digital photography: questions, answers, problems, solutions

[lobster]

Fela fan
RAW images are not compressed at all so they take longer to save to the card and also occupy a lot more space. If you want to reproduce your image on a very large scale RAW uncompressed images will give you the best results. Basically they are raw image data unprocessed.

Thats not entirely true, Nikon D200, D2x , D300,D3 have the choice of compressed RAW which on the D200 and D2x is slightly lossy.
Since the D3 and D300 the compressed RAW is lossless.

It does beg the question, why would anyone use the uncompressed RAW when the compressed is lossless anyway?

There is also 12 bit and 14 bit ..... sorry if this has confused you even more fela fan

I am not sure what Canon do.

 

[snadge]

Raw is very handy for shooting in less than ideal situations, especially if you make your wages from photography, imagine a wedding photographer.

Raw also gives you the possibility of manipulating the colour spectrum already embedded in the file, white balance, exposure and a host of other variables already contained inside the raw file, convert to jpeg and you are manipulating fixed values.

check out my lighthouse pic.

original

edited

I use photoshop CS2 but am using CS3 on a trial and am well impressed with it.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Thats not entirely true, Nikon D200, D2x , D300,D3 have the choice of compressed RAW which on the D200 and D2x is slightly lossy.
Since the D3 and D300 the compressed RAW is lossless.

That's interesting. I wonder if Nikon are ahead of the competition here.

 

[snadge]

That's interesting. I wonder if Nikon are ahead of the competition here.

not when they use sony ccd sensors.

 

[Sweet FA]

i hope other posters might be benefitting from this exchange

Yup. I was wondering about this too. Tbh I think I need to get the hang of the basics of my camera first before I need to worry too much about RAW

As a matter of interest though, when people are talking about 'large' images, how large are they talking about? Will shooting in high quality jpeg be OK for images up to around A4 for example?

 

[big eejit]

Y

As a matter of interest though, when people are talking about 'large' images, how large are they talking about? Will shooting in high quality jpeg be OK for images up to around A4 for example?

Should be fine for general purposes. Storage is cheap as a monkey so generally shoot on the max quality you can.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I agree that storage is cheap. However I have little idea how much a monkey would cost. In my neck of the woods they refer to 'cheap as chips' which is of course true because storage is a chip. I don't think that storage is as cheap as potato chips though, which is the implication. Possibly a monkey if small would be the same price as an SD card of about 2meg. - who knows. However I am no expert on the primate exchange rate.

The sentiment of the post is true though. Shoot at the highest resolution that is practicable. You can always downsize and compress but it doesn't work the other way.

 

[fela fan]

Thats not entirely true, Nikon D200, D2x , D300,D3 have the choice of compressed RAW which on the D200 and D2x is slightly lossy.
Since the D3 and D300 the compressed RAW is lossless.

It does beg the question, why would anyone use the uncompressed RAW when the compressed is lossless anyway?

There is also 12 bit and 14 bit ..... sorry if this has confused you even more fela fan

I am not sure what Canon do.

I think you have returned the confused fog back into my head! I'm at work thinking work things now so can't attempt to get my head back to the topic till later.

But your post here makes me think it's similar for my olympus. I can choose RAW or RAW+HQ or RAW+SHQ. So what's that all about?

It's been very good of everybody thus far to try and unravel this feature of digital photography. Perhaps i could post this up...

 

[fela fan]

using RAW

Why - the reasons for selecting RAW when taking pictures

Why - the reasons for selecting RAW on the software when working with images on the computer

When - in what conditions might one think to use RAW before taking pictures with the camera, and the same question when working on the computer

How - my camera defintely has an option where i can select RAW and jpeg format together, and so how does one deal with this at the computer stage

I'm thinking in the context of artistic satisfaction as well as wanting to sell my pictures.


If i can i will post up a summary of what i understand before any of you wake up. But i need to get work out of the way first.

 

[paolo]

RAW will give you the most potential to do the best processing. Whether or not you will be able to realise that potential is down to your processing skills and the software you use. It will not "automatically" give you better results. In the same way that shooting on manual will not "automatically" give you better images that shooting on auto.

If you shoot on RAW, you will need more cards, and your frame-per-second will be lower. Comensurably, if you are doing backups, you will need considerably more space, and a little bit more time.

Some photo hosting services like flickr will adequately backup everything you shoot in JPEG. For RAW you may need to find other means, e.g. burn CDs or mirror to another drive.

Generally, most people always shoot in "one way", e.g. just JPEG, just RAW+JPEG. It means you always have a familiar way of working. I wouldn't recommend trying to mix and match. You will inevitably end up cursing because you made the "wrong" decision for a particular shoot or shot.

In terms of how to deal with during processing, it sounds like you should do some real world tests. RAW isn't for everyone. You need to work out what it can do for you. So for this answer, you might have to discover for yourself...

...shoot some stuff with RAW + JPEG. Get some trial copies of the various packages that can process RAW. People here will have lots of good suggestions, or alternatively google a bit. Take the same picture and try your hand with the various packages. Ideally make it a technically tricky shot. Some areas of very fine detail. Some very shadowy bits, and some very light bits. And some vivid colours, and maybe fleshtones too.

If you can get a better (or at least comparable) result, with your processed RAW, vs. the JPEG, then you are beginning to find your answer.

An alternative view would be: Shoot it all in RAW anyway. If you don't have the skills or software now, you might get either or both in the future, if you ever want to come back to your "digital negs".

Personally I can't be arsed with RAW, but I came to that conclusion after I'd done lots of experiments to see if I could make it work for me. I'd strongly recommend giving it a try - your results, and your eyes, are arguably the final decider no matter what anyone on a forum says.

 

[fela fan]

Personally I can't be arsed with RAW, but I came to that conclusion after I'd done lots of experiments to see if I could make it work for me. I'd strongly recommend giving it a try - your results, and your eyes, are arguably the final decider no matter what anyone on a forum says.

Cheers for that paolo. I am slowly synethesising everyone's replies into a whole and it's all beginning to make good sense. Here you made some good comments about approaching RAW that make sense to me.

To be honest i don't want to bother, intuitively. But my main reason for moving over from film to digital (slr format anyway) is that i want to make a real good go at earning a modest income from my photography, and need the ease of storage etc of digital. [Bearing in mind that 'modest' in britain will mean rather much more where i live in thailand!]

So, here is my main question: if i did a shoot, and an image library loved the photos, the composition, the subject etc etc and so did a specific magazine who wanted to buy the photos to use in their next edition, will my photos taken in jpeg format on my 12GB pixel Olympus E510 camera cause the buyers problems?

 

[snadge]

If you are making a living, use raw, plain and simple you can convert from raw to a loss less format such as TIF and extrapolate to a larger size if needed plus if the picture needs a tweak, jpeg is no good.

You can make a script to convert without any manual input.

Another way to do this is to save as RAW + jpeg as Editor does, then if you are happy with the jpeg you can go right ahead with that but you always have a raw "negative" to play with.

I always used to use jpeg until I realised the advantages of raw, most photographers that are using digital and make their living from photography always shoot in RAW for the simple reason it will contain a shit load of information that can be retrieved to enhance the finished article.

personally if your camera can take raw, use it, it's not there for no reason, download a trial of bibble labs or photoshop and have a play.

 

[editor]

So, here is my main question: if i did a shoot, and an image library loved the photos, the composition, the subject etc etc and so did a specific magazine who wanted to buy the photos to use in their next edition, will my photos taken in jpeg format on my 12GB pixel Olympus E510 camera cause the buyers problems?

A very high quality JPG should be fine, although you have to send the image as a TIF rather than a JPG.

I've sold tons of pictures in all shapes and sizes - down to a £350 sale for a pic taken on a 3.2MP compact - but if you're targeting photo stock libraries, I suggest you contact them directly.

My advice remains the same: shoot in JPG (for ease) and RAW (for a high quality 'negative') simultaneously. The amount of photos I take means I haven't the time or the inclination to have to first process images from RAW before I can use them.

 

[lobster]

But your post here makes me think it's similar for my olympus. I can choose RAW or RAW+HQ or RAW+SHQ. So what's that all about?

RAW means just RAW photos
RAW + HQ means RAW plus High quality Jpeg
RAW + SHQ means RAW plus Super High quality jpeg

At the end of the day , jpeg is lossy whatever setting you may use, Raw is not.

This is actually a loessless jpeg however no camera today uses it. Not a lot of software supports it as well.

 

[fela fan]

new question

When i put my camera (olympus e510) onto aperture or shutter priority it seems to me to not autofocus when i take shots. I hear none of the noises or see none of the usual flashing lights.

What's that all about?

 

[editor]

When i put my camera (olympus e510) onto aperture or shutter priority it seems to me to not autofocus when i take shots. I hear none of the noises or see none of the usual flashing lights.

Sounds like you've turned autofocus off. There might be a switch on the lens. Turn it to AF.

 

[fela fan]

Sounds like you've turned autofocus off. There might be a switch on the lens. Turn it to AF.

I've just checked a few things again to see if this is the case.

No switch on the lens, just a button next to my viewfinder called AEL/AFL that shares locking focus and exposure.

I've taken a close-up photo on auto setting, lens autofocuses then i fire the shot. Fine.

I've done the same with shutter priority and aperture priority, and then pressing the AEL/AFL button, and no autofocusing any time. It's confusing the hell out of me and i've found nothing in the instruction manual to help. I'm beginning to convince myself it's a factory fault.

In essence at the moment i can't use these priority modes, and that's obviously no damned good!

 

[Blagsta]

Why are you pressing the AEL/AFL button?

 

[editor]

Fela: after you've focussed, you should just keep the shutter half depressed to retain focus not mess about with the AEL button.

 

[fela fan]

Fela: after you've focussed, you should just keep the shutter half depressed to retain focus not mess about with the AEL button.

I only looked at this button in response to your comment about a focus switch near the lens! I read the manual and i could see what it was for, but just checked it out nevertheless, in case the manual language was dodgy, which it is at times.

The problem is that when i half depress the shutter button no focussing takes place. Nothing at all happens! No lights, no noise, no focussing. So i can't even get a focus to retain it.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

fela fan

Just a thought but are the batteries fully charged?

 

[fela fan]

fela fan

Just a thought but are the batteries fully charged?

Not fully, but very!

I'm posting from work now, but i will try all the other options, including all the scene modes, but right now autofocus works completely normally in auto mode, but not at all in S and A priority modes. I really do think i've got a faulty camera. I also hate that it has been made in china...!

A thought though: there's lots of things i can do to alter the factory defaults in order to customise my camera to my liking, perhaps i have to do something re S and A priority? I can't think so, but anyway...