Buying on basis of RAW v. JPEG?

[chfphoto]

Here I am, still struggling with what to buy. I attended the Nikon Digital Seminar yesterday, and was all set to test the digital waters by buying a Nikon D70 (I guess those subliminal sales pitches work!), when I once again was drawn back to that Sigma SD10. The Sigma, apparently, does not allow you to shoot in JPEG, which I thought I would want. Maybe I don't...would I just buy better/more cards? I know you need to know: I shoot primarily black and white candid images of babies and young children, hand- held, usually using ambient light (sometimes flash), and am currently using a Pentax 645n with a macro lens- because I love the sharpness and detail. I usually reprint between 5x7-11x14. I am starting fresh, so any brand is worth considering.

[ustein]

I only use for raw for the last 4 years. But for me also speed does not matter. For highest quality raw is the way to go. But if you WB and exposure is good then also a JPG can do.

Not 100% sure how good the D70 JPG auto WB is. But again no problem if you always use the same light.

Uwe

[Sean Dempsey]

image wise, with finish product in mind, RAW is superior. RAW has everything that JPG does, but JPG doesn't have everything RAW does.

[chfphoto]

image wise, with finish product in mind, RAW is superior. RAW has everything that JPG does, but JPG doesn't have everything RAW does.

Thank you for your response. Am I right that basically jpeg allows you to get more images per card because it compresses them? And if so, would a better flash card, or more of them, address the problem of raw-only?

[Sean Dempsey]

yeah, that's exactly it. Gig cards are cheap.

[chfphoto]

Thanks so much. I am finally able to make this decision. I'll post my results later!

[ginman522]

People who buy an expensive digital SLR, and shoot in JPEG are LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY new Sigma SD10, only RAW, is spectacular. The images are crisp and clean, nothing can touch them in its price point. Also the Conversion to Jpeg is as easy as pie, taking no time at all. The Sigma software automatically converts and if wanted, enhances the photo. With this simplicity, I don't miss a Jpeg option.

The SD10 not only takes great pictures, but because of the Foveon chip you can take 250, low setting shots on a 512 CF card, and the quality is the equivalent to 2.1mp standard sensor. I sell 8x12 prints, and the Jpeg is less than 1mb per photo, and constantly get praises on the quality of the photos from the buyers.

The SD10 lacks some the cool features of a Canon or Nikon, but more than makes up for this with photo quality. The Foveon chip is a winner, send an email if you want me to email some full quality samples.

[Sebastian]

"People who buy an expensive digital SLR, and shoot in JPEG are LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'll just leave that alone....

CHF,

Buying an SLR that shoots nothing but RAW is just as limiting as buying an SLR that only shoots JPG. There are situations that call for both, get a camera that shoots both. In a studio, it doesn't matter, but in real-world situations, sometimes you won't get the shot unless your camera shoots JPG. The speed is necessary at times, don't kid yourself.

[another view]

"People who buy an expensive digital SLR, and shoot in JPEG are LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'll just leave that alone....

But I won't!! I shoot mostly jpeg and have some nice large prints to prove it. If you're used to shooting slide film, it's not hard. Sure, there's more you can do with the image later in Photoshop, but in most cases you can save a lot of time and trouble by getting it right to begin with (WB, exposure) and then not having all of the extra steps involved later. I did try RAW with my Fuji S2, and the control is great - but a lot of extra steps involved. I don't have Photoshop CS (with it's RAW converter) or I'd probably use it more often. Whether or not you normally shoot JPEG or RAW, I wouldn't consider a camera that only limited me to one type of file format.

A JPEG is a lot different than a RAW file. JPEGs have white balance, contrast, color and sharpening info already set at time of capture. When I shoot in "fine" mode, I get 4:1 compression which still leaves the quality very high. RAW files are just the info right off the sensor with no set white balance, contrast, etc applied to it. The advantage is that you can do it later - the disadvantage is that you have to do it later!

[Sean Dempsey]

well not really, in CS I have the RAW filter set to just apply my settings each time, so it's no extra work unless I want to adjust them off my norm, which I do sometimes, but sometimes they are fine.

[another view]

One more thing - JPEGs are pretty universal, everything supports them. Now I wouldn't re-save an original JPEG after working on it in Photoshop but I'd save it as a TIFF file which is also pretty universal (and is uncompressed). I've heard that there are actually several TIFF formats but it's never caused me any problems, and the lab I use supports them.

Check out this: HELP!Photoshop CS won't open my NEF files. . .

I just wonder if these same problems will come up down the road again later. It's said that certain cameras (specific to the model, not just brand) are supported by Photoshop CS and certain ones aren't... So five years from now will you have anything that will read your images? Something to think about.

[Sean Dempsey]

RAW's aren't images, it's just data. All of my "images" are PSD files. I open the RAW, and then whatever I do, it gets saved as a PSD. I see no reason for TIFs or JPGS, personally. And I don't expect PSD files to be going anywhere, ever. I print from the PSD, save them as PSD's, that's all I need. As far as sharing with other people and such, sure I might make a JPG at a lower res, but if they can't open a PSD, they probably don't need a high quality image anyways, imo.

[tas38]

How much more time it takes to get them on your system, and how much more battery juice it takes to write a Raw file over Jpegs. And if their is more loss converting RAW files to Jpeg, over just taking Jpegs in the first place. There has to be some converting losses, I just hear that you can convert them to Jpeg easy. But I want to know this stuff, and why all the Raw files aren't the same meaning some must be better then others.

One thing I noticed even with Jpegs, that even saving the same Jpegs. In 2 different photo programs, make them look different. Even looking at the same photo, on 2 different monitors make them look different. I work with photos in different photo programs, to do different things to them. And that if I use some thing other then PS, I have to open it in PS and save it to get it to look best. Some things just look bad when I open it in PS, but after I save it in PS it looks good then.

[ginman522]

"People who buy an expensive digital SLR, and shoot in JPEG are LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'll just leave that alone....

CHF,

Buying an SLR that shoots nothing but RAW is just as limiting as buying an SLR that only shoots JPG. There are situations that call for both, get a camera that shoots both. In a studio, it doesn't matter, but in real-world situations, sometimes you won't get the shot unless your camera shoots JPG. The speed is necessary at times, don't kid yourself.

I guess....but that is what is so great about the SD10. You can get those shots! Because the actual MP of the RAW images is low due the Foveon chip, speed is not an issue. I shoot minor-league baseball, and have yet to have an issue. My boss had the same concern, but after my first day he couldnb't beleive the quality/quantity of the shots taken with the SD10. The low res setting on mine is the equiv, of a med res JPG on standard bayer sensor.

Ther SD10 is not a good option for people that have lots of Canon or Nikon lenses, but those of us starting out, where the mount doesn't matter, The SD10 is worth the look. The pic quality makes up for the drawbacks. Plus because the Raw images take up less room on a CF card than a standard raw image, you get the quality along with quantity.

[Sean Dempsey]

I don't understand why you'd be converting RAW's into JPEGS... if you are savvy enough with a computer to be doing that, why not save them as PSD files... it's totally lossless and saves more options and data than a jpeg.

[chfphoto]

I guess....but that is what is so great about the SD10. You can get those shots! Because the actual MP of the RAW images is low due the Foveon chip, speed is not an issue. I shoot minor-league baseball, and have yet to have an issue. My boss had the same concern, but after my first day he couldnb't beleive the quality/quantity of the shots taken with the SD10. The low res setting on mine is the equiv, of a med res JPG on standard bayer sensor.

Ther SD10 is not a good option for people that have lots of Canon or Nikon lenses, but those of us starting out, where the mount doesn't matter, The SD10 is worth the look. The pic quality makes up for the drawbacks. Plus because the Raw images take up less room on a CF card than a standard raw image, you get the quality along with quantity.

As a current owner of the SD10, your input in invaluable. I've heard that same sort of sentiment (you won't belive the quality, etc etc) several times, so I'm going to give it a try.

Thanks again!
Carolyn

[mike90290]

How much more time it takes to get them on your system, and how much more battery juice it takes to write a Raw file over Jpegs. And if their is more loss converting RAW files to Jpeg, over just taking Jpegs in the first place. There has to be some converting losses, I just hear that you can convert them to Jpeg easy. But I want to know this stuff, and why all the Raw files aren't the same meaning some must be better then others.

One thing I noticed even with Jpegs, that even saving the same Jpegs. In 2 different photo programs, make them look different. Even looking at the same photo, on 2 different monitors make them look different. I work with photos in different photo programs, to do different things to them. And that if I use some thing other then PS, I have to open it in PS and save it to get it to look best. Some things just look bad when I open it in PS, but after I save it in PS it looks good then.

You raise an interesting issue. The "conventional" RAW file is the data which comes right off the chip. The chip array on most cameras has a single red, green, and blue filter over each sensor in a GRGBGRGB pattern ( 50% green, 25% red and blue) each color in 16 bit. So, a 6M chip for example would yield a 12m RAW file. If this were to be converted to an 8 bit Tiff file, which some cameras do, it would be and 18M file actually more than the RAW file. A 4 to 1 JPG file would be 4.5 M.

My question for all the Sigma users out there is what kind of a RAW file does your camera produce since I assum you have three data points for each sensor. Do you have 16 bit color for each color in the RAW mode? Perhaps someone could explain.

Regards,

mike90290

[ustein]

>Do you have 16 bit color for each color in the RAW mode?

More like 12 bits per color.

[mike90290]

>Do you have 16 bit color for each color in the RAW mode?

More like 12 bits per color.

You are mathamatically correct, it is 12 bits, but for some reason the convention used in photoshop and among camera manufactures is to call it 16 bit. Anyone know why?

[Sebastian]

You are mathamatically correct, it is 12 bits, but for some reason the convention used in photoshop and among camera manufactures is to call it 16 bit. Anyone know why?

There s no 12 bit file format, so they round up. There are only 12 bits of image data.