Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
1st Use Of RAW Images Today  
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2617 times:

Hi all,

Decided to try out RAW today, and am impressed, I have not done any direct comparison from Fine jpeg to RAW but I think it looks better through RAW.

I also enjoy the way you can adjust things through the PC.

Few things to ask,

How many other DSLR users use RAW or the equivilent?

How does it work buring .crw images to CD? Are they then opened from the CD through my ZoomBrowser?

I thought I heard you could adjust exposure with a RAW shot..am I right or just getting confused?

Many thanks

LGW

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

I took one RAW and one Large Fine JPG of the same subject, same time and same lens. I compared the most careful I could the 2 versions and to be honest, on my monitor I didn't see any relevant difference.

I'll continue with Large Fine JPG.

Luis
P.S. on the other hand, I'm unexperienced in this digital world.


User currently offlineAvroarrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

I have a Finepix S602 and I have found the difference between 6mp fine and 6mp high to be pretty much un-noticeable on my monitor. Fine saves the image in a TIFF and it is about 17 megs in size, while high saves the image in low compression JPEG and it is usually about 2.2 megs per image. Now again I may come to notice the difference over time with different lighting/weather conditions as well as different "in camera" sharpening settings, but this is my observation right now with only having owned the camera for 2 weeks.


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

I shoot RAW ... I would agree with Luis that out of camera you won't see much difference. However, as soon as you start to play around with the jpg, image quality suffers. The RAW file gives you much more flexibility.

No problem burning .crw to CD (every image I've kept from my D60 is burned onto 2 CDs for safety). Just open them in Zoombrowser as per usual.

Exposure compensation (-/+ 2 stops) is possible with RAW files - I use Breezebrowser, so don't recall excatly how you do this in Zoombrowser, but there is a way. Mind you I wouldn't recommend using the full 2 stop range - quality will suffer, but you can certainly do 1 stop with no apparent ill effects.

A real plus (in my opinion) of RAW files is that overtime, processing software imporves. Its nice to be able to go back to the unprocessed original and run it through the upgraded software - or to try a new technique.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Thanks Colin and all...I will shoot RAW as long as memory allows me too...cheers

LGW


User currently offlineTommy Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 912 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

LGW,

I always use RAW.
Like Colin said, I love being able to back to the unprocessed original and tweak it from there...

Shot with fine JPG once...and I'm still kicking myself for it everyday...

Tommy Mogren



Flightdeck Action - Cockpit Videos on Blu-ray and DVD - Flights In The Cockpit- You're Invited!
User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

I too use RAW, it gives you much more control over the final output. The only time I ever let my S2 do in-camera processing is for unimportant snapshots or if CF space is an issue. RAW is more time-consuming, but believe me, the final product is always better.

Aric T.



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2352 times:

RAW may give much more flexibility to post process an image but I ask myself: "Do I need that?"

Until now my answer is: "no".

No because I can work a fine .jpg photo the way I want it, I can work the shadows, the highlights, the dark areas, I've made great prints (10x15cm and 20x30cm) from .jpg images that I have worked on. So, I'm curious to know what RAW can give me more...

Just trying to understand, I'm very recent in this digital think and I admit I may be wrong in this.

Luis


User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2345 times:

The best part about RAW is, it's "what you see is what you get". JPEG mode, regardless of settings will always have some sort of in-camera processing. I would rather be the one who controls that. Plus, I prefer for my original images not to be compressed. Compression always degrades the image to some extent. I suppose low-res web-applications won't show the differences that much...But, once you start getting up into the 8x10+ range, there is a noticable difference.

Aric T.



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Well Luis, just try it for your self - shoot the same scene RAW and jpg and then experiment with what you can do with image - I think you'll find your ability to manipulate and enlarge the image greatly expanded.

Also I would agree that 90% of the time I don't need that extra flexibility. The problem is that for some I do (perhaps I need a poster print) - and, with a bit of luck, I may need it at a future date for publishing purposes - some companies insist on .tif format. I can always convert RAW to jpg, but sadly, jpgs can't be converted to anything else without some quality loss.

Another thing I appreciate is the fact I don't have to worry about optimum camera settings in the field. Perhaps the image contrast turns out higher than I expected ... no problem, I just convert the RAW using the "low contrast" setting when I get home.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

ok, thanks for the feedback.

Luis


User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2261 times:


Ok. Assuming I want to "go RAW" from today, what should I look to equip myself with in terms of RAW conversion software...?

I'm sold on the advantages of RAW so will try shooting a few RAW images and possibly stick with it if I can find a workflow that works for me.

Any of you guys care to advise...

Thanks,
Dean



Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Well personally I find Breezebrowser (www.breezesys.com) one of the best, and very reasonably priced ($40). It is very good in terms of workflow management and offers a range of simple or complex conversion options. It does everything Zoombrowser does, and more, but much more intuitively and much faster.

Having said all that, I'm very tempted by a new RAW convertor plugin released by Adobe for use with Photoshop (v.7.01). The reviews of this look very good indeed, but it costs $99 plus you need to buy or upgrade to v.7 - something I haven't bothered with, but this could well be the incentive I need.

Cheers

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Processing Of RAW Images posted Sun Nov 14 2004 04:45:15 by Cancidas
Unauthorised Use Of Images posted Fri Sep 8 2006 19:46:22 by Dendrobatid
The Cost Of Giving Away Free Use Of Images... posted Sat Dec 31 2005 19:11:20 by MarkJBeckwith
Use Of Autofill When Uploading Compulsory Or Not? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 00:35:48 by Irish251
One More Question ... I Need Both Of These Images posted Thu Aug 17 2006 06:07:16 by AussieAviator
Unauthorized Commercial Use Of Our Photos. posted Thu Jul 20 2006 19:54:33 by Bluewave 707
Request For Use Of My Bahrain Amiri Photos posted Sat Jun 24 2006 11:25:27 by SmithAir747
Help! 1st Shots Of New Airline Go! Rejected. posted Tue May 9 2006 06:24:10 by Phxplanes
Your Comments On Website Use Of Photo posted Wed Apr 5 2006 08:17:34 by Psych
Contacted By Airline For Use Of My Photo posted Wed Mar 22 2006 11:51:41 by Linco22