Hey folks,

I did a search, but didn't find too much beyond a quick mention about RAW. Thought this would be fun to discuss...

I really enjoy the image quality associated with the RAW file type. The colors, contrast, and general image quality look far better than the "normal" (JPEG?) digipics I've seen. DPreview just has a two-sentence descrition of what RAW is.

So... here are my questions:

* Is RAW post-processing or higher pixel count the primary reason for the color saturation/contrast/detail? Obviously, a DSLR has better optics than a point-and-shoot, but since the in-camera processing is removed, the optics only go so far.

* I understand the camera simply captures the raw data (hence the name). Do you use software supplied by the camera manufacturer to post-process? Do you prefer a third-party software? Photoshop? Others?

* How much work is it to process a RAW file? I assume you can tweak it 'till the cows come home if you want to, but what does it take to just get a decent image? Is this "decent image" still better than the camera-determined JPEG?

* I assume that in order to get RAW output capability you're already looking at a prosumer DSLR (like the Rebel XT, et al). Anybody know any tiny "point and shoots" that output RAW?

Thanks for any help. :smile:

 

Quick response...I will try to find you more info....but...

RAW in a nutshell is uncompressed, if you compress anything (MPEG, MP3, JPEG) you are gonna loose something in the process.

My old Fuji (S602Z http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fu...x_s602-review/ ) P&S did RAW...in both cases I have always used the programs that came with the cameras to process them.

More later if I have time..

 

You can find a good explination of raw files on luminous-landscape.com. Clicking on the link will take you directly to the article "Understanding RAW files Explained".

 

it is what everyone says... basically an uncompressed file of any kind.

to give you an example 10 minute video of your digital video camera could be anywhere from 10 GB to about 20 GB depends on the camera...
now after you get the audio and encode it in mp3... and the video in mpeg-4 you end up depending you the resolution with about 10 or 20 GB... if so...

hope this helps.

 

I second the LL link, a very good site.


In short, RAW is simply the data captured by the camera sensor. It is then up to you (your processor such as Adobe Camera Raw or ACR for short, or Capture One, etc.) to apply exposure, white balance, temp, sharpening, tint, etc.

When you shoot in JPG mode, the camera does all of this for you and saves the file to some extent compressed. This is fine for snapshots, but not if you need to do much post processing such as resizing, cropping, etc. due to dataloss.

The biggest reason people shoot RAW is for total control of the shots. The camera usually makes pretty good decisions, but not always - and it's always harder to adjust a JPG than simply use the correct settings during a RAW file open.

It's not primarily about compression - there are other formats that are uncompressed, yet still make all the auto adjustments, such as TIFF. RAW is primarily about control of all the parameters.

Think of it like this: Shooting JPEG is like having the film negative. You can use it to make prints, do croppings and some adjustment such as overall brightness and contrast. Shooting RAW is like developing the film to make the negative - you have complete control over the actual makeup of the shot.

 

Right - RAW is more or less equivalent to the latent image on a piece of film before development. As long as you save the RAW file you can 'develop' that image over and over using a variety of different methods - with film you only get one opportunity.

 

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Is there a large real-world difference between "Photoshop Elements" and plopping down the big bucks for "Photoshop CS2"? I admit that seventy bucks is more attractive than multiple hundreds of dollars. Based on the cost of these two programs, I assume that most of the shots taken by hobbyists are processed with "Elements".

Is it correct to assume that "Photoshop Elements" post-processing is superior to automatic in-camera processing, even on the better DSLR cameras?

 

Correct.

 

Elements has a high percentage of the same features of Photoshop - for the most part it's only the high end features that are not present in Elements. I haven't used Ver 3 of Elements very much, but I believe the interface is simplified as compared to Photoshop. This doesn't mean it's been dumbed down, just made easier to use.

And yes, the post-processing in a software package will provide you with more control than what's in the camera itself. Plus, if you're shooting RAW then the camera doesn't perform any processing (actually it does, but for all intents and purposes the RAW image is treated as if it is directly from the sensor with absolutely no processing).

 

Again, I thank you for the info.

I must admit that I used to take pictures professionally, although almost twenty years ago. Currently, I'm using a Canon Power Shot A70; frankly, it's been pretty frustrating. The poor little thing can't seem to do what I want it to do. I think I'm asking too much of a camera at this performance level.

I've got a lot 'o learnin' to do on this digital thing... :smile:

 

The A70 is a good snapshot camera, that's about it. Anything but a fast DSLR will drive you crazy if you actually try to take good photographs.

 

The shutter lag on a digital point-and-shoot can (and will) result in you missing the shot you want. Digital SLRs have shutter lag equivalent to that of a film SLR - much more satisfying. There is a bit of a learning curve with the DSLR as the sensors don't have the latitiude of film, but you can still take pretty spectacular shots. Using RAW is not a panacea, but you can sometimes pull a good image out of what otherwise would not be the best.

I had a digi point-and-shoot for about a year and surprised myself by taking some nice pics, but shutter lag, the lack of interchangeable lenses, and generally reduced flexibility led me to make the leap to a DSLR. At the time I was pretty positive about the possibilities of digital photography, but uncertain about DSLRs. I already had a couple of Canon film bodies and a couple of lenses so I purchased the original digital Rebel soon after it was released. I've been very happy with the results, and will eventually upgrade to a higher level model.

As you know, there are now quite a few DSLRs to choose from. If interested, you could check dpreview for a series of extensive reviews on most of these camera.

 

That's a little misleading. The f range of current DSLR's is currently between 35mm and slide film, a little over 5 stops. It's not a difference you have to even really think about in the vast majority of shots.

 

I stand corrected - I should have said not quite the range of film.

 

I've got a DSLR that takes RAW images.. Sony DSCF-828... it's an 8 megapixel that I bought specifically for the capabilities it has. I think it's an amazing camera with many features I'm still learning about over a year after buying it. I've taken pictures for the most part that end up as 2 to 3 MB JPEGs... Taken in a RAW format, they're more like 10 to 13 MB per shot.

Anyway, all of the shots in my gallery here are from the camera and I think they're pretty impressive. I blew up the pic of my wife on the beach in Greece to a 24 x 30" print and the clarity is astounding even at that size.

Dave

 

F828 is not a DSLR. A very good camera for certain things, but a point and shoot none the less. Aside from the intrinsic differences of the mechanics and interchangeable lenses, the F828 has a sensor sized on par with p&s (8.8x6.6mm) whereas a typical DSLR will have a sensor more along the lines of 23.5x15.5 or so. That's where the most noticeable difference in image quality will come from.

 

I use a mix of Canon supplied software (EOS Viewer Utility), and Photoshop CS RAW Plugin. Make sure your camera is supported if you intend to use Adobe's plugin.

If you take a picture, you can do whatever you want to it - however, if you shoot RAW as close as possible to shooting film, you should only need to tweak a few things (exposure compensation, sharpness, white balance).

Not true! Some point and shoots have RAW capabilities - check dpreview.com.

The 995 is not one of them (it only does Tiff files) -> I used to use a Coolpix 995:

http://www.ururk.com/index.php?p=22

Which takes some phenomenal macro pictures. It, however, is only 3.2 mp. I've since upgraded to a 20D, and while the resolution+quality has increased, the one thing I can say about it is this:

IT IS FAST, no lag

The Rebel XT is supposed to be nearly the same. I have not used a P&S that was as fast as the DSLR. There may be ones out there - give them a try or go to dpreview.com.

Oh, and if you decide DSLR, Nikon or Canon - go whichever way you want. ie, whichever lens system you have $$ invested in or like better. Sadly, there is no FD-EOS adapter w/out optics for Canon (ie, retaining infinity focus w/out optics), but I hear older Nikon lenses fit the D70, etc... with nary a problem. Still, manual focus is a PITA on the 20D, with no split focusing screen.

Also, you may or may not be aware, but RAW files are huge (6-10 MB). Prepare to invest in memory cards : )

 

Pixels: Cups vs. Gallons

Pixels aren't the be all and end all. P&S cameras have small image sensors. They pack all of those pixels into an area smaller than a dime. So each pixel gets hit with a lot less light. That means each pixel has less light information to judge what the correct color is it should turn [i.e. which combination of the 256 gradations it should select for each color channel (Red, Green, and Blue)]. Since P&S cameras have less information to work off of, you get more digital noise because the neighboring pixel chose a slightly different combination of RGB to register, even though they may have been actually seeing the exact same color).

Contrast the P&S's dime sized sensor with a D-SLR which has a sensor roughly the size of a quarter. Each D-SLR pixel gets hit with considerably more light to make its determination for what color to turn. It's like the difference between cups and gallons.

This is why a P&S won't produce as clean of an image as a D-SLR.

Optically Limited?

One more thing to consider: Consumer D-SLR's are at 6 MP or 8 MP. The high resolution Pro level SLR's are at 12 MP and 16 MP. Those cameras still aren't limited by the optics.

 

Dave, can you expand on that statement?

 

Most lenses are designed to work with 35 MM film (unless, like in Nikon's case it's a DX series lens which is only for digital due to the image circle it projects).

That being the case, I have read in several areas that 35mm film is suppose to be equivalent to about 20 MP to 25 MP. I assume that's for a film with a fine grain structure.

So I'd say we have a little bit of headroom on the high resolution Pro end of the spectrum and considerable room to spare on the consumer end of the D-SLR specturm until we're optically limited (assuming that 35 mm film is optically limited. If it's not, then the upper bound is even higher).

 

Cool, thanks. I am starting to rething my Coolpix 8800 purchase. Great camera (shure as hell beats teh 1.1mp Fuji it replaced), but I am wandering if I am missing out on anything by not getting a DSLR.

P.S. What happened to the monthly photo contests?

 

Well, DSLR's are not for everyone, though the Rebel and cheaper Nikon are at a really good price-point. Keep in mind the following:

The kit lens is 18-55mm (actually 28.8-88mm) on the Canon, and for the Nikon you'll have to look it up. If you want a decent zoom equivalent, you will probably end up buying 2 or 3 lenses to match your 35-350. Supposedly the "inexpensive" Canon zoom lenses are not that sharp, when compared to after-market lenses. Plus the DSLR's are a bit heavier and larger than your 8800.

The other (annoying) issue is dust. I use a bellows attachment, and my sensor has to be cleaned. Every lens change will introduce dust. A fixed lens camera does not have this problem.

But, if you need/want the flexibility to have interchangeable lenses, a DSLR is practically a must.

John

 

The photo contest entries for the June topic (red, white, and blue) will be posted later today.

 

Some advantages I see to a D-SLR:
1) full manual control with ISO, Shutter, and Aperture easily adjusted in 1/3 f-stop incriments without digging into menues.
2) A larger cleaner sensor
3) a wider ISO range
4) Interchangeable lenses with the ability to use filters (UV, polarizers, ND, graduated ND, etc) easily.
5) Lots of lenses to choose from to tailor your camera to shoot the types of subjects you like to shoot.
6) Availability of lenses ith bigger apertures for low light and more focal length to get a tighter bead on the subject.
7) A larger view finder
8) better battery life

 

Also add to that...

9) No lag in viewfinder (because you are looking through the lens, not an LCD)
10) Fast focus time
11) "instant on"
12) Shoot one shot right after another @ highest resolution
etc...

#1 that you cite was the biggest factor for me.