Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Hobbies and Leisure Time > Photography



View Poll Results: Which do you guys shoot in?
JPG 14 60.87%
RAW 9 39.13%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2006, 03:22 PM   #16
jakaracman
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 665
Default

Our photographers all use jpg even for A3 pics in mag (2 page spread). Raw just isnt neccessary if you dont have a really high output quality as well. If you take your pics to average (or even above average) photo studio to make prints out of them, in 99% of cases raw has no advantage as they just cant (or don't know how or do not want for a normal money) print the pics in high enough quality.
I'd say raw only for really rare studio shots (imaguine shooting playmates for Playboy) or for high-end big format prints.
__________________
L 555 BAT
jakaracman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 03:59 PM   #17
No.1
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 3,224
Default

^^^

Is the ability to change the white balance in RAW not a feature that makes it worth using, though?

Given the chance, i'd probably go for RAW and give myself plenty of time to edit in PS - the finaly few degrees of control it offers will be worth it IMO.

but for me - JPG all the way on my Ixus 400
__________________
No.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 06:26 PM   #18
jakaracman
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 665
Default

Basically, as there pracitcally isn't a thing that you cant fix in PS it's just not worth thr bother (or so they say) ...
__________________
L 555 BAT
jakaracman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 09:54 PM   #19
Zot09
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monterey(Home)/Irvine(School), California
Posts: 989
Default

I actually shoot in both jpg and raw depending on what i'm shooting. If i'm out with friends, and just taking random pictures, I shoot in jpg to conserve space on my 2gb CF card. But if i'm out trying to shoot something of importance, then it's deffinitly RAW.
__________________
Zot09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 11:57 PM   #20
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

since i have not been shooting in raw to see if i like it or not; this is what i've found...

1. fixing the color balance of the photos is much quicker, and easier; with less graining of the pixels.
2. its faster to fix it, and requires fewer clicks, hot keys, and calculation time.
3. the final product (be it jpg or other) looks much better; cleaner, and more brilliant.

i can definately see the difference adobe RGB is making; and the dull look of it for online variants of jpg images (as already stated, Windows pc's lack the ability to interpret such color formats correctly, and look dull; and less saturated) so i think i'll leave that setting for my special photography projects.

only when i need the room for 400+ pictures will i be using jpg again its just that much easier! (+better)
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 12:55 PM   #21
Viper5703
Regular User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan ,USA
Posts: 47
Default

I would shoot in RAW if I had that option. However, my Nikon 4600 cant write RAW, so Im out of luck there. So I'm stuck with JPG.
__________________
Viper5703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 02:07 PM   #22
fsandys
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 498
Default

If you have the option and the required memory! then RAW every time, or even TIFF if you have that option.
__________________
--
fsandys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 02:18 PM   #23
Fleischmann
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,184
Default

I've been using raw for quite some time (had to download a special plug in for PS CS2, my Olympus C7070 saves in a format called ORF-Olympus Raw File) and yes editing is soooooo much easier. The PS editing functions are awesome. The only problem is, of course, at 7Mpixels a 512MB clip lasts for around 50 photos. And the time it takes to save is also irritating, some times when I spot a car I have to wait a while between multiple shots That's why for everyday use JPEG is still no1.
__________________
Fleischmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2006, 02:29 PM   #24
SDK2003
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Solihull - UK
Posts: 502
Default

It depends what you are shooting.

Sport, racing, quick snaps etc then shoot in JPEG
I shoot weddings in RAW+Small JPEG. The JPEGs go as proof photos and the RAW images are used for the selected final images.
__________________


|| Canon 20D x2 | 17-40L | 24-70L | 100 USM Macro | 100-400L IS | 580EX ||
SDK2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2006, 02:55 PM   #25
996GT2
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Default

What`s the difference between RAW and TIFF?
996GT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2006, 04:33 PM   #26
Fleischmann
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,184
Default

From what I know Tiff is just a standard uncompressed picture, where data is saved pixel by pixel. RAW however is slightly different, it also has no loss in quality AND within the file is inserted info about the contrast, saturation etc. of the picture which makes it easy to edit. It isn't a picture until it is processed further.

Damn, this is hard to explain. Let me put it this way, Tiff is basically a RAW which is saved with the default camera settings and cannot be undone.
__________________
Fleischmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2006, 03:38 PM   #27
ae86_16v
Regular User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 3,446
Default

^ Correct, TIFF is uncompressed and standardized. Where as RAW often is still compressed to an extent and often proprietary to the manufacturer. But RAW compression there isn't a lost in quality like JPG compression.

For my 6MP D50, RAW is 5mb to 6mb for the largest file. Tiff will probably be around 30mb per file.
ae86_16v is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2006, 05:51 PM   #28
DeMoN
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,106
Default

so pics taken in RAW are smaller than TIFF?
__________________
Guess who's Back!
DeMoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2006, 05:58 PM   #29
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by DeMoN
so pics taken in RAW are smaller than TIFF?
photos i take in *.CR2 (canon raw file) are about 7 mb

to convert the same file from *.cr2 into Tiff, it turns into a 20 mb file or so; and actually isn't as workable
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2006, 03:11 AM   #30
Fleischmann
Regular User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,184
Default

The RAW's taken with my 7,1 Mpixel take up about 10MB's, Tiff's are more than double that.
__________________
Fleischmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump