jpeg compression artifacts might show
    up on the photo so the uncompressed RAW images that you created would
    produce a better result.

    Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
    printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost with
    jpegs.


    chesham wrote:
    > Hello to you all!
    >
    > I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
    > recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
    >
    > I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
    > ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
    > could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
    > program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
    >
    > Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
    > with a 5 million pixel JPEG?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Jon
    >
    >
    Dan, Apr 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chesham

    Joan Guest

    I did just that a couple of weeks ago. The TIFF files were each about
    35MB and getting 18 files off the CD into the AGFA system took about
    20 minutes. The guy behind the counter kept looking over to see what
    was happening.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    "Dan" <> wrote in message
    news:443cdaac$0$205$...
    : Hi,
    :
    : There is a small problem with RAW files and that is that they are
    not
    : all compatible between different manufactures of camera's and even
    : between different models of cameras made by same manufacturer. This
    : creates difficulty opening those files by image editing software.
    :
    : Quality difference is not really an issues in your case, as you are
    : taking it to printers and the result for standard photo print out
    like
    : 10x15 would be the same. On the other hand if you are blowing up
    the
    : images to rather large scale the jpeg compression artifacts might
    show
    : up on the photo so the uncompressed RAW images that you created
    would
    : produce a better result.
    :
    : Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
    : printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost
    with
    : jpegs.
    :
    :
    Joan, Apr 12, 2006
    #3
  4. "chesham" <> writes:
    > I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera
    > ... but recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
    >
    > I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG
    > files ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This
    > meant that I could only view the shots at home on my computer with
    > my SONY editing program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!


    The RAW file is not for printing or viewing. It doesn'r even contain
    pixels! Your Sony editing program will silently convert the RAW file
    to something else to show it to you on your home computer.

    The idea behind a RAW file is that having access to the RAW sensor
    data gives you greater leeway in post processing. Put for printing or
    viewing, the file need to be saved in some standard image format
    (e.g. JPEG, TIFF or PNG) after you have finished tweaking with the
    RAW data.

    If you don't postprocess your images, and have no plans of ever doing
    saw, there is no point in shooting RAW. You should instead set your
    camera to save directly in JPEG. Use highest JPEG quality.

    > Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
    > quality with a 5 million pixel JPEG?


    Why 5 million? The Sony F-828 let you save 8 million pixel JPEG.
    Having more pixels let you print bigger, or crop,

    As for RAW vs. JPEG: If you don't post-process, there should be no
    perceptible difference. (In theory, JPEG introduces tiny colour
    artefacts, but if you the use highest JPEG quality of the camera,
    they can not be detected by human vision.)

    Here is what happens: You camera will always record in RAW. It has 8
    million photosites, so the RAW data will consist of 8 million 12 bit
    sensor readings. If your camera is set to save as JPEG, these RAW
    data will be converted in camera into 8 million 24 bit RGB pixels and
    saved as a JPEG file. If you set your camera to save in RAW, the
    sensor data is stored, and to create am RGB image, they need to be
    processed. The whole point of doing the convertion from RAW to JPEG
    yourself - instead of letting the camera do it, is that this allows
    you to use use software that gives you some control over the
    conversion process. If you're not interested in excerising that
    control, there is no point doing it yourself, just let the camera
    take care of things.

    There a bit more to this, such as 48 bit RGB, colour management, and
    the use of non-lossy formats such as TIFF - but I won't go into this
    because it doesn't matter unless you use a professional lab to print
    your photographs,

    If you use typical consumer over the counter printing (e.g. WalMart),
    you should give the printer standard JPEG files optimized for sRGB
    colour space. This is what your camera will give you if you set
    ut to save in JPEG. Use highest resolution (8 Mpx) and highest
    JPEG quality.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Apr 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Dan <> writes:

    > Why not shot in RAW and then convert the files to TIFF format so
    > printers can open it. If you are worried about quality being lost
    > with jpegs.


    Most consumer oriented minilabs make a mess out of TIFF. I don't know
    why - the machines they use (e.g. Fuji Frontier) can handle it - but
    maybe the clerks in these places don't know how to deal with TIFF or
    colour profiles.

    My experience is that for good results from consumer labs, JPEG
    optimized for sRGB is the only way to go.

    Btw.: If one don't post-process (i.e. making edits and iterative
    savings of the JPEG file), there is no dicernable difference in
    quality between low compression JPEG (>= 10 in PhotoShop) and TIFF.
    IMHO, the notion that quality is lost with JPEG in this scenario
    is a bit of a red herring. Only people that post-process need to
    worry about JPEG quality.

    Of course, if you print at a professional lab, or do your own
    printing, colour managed TIFFs is a better option. But the OP
    is obviously not doing this.

    ===============
    > chesham wrote:
    >> I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera
    >> ... but recently encountered problems at the photo printers! I had
    >> moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
    >> ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant
    >> that I could only view the shots at home on my computer with my
    >> SONY editing program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
    >> Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
    >> quality with a 5 million pixel JPEG? Regards, Jon
    >>


    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Apr 12, 2006
    #5
  6. chesham

    Jim Townsend Guest

    chesham wrote:

    > Hello to you all!
    >
    > I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
    > recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
    >
    > I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
    > ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
    > could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
    > program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
    >
    > Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo quality
    > with a 5 million pixel JPEG?


    If you're using full size JPEG, then it doesn't matter what format you
    use. You ALWAYS have 5 million pixels in your image. You don't get
    more pixels shooting RAW.

    As others have mentioned, RAW isn't an image format. It's the raw data
    from your camera sensor. It has to be processed further using software
    designed for the task and THEN converted into a recognizable image format
    (TIFF, JPEG etc). There is no standard for RAW, so most printers don't
    want to see it.

    Unless you're printing wall sized posters, JPEG will do just fine.
    Jim Townsend, Apr 12, 2006
    #6
  7. chesham

    bmoag Guest

    You need to understand what RAW is and then the peculiarities of shooting
    RAW with the 828.
    Unless you are shooting in a studio and/or have significant time between
    exposures the 828 is difficult to use in RAW format because of the slow
    write time to compact/flash memory card. This is partly because the 828 RAW
    files are recorded with no compression, unlike dSLR RAW files.
    You should also make a series of test exposures using color charts or a
    subject with a wide range of color and tonal values using the 828 in jpeg
    and RAW and see if there is a significant quality improvement with shooting
    in RAW.
    My experience with this camera is that if I turn down the sharpening using
    jpeg (I prefer to sharpen myself) there is little diference in color
    fidelity between jpeg and RAW modes with the 828. This is decidedly not the
    case with, for example, the Nikon D70 where the color differences between
    jpeg and RAW can be startling. Also the sensor in this camera lacks even the
    exposure latitude of sensors in dSLRs (which is only fractions of an f-stop
    anyway) so that shooting in RAW mode, even applying tricks like deliberate
    underexposure (a la the Nikon D70) does not yield images with more usable
    detail than shooting in JPEG with the 828.
    bmoag, Apr 12, 2006
    #7
  8. chesham

    Jim Guest

    "chesham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello to you all!
    >
    > I am now getting some reasonable results with my SONY F-828 camera ... but
    > recently encountered problems at the photo printers!
    >
    > I had moved to using RAW files ... rather than 5 million pixel JPEG files
    > ... and it turned out that the RAW files were encoded! This meant that I
    > could only view the shots at home on my computer with my SONY editing
    > program! However, JPEG files are readily viewable!
    >
    > Can anyone tell me if there really is a drastic difference of photo
    > quality
    > with a 5 million pixel JPEG?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Jon
    >
    >

    There are the same number of pixels in either JPEG or TIFF. The difference
    is the degree of compression.
    Every time that you save a file in JPEG format, some information is lost.
    Eventually that loss becomes evident.
    It does take more than a few saves for the loss in information becomes
    serious, but remember that the loss is permanent.
    Jim
    Jim, Apr 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Hi Jon

    With regards to your questions, here are my opinions:

    1) If you're an average digital camera user, then just shoot in JPG and
    be done with it. If you're shooting and just printing photos at a print
    lab, then I think JPG will do - but make sure you use high quality JPG.

    2) The RAW image format offers you the purest possible pictures, ready
    for your editing on the computer. The RAW format is proprietary and
    each manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Olympus and the like) use their own
    version. When you take a picture in RAW format, the camera does nothing
    to the photo. There is no adjustment at all - the picture is purely
    what is recorded by the image sensor on the camera.

    3) The JPEG file format is the most popular image file format in the
    world today. It's very popular because it saves a lot of hard drive
    space. A high-resolution picture with 25MB of color information can be
    shrunk down to about 1MB using JPEG compression.

    The downside of JPEG? Well, bear in mind that each time you edit and
    save a JPEG image, you're losing image quality. Some photographers
    who want maximum image quality will avoid using JPEG totally.

    4) The TIFF image format is the reverse of the JPEG format. A TIFF
    image consumes a huge amount of disk space. We're talking about 6MB
    to 18MB for a typical TIFF images. That'll eat up your hard disk in
    no time. However, TIFF images are of extremely high quality - there
    is no data discarded when you work with or save a TIFF file.


    If you want to learn more, then check out these articles about image
    formats:
    http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/image-file-formats-and-image-compression.html
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


    Best Regards
    Gary Hendricks
    http://www.basic-digital-photography.com
    Gary Hendricks, Apr 13, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    896
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. Mr.Will

    EOS 1d saves both jpeg and raw files?

    Mr.Will, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    418
    Mr.Will
    Sep 30, 2005
  3. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,245
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Tim

    Deleting RAW & jpeg files

    Tim, Dec 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,142
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Dec 12, 2006
  5. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    464
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page