Digital cameras: Raw or JPEG
Raw or JPEG
by Alan Collison - 9/11/04 12:39 PMWell simply put RAW is the file right off the camera chip. No real file formatting has gone on. Unlike a JPEG that can dither colors and items. Yes it is a large file but if you were wanting to print ot render it that would be the place to start. Also I recall that the JPEG wasn't a life long file format. It is prefereed as it is small and thus a great web item. So yes you will need to save as a jpeg to email. But if it's something to be proud of and a 8*10 then a RAW or TIFF is what you want. Photoshop (even LE) will do a web save and you can adjust that to a size or quality.
Re: Raw or JPEG
by eleclair - 11/9/04 9:08 PM In reply to: Raw or JPEG by Alan CollisonIt is true that JPEG is a compressed fomrat and thus original "raw" data is lost. But a high-resolution JPEG saves you valuable fliespace and the images, if initially captured at >5 megapix, are suitable for considerable enlargement. I print 11x14 and 13x19 shots strictly from JPEGS. Even looked at closely no-one can believe they are digital images I printed myself. I also publish scientific photography and JPEGs are often the standard.
So, if you invest in a high-resolution camera and keep it on the best quality image setting all the time you'll have pixels to spare-- as long as you are not making prints the size of a billboard.
I've read that the main advantage of raw files is the
by Kiddpeat - 11/10/04 7:13 AM In reply to: Re: Raw or JPEG by eleclairability to apply your own 'processing rules' rather than be dependent on the camera's internal processor-program. Thus, for example, you can set white balance after the fact. It looks like the best of both worlds is the Canon 20D which can save both raw and jpeg for the same shot. I haven't tried that yet to see how it works.
RAW is for tinkerers...
by Meryl Arbing - 11/13/04 7:12 AM In reply to: I've read that the main advantage of raw files is the by KiddpeatThre are those people for who the photography part of their digital camera is unimportant and who like to tinker with their shots.
It is like those guys who like to tear their car engines apart to get 1% greater horsepower. It isn't for everybody and, from what I have seen, rarely yields results any better than what would have come out of the camera in any case, especially considering the time spent. But...for those people tinkering IS their hobby not taking pictures.
So, if you are the kind of person who changes their sparkplugs every week and knows the plug gap by heart, RAW might allow you to tinker to your heart's content...personally I would rather be out taking pictures while my car is being tuned up by the technicians in the shop!
Somehow, I don't think companies like Adobe, Canon, etc
by Kiddpeat - 11/13/04 8:17 AM In reply to: RAW is for tinkerers... by Meryl Arbingare directing their efforts at 'tinkerers'. I think the effort is for photographers. The people who are serious about their images. You are right that it is not for people who simply want snapshots.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
