yet another RAW vs JPEG question

[opus]

I didn't see this particular question answered anywhere, sorry if it's already been covered.


Can you enlarge a RAW file bigger than a FINE/JPEG file?

I was told when I bought my DRebel that it was capable of producing poster-size prints at its finest setting. Would I want to shoot RAW for that size?

[russj]

I guess it al depends on the camera in question as some cameras jpeg output is very good, with minimum compression so the differences between jpeg and raw are hardly noticable. I have a canon eos 300d and there is a visible difference in the very fine detail with a raw file. of course if you take the raw, convert it yourself and save to jpeg your are just adding compression anyway so always save out to a tif format which is lossless. Its nice to know that by shooting in the raw setting, you are getting the ultimate image quality from the camera (which is surely why you bought it). Otherwise its like buying a 6 m/pixel camera and shooting on the 1 m/pixel setting all the time (which i've seen many times from working in a repro house)

Also, here's something to try if you've got a tripod. frame a scene, and shoot a sequence on the Av (aperture priority) setting, going through all the major increments, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22 with the lens set to manual focus to give the results consistency. Examine the image quality on all the pictures, and notice the difference. I've found that f8 and f11 give the sharpest results, which is worth bearing in mind if you are making huge enlargements.

[Asylum Steve]

Kelly,

The main advantage of working with a RAW file in Photoshop is the wide range of editing capabilities that don't degrade the image by losing information, especially 16-bit color correcting and selective sharpening.

The difference between working in 16-bit and 8-bit mode for some of these edits, particularly when the final output will be a print, is significant.

Still, superfine jpeg mode on most digicams will provide you with the same size image, pixel wise, so if you are satisfied with the initial results of your jpeg shots, you shouldn't notice much if any difference in the quality of enlargements.

If you expect to make numerous adjustments tothings such as color, contrast, and or shapness, you may be better off working in RAW mode, then either converting to psd, tiff, or no-compression jpeg for your prints.

[opus]

I'm not sure I've ever heard of "no-compression jpegs". Is it a new thing?

[ustein]

>I'm not sure I've ever heard of "no-compression jpegs"

No it is not. Not really sure it buys you anything over TIFF though.

Uwe

[wburychka]

I'm not sure I've ever heard of "no-compression jpegs". Is it a new thing?

Photoshop 7 or Photoshop Elements seem to not support lossless JPEGs, but Paint Shop Pro does. A PSP 8 lossless JPEG is about 30% smaller than the same image as a PSD file. However, since PS7 will not open the lossless JPEG, I hesitate to use it. I had hopes that it would be a lossless alternative for online photofinishers like Shutterfly and Ofoto, who accept JPEG files only. I haven't tried it, though, and have opted to use a local service who works from TIFFs.

Re your original question, there is an interesting article in the latest issue of Outdoor Photography. The author claims that in many respects the Large/Fine JPEG settings in most new DSLRs produce images as good and in some ways better than you can get from RAW without major postprocessing. He presents some compelling arguments, too. In his examples, he uses Canon and the sophisticated processing done in-camera to reduce noise, but the points should equally valid for other DSLRs as well. It's worth a read, although it could add to your confusion.

Me? I'll continue to shoot RAW. It makes me feel more "professional" (LOL).