RAW Conversion and Editing

Ok, fairly new at the digital photography side, having transitioned from film a little late.

I am shooting in RAW format and adjusting the white balance in the Canon software given afterwards.

My .CR2 files are around 18mb apiece.

Do I need to convert these now to JPEG to have them printed or will printers accept raw image files?

I have been converting them to jpeg to do some photo editing in Paint Shop Pro... The first conversion takes the file to around 8mb. Then with some photo editing, it takes the file all the way down to a 1.55 mb file.

Can I even get a good print from a 1.55mb picture?

I was shooting with my Canon 50d.

You can convert them to TIF to keep them in 16 bit, or 8 bit uncompressed. But I find it pointless, just stick with JPEG. Unless, of course, you are taking it to a 16-bit capable printer.

1.5 MB on a 15mpix image in JPEG is using excessive compression, should be more in the ballpark of 8 MB on a JPEG, wether it will produce a good print depends entirely upon the picture, but using less compression could only help.

Thanks Anbesol.

Can you explain to me what you mean by Compression?

When I convert from RAW to JPEG....it does drop to between 8mb and 9mb.

But when I do any photo editing to the picture (burning, object remover, etc) it takes it down to anywhere between 1.5 to 3mb

I don't think that converting to jpg to go to PSP for editing is a good idea. Use tif. I don't convert anything to jpg unless it's for a specific end purpose (posting, printing, etc.) and then I seldom save the jpg. Unless you have storage limitations (though hard drives are pretty cheap) or need to process a LOT of images, I would keep it as RAW for a long as possible and then convert to tif if futher processing is necessary. - Terry

Editing in JPG loses so much quality that I only do it if there is no choice.
I do 99% of my editing in Lightroom3, which edits the RAW file and doesn't touch the original.
So I don't lose anything while editing.

JPG is compressed by leaving out details, converting blocks of the image to the same colour in low detail areas (like sky) and then turning that through complicated maths (http://www.binaryessence.com/dct/en000166.htm) into numbers that have little to do with the original pixels. The same formula is used to undo that transform, and what you get back is something quite like, but not the same as your original image.
Each time you edit and save a JPG file you lose detail.

I only work in raw, convert to tif to work on the image beyond Adobe RAW, without loss, and to JPEG when it's all said and done because that's what my lab wants me to submit. I never discard my end images since those are the ones I submitted/sold but I also never EVER discard my raw file. JPG is a lossy format, like Paul said above, meaning the image gets degraded every time you make changes and then save. If, however, you plan on doing nothing more with the image, JPEG will work for the vast majority of needs.

I've yet to find a lab that will take RAW files, but someone out there may know of one.

Shooting in RAW+JPEG mode is a good option for many photographers until they become very comfortable with the conversion process or acquire suitable applications to ease working with RAW data formats.

DSLR's offer various combination's of RAW with different quality and size of JPEG files for both speed and convenience. Storage/transmission limitations, output dimension size, and compression ratios are all options for the JPEG included file in most DSLR's that I can think of or have used. Some are even offering smaller or compressed RAW's for special application!

Those RAW files can always be revisited later once you've learned more or something new about post processing. Or for the first time if your first go was by just using the camera's own JPEG output for prints or other display.

RAW isn't suitable for lots of reasons as a printer ready format as that basic camera data needs to be translated as Paul, SmartWombat describes and it is quite dependent upon the make and model of camera that generated the RAW file! A print operation to support that would be then in the position of interpreting several factors that you might like more control over. That and if they, the printer, didn't have the same level of software to interpret the file as you did, confusion and dissatisfaction would reign!

In camera generated JPEG images have come a long long way and with camera control tweaks and adjustments, many manufacturers are producing very decent direct output. Good enough to be published directly from some models of DSLR!

Try the RAW+JPEG option to also see where your current skill level is in RAW conversion (even with mostly automated setting) by comparing the camera output to your RAW-to-JPEG output.

We've lots of expertise available here to guide you if you want some suggestions! The Photography Review Photo Critique forum is another good place to visit for ideas and feedback about particular results and what a photograph 'needs'.

Best wishes with 'going RAW'!