I just started using RAW on the Canon G10 and the RAW files are 18.8MB. When I convert them to JPEG with lowest compression using Canon Digital Photo Pro they become 7 to 10mb files. I converted one to TIFF and it was 82mb. If I let the camera process the pics to JPEG with the least amount of compression they are 6.6mb. Is it better to shoot in RAW then convert to JPEG or just to let the camera process the pics to JPEG. From what I have read on here and elsewhere a lot of ya'll shoot in RAW. With RAW files I guess you aways have a perfect file to start with and keep for later use.
My advice for you would be: if you are pixel peeper and wants nothing but the best possible image quality for your photographs (even if you'll be the only one able to see any difference from a fine quality JPEG), then use RAW; but if you think that convenience and a quick photo workflow are more important, shoot with JPEG in fine mode.
You might want to shoot a bit more in RAW and gain some experience before you decide. After shooting a lot in RAW, now I use both RAW and JPEG, according to the situation.
I'm sure there are lots of posts here (and elsewhere) with hundreds of other opinions and detailed explanations, so if you want to dig deeper, I'm sure you'll find a lot of food for thought about this matter.
Thanks Ricardo, I just found out that I can print in RAW right from the Zoom Browser or Canon Digital Photo Pro without converting to JPEG or TIFF. Do you know if the photo machines at the stores can print RAW photos stored on the media cards without converting? I would like to not use JPEG at all if possible.
I think you should ask this at your favorite store... but my guess is that you'll have to convert your files to print them there. There are just too many formats and versions of RAW files, almost one for each camera model... the cost to keep a printing machine compatible with all possible RAW files would be cost prohibitive, so don't blame them for that.
To keep the quality of your RAW files using another format, avoid JPEG and use TIFF16.
This is a never ending debate. And perhaps this may not be the most suitable forum. I'm for one, am against RAW.
I'm extremely satisfied with the Normal or Basic JPGs out of my Nikon dSLR (JPEG compression set to Optimal quality). I even recently got the Canon S90, and the JPGs are pleasant.
In either case, my JPGs are between 2 to 4MB. I don't shoot RAW because it's waste of space, time, and compatibility. I find it easier to backup & restore smaller files. And it's quicker to recover and print JPGs.
For me, it's not worth it, and JPGs are good enough. You should experiment to find out what works best for you.
1) It takes more space. But To a first approximation, storage space is free and limitless. (I have several terrabytes of images and the cost is just noise alongside the kit used to make them)
2) It takes more time. A fair point if you are slaving over everything in photoshop. Buy Lightroom and sort out your workflow.
3) JPG is universally accepted. Sure. The output of your workflow is JPG. No change.
Raw allows me to bring out the detail in the shadows and highlights that is simply discarded by the jpg. Why on earth would I want to throw that flexibility away when it costs me nothing?
I explained it to a sound man the other day. A studio may produce a 24-track master, which you then mix to produce a 2-track CD. What sound man in their right mind would get the desk to auto-level everything onto two tracks, then take *that* away and try to mix it?
I am still undecided as to whether my Nikon D60 is better shooting RAW or 'optimal quality' JPEG. My indecision is probably down to my processing skill (lack of) rather than anything else, but the JPEGs always seem more natural than my RAW output so far. Time is also a factor. Even basic processing then uploading big RAW files gets tiresome after a while.
Since picking up setting tips from Scott H who is also a D60 user, I've only had the 1 chance to try them out.
Hussam, out of interest, what Nikon SLR are you flying?
RAW is still a learning experience for me. I understand the benefits it offers but as yet I haven't been able to reap them!!
I use a Canon G9 (on the ground, not for KAP) and have it set to record each shot in RAW + JPG, so I have both available. For most photographs, I only use the JPG, but for the few that I want to do something special with in terms of editing/adjusting, I start with the RAW and so am able to do so much more in terms of getting the best possible image out of it.
So I agree with Andrew that RAW gives me the desired flexibility when I want it.
I'm new to KAP, and haven't flown an SLR (yet!). I've used, however, the D200, D300 and (now) D700.
If you shoot RAW, try to play with Nikon's own software ViewNX, CaptureNX, etc. That will give the closest looking JPG to the one processed in-camera. Nikon's own software has many limitations, however, so many use Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, Capture One, or other work-flow system. To get beautifully looking JPG from non-Nikon software, I found that I had to do a lot of tweaking, but if you're shooting RAW, you're expected to know what you're doing (I don't!).
Personally, I shoot nothing but JPG now. If I fly the D60, I would:
