If I shoot in RAW with my Canon Rebel XT, and then convert the files to JPEG, will there be a quality loss/gain than if I were to shoot in JPEG originally!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Visual Arts> RAW vs JPEG File Quality?Question: RAW vs JPEG File Quality!? If I shoot in RAW with my Canon Rebel XT, and then convert the files to JPEG, will there be a quality loss/gain than if I were to shoot in JPEG originally!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I think you are asking which jpg file would be better to use - one directly from the camera, or one you create yourself from the RAW!. Generally, I don't believe their would be a quality loss/gain!. By that I mean I think most compression algorithms are not too different, so one is not more likely than the other to drop a lot of info!. Depending on how you process the RAW, yes, you could have a different jpg!. Cameras do convversion from RAW to jpg with a set of parameters for saturation, hue, etc!. If you take the RAW file and Directly put it into an editing program like photoshop, it will have a different conversion scheme and a resulting different jpg!. I only shoot RAW if I intend to edit the photo!. So for portraits/people shots, virtually every shot is in RAW!. For sports, it is all jpg!. Everything else I make a decision before I take the shot!. Ken Rockwell is a professional like a million other professionals!. He has some good ideas, some not so good!. He has a lot of fans and a lot of detractors!. Use him as "A" source of information, but not as "THE" source of info!. I think he is right on in this one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com JPEG, even if at maximum quality, produce a quality loss each time you save it!. To shoot directly in JPG is not a good idea, because your original will be already not in a good quality!. If you shoot in RAW you can always choose to save the RAW file as a JPEG, but you can't go the other way around!. RAW files will always be better quality!.Www@QuestionHome@Com NEVER ever use JPEG's apart from attachments to e-mails!.'Raw' is the only way to take photographs with a digital camera!. All cameras take a raw image, however the cheaper ones reduce this image straight away to a JPEG!. This reduces the size of the image!. Letting your camera 'decide' what is OK and what to throw away is a bit silly!. When an even expensive camera stores the image as a JPEG, it has already thrown away 2/3 of all the information!. If you shoot in RAW, you'll never have to have 'blown-out' highlights!. Editing (in Photoshop) is saved as a 'sidecar' (It stays with your image!. Your original stays pristine, no matter how often you change things in RAW mode!. I never use JPEG's!. Every time you try to save a JPEG, the program tries to make the file smaller!. Each time more and more information is thrown away!. I save all my images in RAW mode!. If I need to send high quality images, I SAVE AS a TIF file!. (Large, but everything stays intact!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com Would you like the TRUTH about the JPG vs RAW debate!? http://www!.kenrockwell!.com/tech/raw!.htm It's all there in black and white written by a well respected professional photographer with many years of experience!. Read every word!. EDIT ------- That's exactly what I said GLADIVS!.!.!. Ken Rockwell is "a" professional!. I don't worship at the Church of Rockwell more than anyone else and I never declared him the final authority on anything!. But this particular op-ed text on raw vs jpg is good because he includes links to opposing opinions and freely states that raw is not for him but does have a place in some situations!. It seems to look at the issue from both sides giving fair play to both - which I will agree he does not always do!.Www@QuestionHome@Com yes there is no doubt about it always shoot in raw(if you care about quality) you can always convert to jpeg later to send over the internet or what everWww@QuestionHome@Com yesWww@QuestionHome@Com yesWww@QuestionHome@Com |