JPEG/TIFF/RAW?? What is everyone shooting?

[Julian Tracy]

Hi,

Was able to pick up an S2 at my local dealer Friday, almost spur-of-the-moment.

Been doing some testing, and was wondering what are others are shooting in terms of file format? (when shooting at 4256 quality)

RAW seems to have many advantages , including highest quality, better color, ecconomical file size, shooting speed, etc. Nicest color when going straight into AdobeRGB.

TIFF's are huge files, take forever, and try as I might, I can't seem to tell any noticeable quality diffference between the tiffs and the Fine Jpegs. Even at 200-300%, the quality of the two seems very close.

As long as you immediately batch save into Tiff format so as not to have any further compression and decompression, is there any reason not to shoot fine jpegs instead of tiffs?

Any workflow suggestions in relation to file format, conversions, editing, etc.?

Regards to all!

Julian Tracy

[Laren]

I've had my camera about a week.
I've been using 6meg resolution with normal jpeg compression.
The 8x10s I have made at Walmart looked good.
I have been using the fine mode now until I have a chance to make another 8x10 and compare it.
Unless it is stunning I'm going back to normal mode to save space.

I'm curious what settings others are using.

Larry

[SSonnentag]

I use 6MP fine mode. Most of my pictures are snapshots, so I don't use the 12MP or RAW mode much. Disk space is getting cheaper and now that I have a DVD+R/RW drive I can back up my images a lot easier.

Shawn

[Laren]

Shawn,

Are you shooting fine or normal compression?

Have you made any 8x10's?

Larry

[SSonnentag]

I use fine compression. The 8x10's I've printed are gorgeous! :)

[Marvo]

Hi everybody,
Got my S2 last week - pretty impressed.
I always shoot at 4256 with sharpness at max. 12 megapixel shooting just has the edge on 6.
6 interpolated up to 12 isn't as sharp. I've taken a pin-sharp TIFF and fine JPEG version of the same shot up to 12 inches by 16 inches and no matter how hard I look, I can't see the difference. At 500 - 600% on-screen in photoshop the pixels are slightly different between the two images but the quality/detail is the same even when printed to 12 x 16!
Haven't tried the RAW mode yet. Does anyone know what difference I'll find between RAW and TIFF/JPG?

As regards workflow, I use the "actions" in Photoshop 6 to batch process all my images. - Set resolution to 300dpi, rotate etc.

Great to have an S2 forum, let's hear more from the users!

Regards,
Marvo.

[teski]

I shoot mostly at 6MP JPEG Fine, but do some stuff at 12MP JPEG Fine. I've blown up some of each to 11x17 and they came out great. Also a lot of room for cropping with the resolution on this beast.

Teski

[PaulN]

I shoot about 90% raw just because it allows me to make adjustments during processing. The other 10% I shoot jpeg 4256 fine.

[ballroom_boy]

Hi there

I've been shooting 6MP Fine JPEGs with my S2 and they look great. I tried using 12MP Fine JPEGs and couldn't see much (if any) quality improvement vs. 6MP mode .

Am I doing something wrong or do I need to shoot RAW in order to take advantage of the extra pixels interpolation offers?

Thanks!

[Europa_714]

For me, the file type/resolution is dictated by the end goal of the image. If I am doing a short task just for display on a monitor I use JPG. Most of the shooting I do with the goal of eventually printing the image, and I like to have the option of medium/large format print.

90% of my images I save as Raw. I regard the Raw files the same as a (film based camera) 'negative'..... (Some of us still remember those, they were brownish colored plastic strips). After weeding out the duds, re-naming and converting Raws to TIFs, I archive all my Raw files on CD, sorted by date directories, and then further by general subject directories. This way I can use the images in short-term on my hard drive, to display or print, experiment with the images, crop, whatever. I know that I will always have the "negative" archived, the version of that image with the maximum amount of data, unaltered, incase I either decide to create a larger print, or fat-finger/ruin the working copy.

[Tom Nolle]

I shoot RAW exclusively. With that format I have a chance to fix color balance and exposure problems in the most direct way, and as the previous post said, saving RAW is as close to saving a negative as it gets in digital photography. If you learn new techniques you can go back to the original shot and apply them.

Tom

[Rockyw]

We shot RAW only. The first wedding we used Fine JPEG and we will never do that again. The RAW format lets you tweak the most from your pictures. A 1/2 stop off one way or the other and that JPEG is trash bin material. Under studio settings its easy to keep everything near perfect exposure, but under wedding or even family/senior picture conditions the lighting changes so fast it's hard to keep eveything just right. With RAW you can get that perfect setting. Remember, with film the lab adjustes each roll for our little mistakes. Now! WE ARE THE LAB.

[Rockyw]

It's not the quality differance between RAW vs JPEG thats the issue. When two good pictures are taken and compaired indeed thay may be very equal in look. Its when you take a shot a little dark or light. Now take that picture and see the differance after you give the RAW +4/6 and change the WB and have a lab print it, compaired to a JPEG just shot and printed. Thats what separates RAW from JPEG and just a snapshot from a portrait. My thoughts :)

[sandman]

Got the EX yesterday, so went out this morning and shot a few contrasty shots both in fine jpeg and raw . Remember it's the first time i've used it , but i managed to increase the shadow depth ,and reduce the number of blown highlights, i do like the fact that in ver2, you can increase the comp by steps of 1/6, that was proberbly my main gripe with the S2 , the 1/2 step increases only.

Saying all this, but i won't be using it a lot, it's too time comsuming, uses too much disk space, and the detail is'nt that critical to me.

But i now understand why you pro's out there must use it, after all the customers paying you to extract the maxium detail from your shots, and as you said Rocky you can save the original raf file to disk ,and use it like the a negative.

But on the whole i'm happy with jpegs, but when a situation arises when i need to use it, it's there.

Glad i bought it ,and like soccer commentator once said '' if you don't buy a ticket , you can't enter the draw'' so with that profound thought ,i'll leave you.

Happy shooting
Sandman

[raidertek]

Originally posted by Rockyw
We shot RAW only. The first wedding we used Fine JPEG and we will never do that again. The RAW format lets you tweak the most from your pictures. A 1/2 stop off one way or the other and that JPEG is trash bin material. Under studio settings its easy to keep everything near perfect exposure, but under wedding or even family/senior picture conditions the lighting changes so fast it's hard to keep eveything just right. With RAW you can get that perfect setting. Remember, with film the lab adjustes each roll for our little mistakes. Now! WE ARE THE LAB.

My thought exactly! I 'll second those comments

[moon]

2304, fine.....print sports and school all day long up to 10x13 tack sharp.

[jknights]

RAW only way to get real quality and ability to rework images.

[raidertek]

Originally posted by lumens
A firm but quite inaccurate statement. I'm sorry to be so blunt about this subject but I feel there is an inappropriate amount of 'superiorty feel' about raw towards jpeg that I don't consider justified.

Half a stop overexposure means you will loose detail in highlights.
This is true for jpeg AND raw. You cannot conjure back afterwards what has gone while shooting. If you think you can then you are in error.

Half a stop underexposure means nothing at all, it's a laugh for anyone with more Photoshop experience then a mere beginner. So half a stop underexposure can be easily fixed ("without getting your back wet" as we say in Holland) with both jpeg and raw. No big deal. Which means your statement about jpeg is highly exgagerated: nowhere near trash bin material.

However, because of the statements made on this site regarding the alleged superiority of raw, I have ordered the Hyper Utility yesterday (at a mere 170 euros). When it arrives I will do some tests with jpeg and raw in various stages of under- and overexposure. Naturally I will report back what those tests proved to me.

I am sorry but you seem pretty confident in you rebutle for not having done ANY testing like the rest of us making fact based statements from actual testing. My experience and recomendation actually comes from not only my personal testing but the lab that I use and their testing and recomendation of about 20,000 photographers in the USA. So if that makes me sound like I have a Superiority feel regarding RAW than so be it but when my income and many others wedding images are at stake than I would take that to the bank. Oh, and by the way if RAW were not the way to go for critical and superior image data collection then oh why is it recomended so by not only the camera manufactures but Adobe as well. But per your description I wouldn't know that since I am only a beginer who has used PS since Ver. 2.

IN A WORLD WHERE WE ALL HAS PERFECT DIGI CAMERAS AND SHOT THE PERFECT EXPOSURE OR DID NOT WANT TO MANIPULATE OUR IMAGES LIKE NEGATIVE WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.

Please do not take any hostility from these remarks only superiority and confidence in the creation of my profession work of 25 years.

[Tom Nolle]

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but I have to say that I also believe that there is exposure latitude "built in" to the RAW process. It appears that the camera captures luminosity data beyond what is actually used to map the image into the target color space. That "extra" data is still in the RAW file. When you convert, you can slide the mapped luminosity range over the wider range actually captured, and so you do get usable detail out of what appear to be (but, from a capture perspective, are not) "blown" highlights or opaque shadows.

I'm not saying that this process is perfect, meaning that it may not produce results as good as proper exposure would, but the sensitivity adjustment in RAW is invaluable in dealing with shots that have just too much dynamic range to expose correctly. There have been a number of posts and articles regarding how to combine two S2 images with different sensitivity settings at conversion in order to create a single composite that brings out highlight or shadow detail. I've used the technique myself.

I agree with Theo that there is a tendency to create a myth around things that are quirky and difficult, perhaps to glamorize them a bit. But in the case of RAW and the EX converter, at least some of that myth is justified!

Tom

[raidertek]

It sure sounds like you folks are missing the point here... Lets simplify this a little. A RAW file is all of the data that the camera collects hence the bigger file size (12 MG ) giving you the option to process the exposure on your computer with whatever software you choose. A JPEG file ( 6 MG ) is a file exposed and processed using the camera to be the " correct exposure " as an end result disgarding any additional information that was captured in the RAW state. So the difference is pretty much whether you let the camera process the images from its RAW state or when you do it with a compter and software and your own intervention and tweaking. Making my personel comparison of do you let your lab or hardware make the color and exposure judgement for you or do you stand in the digi darkroom and process yourself. As a professional I choose to shoot RAW for things that are critical to me and I shoot JPEG for things that I know that I have the exposure nailed or don't really care that much about. Honestly I love my S2 and its ability to give me a great image everytime just lke I have with film for the past 25. It becomes an issue of what works for you to get what you need as an end result.

[raidertek]

Originally posted by lumens
Half a stop underexposure means nothing in terms of correcting in Photoshop. This is a simple fact. The original quote I replied to stated that with only half a stop underexposure a jpeg would be trash bin material. This is complete nonsense. I'm sure you will agree to this.

For whatever reason you seem to take this kinda personal, even though the original quote I replied to wasn't yours in the first place. I think you better reread a few things here.

As for your shouted text. The correct exposure is the best one, with film and with digital. What worries me a great deal is that shooting raw apparantly causes people to think they can simply shoot away and deal with exposure (and other) problems later, behind the pc.

Even if it's true that raw gives you an edge (if so, my own tests will undoubtedly confirm that in due course), it certainly doesn't mean you can just push the button and that's that. Photographers will have to continue to try and achieve the best possible exposure and composition etc. as they will be spending 90% of their working life behind a PC instead of behind the camera if they don't.

I could not agree more with all of your above statements...

[Rockyw]

WOW! this thread is like the Browns Vs the Stealers! I also have used Photshop for some time. I can lighten and darken, change levels and on and on. But I and my wife can see a differance between lightening a JPEG in Photshop, and going +4/6 in EX on a RAW file. That + 4/6 or what ever does not just lighten the picture, it brings out details and makes the image sharper as well. We live with our light meter and try to hit every shot on the nose. But a lot of times we bump a picture 2/6 or even 1/6 and it looks better. thats not even half a stop. And highlightes blow out are not gone in a RAW. Today my wife was working on files from our last wedding. The Groom had a white bow tie on and on a few poses with our studio lights the tie lost detail at f8 as all the other shots were taken. Only by enlarging the photo was this seen. Dese gave the photo a -2/6 ( 1/3 stop ) and the tie came back with all detail. The meter said f8 and we shot f8 but indeed we probley could have went to f 8 1/2 and been safe on most everything. My only point is we get paid well, we make the time to convert RAWs, and we make the most of every shot. Maybe were just to picky. Myself, I think film is just much easyer even with our all manual cameras. But! were hooked on digital so it's converting I will go! haha
We can all have differant views and still be professional photography friends:) It's been a busy weekend, lets have a good week all.

[raidertek]

"My only point is we get paid well, we make the time to convert RAWs, and we make the most of every shot. Maybe were just to picky. Myself, I think film is just much easyer even with our all manual cameras. But! were hooked on digital so it's converting I will go! haha "

Amen brother, I meant on the Steeler's being better than the Browns since we ar talking about something really important other than this work stuff.... Tee hee.

[Rockyw]

And that's all I have to say about that. Rocky Gump

[rbeckerelite]

Originally posted by Rockyw
And that's all I have to say about that. Rocky Gump

Yeah, well, I like the Cowboys... (no snickering!)

:D

[Rockyw]

I have seen posts on file size for a Tiffs converted from a RAW. All my Tiffs are converted on the highest setting and are all 34.6 mb each before croping. I only use the 8 bit setting because our lab can only print in 8 bit mode. If I convert as a 16 bit I have to go back to 8 bit anyway before I send them to the lab. If you have your pics printed at a lab you only need 8 bit anyway. I havent found a reason to use 16 bit so it keeps my file size down.

[Wichita Wayne]

Most of the time I use JPG because the compression routines in the S2 are well tuned and provide pictures that need a minimum of post processing. However, sometimes I want a little more control due to an exposure problem or funny lighting. To say that all you shoot is RAW is to admit to waisting time in processing the RAW files into TIFF's or JPG's. And if you only shoot JPG you are not taking advantage of the control that the S2 offers. Don't shoot one or the other, but rather shoot smart using the format that will provide the best results with the least cost.

[CaptJR]

Those are convincing crops. I think I'm going to have to think about using raw for some shots. Maybe I can predict to a point which pictures people might want blow ups of.

Also, I was considering starting a new thread about what people think about cuting portrait picture out of landscape pictures instead of taking the shot vertically. Now, I think there is plenty of detail if I use raw for those shots.

JR