Questions for digital photo guru's

[ss_md]

I have a Canon 10D and have the following questions:

How much better is the quality of pictures taken in RAW mode vs. JPEG mode? Is it worth the added file size to shoot in RAW mode?
How much do you loose when converting RAW format to JPEG and GIF formats?

One other question - is it be worth the money to upgrade to a 1Ds Mark II?

TIA

 

[RSO 34]

Shooting in RAW will require extra work to process the image. Generally you need to run it through Canon's proprietary software before utilizing other imaging software although I believe that Photoshop CS may be able to handle RAW images directly.

"The Adobe® Photoshop® camera raw functionality provides fast and easy access within Photoshop software to the "raw" image formats produced by many leading professional and midrange digital cameras. By working with these "digital negatives," you can achieve the results you want with greater artistic control and flexibility while still maintaining the original "raw" files.
The Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in became the latest must-have tool for professional photographers when it was released in February 2003. This powerful plug-in has been updated to support more cameras and include more features, and is available as part of Photoshop CS. With Photoshop CS you get not only the latest camera raw plug-in, but also the full range of exciting new features that are part of this release."

If you plan on using PS CS and shooting RAW, hopefully you have a very powerful processor because you can never have enough processing power and memory when using such software.

The advantages of using RAW include the ability to control color temperature, shadow detail, contrast and exposure before processing and not losing significant image resolution or creating digital artifacts in the final results. The disadvantages include more time spent postprocessing every image.

Broken down into a very simplistic analysis (these are basics and some cameras may vary slightly):

RAW capture
1. Photo is taken
2. Data is read from the sensor by the cameras electronics
3. Data is written to a file exactly as read from the sensor nothing added and nothing taken away and no processing of any type.


JPEG capture
1. Photo is taken
2. Data is read from sensor
3. Image is processed according to the settings selected by the user. I.E. white balance settings, color space assingments, sharpening etc.
4. Photo is written to file in JPEG format using compression settings determined by the user

As you can see from this overly simplified version of the two methods RAW is exactly that; the RAW data as read from the sensor is recorded in a file with no additions, deletions or changes of any kind. It is only in the JPEG capture mode that the cameras settings are applied to the image data before it is stored as a file.

It all depends what you intend to do ultimately with the photos. Generally, I feel that large fine JPEG images are indistinguishable from RAW images and unless you are competent in post-processing of RAW images you would probably be biting off more than you can chew.

Personally, I would like to upgrade to the 1DS Mark II but I would prefer to wait until the street price comes down to the $5000 area but if you have the bucks it is a great camera. Be prepared to purchase many 2-4GB CF cards to handle the 16mp images.

Here is an article you might find helpful:

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?articleId=1240&pageId=1

 

[DocL]

I have a Canon 10D and have the following questions:

How much better is the quality of pictures taken in RAW mode vs. JPEG mode? Is it worth the added file size to shoot in RAW mode?
How much do you loose when converting RAW format to JPEG and GIF formats?

One other question - is it be worth the money to upgrade to a 1Ds Mark II?

TIA

I could write pages on the questions you asked but I'll try to keep it brief. Raw is best, there no manipulation of the image by the camera in terms of the color saturation. The files are very large and you either need to use the Canon software, another program, or PSCS to get the raw image into your computer.

Now, I mainly shoot in raw and save that image. I then process that image with PS and save it again as a TIFF. With the final TIFF image I then adjust the image size and save that as a JPEG. The reason for these steps is that I always want to keep an unaltered image to go back to later on if I want to do some creative work. Also, I never loose the original image quality of the picture that I took. To do all of this takes time and alot of space on my hard drive. I shot some pictures in JPEG too, but usually only when I'm too lazy to convert the RAW. How much information do you lose shooting in JPEG? Probably not enough for the casual photographer to notice. But when you want to do portrait and macro photography there is a difference in how well you can manipulate the image.

Every camera process the image as programmed by the factory in JPEG. The proof can be seen by printing a picture shot in JPGE directly from the camera and then comparring it to what it looks like on a monitor that has been aRGB calibrated. I could go on for days on this topic, but I'll spare the bandwidth. I recommend that you buy a book on digital photography and PS. I also doubt that you need to buy IDs MKII unless you are a serious professional. I have a 10D and don't see the need to upgrade anytime soon.

Remember, it's not the camera that takes a bad picture. It's the idiot holding the camera.

-Good luck!

 

[ss_md]

I don't have PS CS, so this means that I have to either upgrade or use the Canon utility to modify and RAW photos. Am I correct?

 

[RSO 34]

Without CS you would need to use Canon's program to convert the photos to a format to be edited further in imaging software if desired.

 

[NeoNSX]

<B>How much better is the quality of pictures taken in RAW mode vs. JPEG mode?</B>

If you shoot JPEG in superfine + Large mode using the full 6megapixel, it's marginal.


<B>Is it worth the added file size to shoot in RAW mode?</B>

In my opinion, no.


<B>How much do you loose when converting RAW format to JPEG and GIF formats?</B>

Again, depends on the amount of compression you apply. Forget GIF; that reduces to 256 colors which is crippling. Canon's superfine JPEG compression introduces hardly any artifacts.

RAW mode is a great feature, but do you really want the extra work of converting all your photos to JPEG? I'd only use RAW if i'd be selecting a small number of photos i intend to photoshop for ultra-high-quality results.


<B>is it be worth the money to upgrade to a 1Ds Mark II?</B>

The number one question is "What do you want to use it for?" And only you can answer that.

Personally I think 6+ MPixel is sweet-overkill. The 1DS Mark II is the "big daddy" of canon camera's, but compared to the 10D it's bigger, heavier, more expensive, and has a full suite of features which most people don't REALLY need. Do you really need 16Megapixels because you want to print on A2 and A1 paper?
Even for high-speed action photography, 3fps vs 4fps isn't substantial and 7 focal points vs 45 points is something you'd probably get used to. Heck, my old EOS500N camera had 3 focal points and i learned to adjust.

You really have to decide if the differences are worth the $$$
<A HREF="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=8772">EOS 10D Specs</A> vs <A HREF="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598">EOS 1Ds Mark II</A>

I read in a wise old photography book that you should always grow out of a camera before buying your next. If you're feeling limited by the EOS 10D, then maybe it's time to look for an upgrade.

All this is just my opinion... hope this helps you. BTW, you can't go wrong with Canon Camera's. Superb stuff.

 

[RSO 34]

p.s.

One other question - is it be worth the money to upgrade to a 1Ds Mark II?

One "final" point on this question. Before dropping the big bucks on an admittedly great camera, make sure you already have the right lenses in your photographic arsenal. It would be a "waste" of money to use a 1Ds Mark II with the standard EF or equivalent glass. Use the extra cash to pick up a full complement of L series Canon lenses which will do more for your photos than simply getting a jump up on mp's and focal points.

 

[akira3d]

I waited until I bought Photoshop CS to shoot RAW with my Canon D60...and lamented the fact I haven't always been shooting with RAW.

In my opinion, if you want to justify owning a digital SLR, you OWE it to yourself to shoot RAW. Forget for a moment the fact you get nearly 6 stops of dynamic range from the RAW format...the highest quality JPEG mode WILL lose high-frequency detail in your images. I once took a shot of my former boss' 355 GTS using this JPEG mode. Even with deep, deep depth of field and everything clearly in focus (using the EF 16-35mm/f2.8L lens...one of Canon's best) ..the little holes in the rear grill became a blur, as did some of the leaves in the background. Typical JPEG artifacting may not be noticeable in such shots, but lossy compression is clearly the culrpit! I haven't seen this loss of detail in any of my RAW shots.

Unfortunately, even with CS, processing RAW does require a bit of time. But, unlike many of you guys, I always bring shots (even JPEG ones) into Photoshop for finalizing before posting online or printing...so it's not extra time for me. If anything, it saves time because I can bracket exposures in post...without the need for taking mutliple shots. It's a breeze to composite multiple layers of exposure in Photoshop...of course, I say it's a breeze because I've been working with Photoshop as a professional artist for more than a decade, so manipulating photos is second nature to me.

The dynamic range of RAW has helped me grow more confident taking shots under tricky lighting (i.e. times when my subject is standing in a mix of deep shadows and bright sunlight). In the past, I would bracket shots, exposing for the shadow, exposing for the highlights, and occassionally splitting the difference. But with RAW, I just worry about not over exposing...and let a single shot do the work. Mixed color temperature situations can also be easily dealt with as this information has yet to be encoded in RAW...and I don't always agree with the camera's presets anyway.

I archive RAWs as a photographer would store their negatives. When I really want to archive a high quality final "processed" image, I save it as a 16 bit PNG, not a JPEG (which currently doesn't support 16 bit per channel color). Of course, all of my finished shots end up as a maximum quality JPEG...because they're the easiest to share.

Incidentally, I also like shooting RAW because it forced me to be a lot more selective of my shots (after all, I can fit only a quarter of the number of shots on my CF card). Being more selective means I have less work to do after I take the shots!

 

[ss_md]

Re: p.s.

One "final" point on this question. Before dropping the big bucks on an admittedly great camera, make sure you already have the right lenses in your photographic arsenal. It would be a "waste" of money to use a 1Ds Mark II with the standard EF or equivalent glass. Use the extra cash to pick up a full complement of L series Canon lenses which will do more for your photos than simply getting a jump up on mp's and focal points.

I may have mislead on the upgrade portion of my post. Actually, I am in the process of deciding on another body to accompany my 10D. So I am actually in the market for another body. It seems that everytime I'm taking pictures "it's have lens on need different lense, change lens so on and so forth". One "body" isn't cutting it! When I used to shoot film, I had 3 bodies and it work out great. I could take a mutitude of different photos (telephoto, zoom and a wide angle) between the 3 bodies never had to change lenses. The Mark II seemed to be a good choice in terms of features and functionality. Maybe a little over-kill but it's better to have too many features, than not enough - yes?.

Also I am upgrading my current lense arsenal and trying to decied which L series lenses I need , want :biggrin: and can afford . Want being the key word and afford being the key factor.

 

[RSO 34]

I know that feeling about needing to change lenses. I picked up a 20D to accompany my D60 and also like to have at least two bodies available to avoid the need to change lenses mid-shoot.

I would recommend the L series 100-400 and 16-35 as welcome additions to your collection.

 

[ss_md]

After JGTC this past weekend I decided that I don't like my 10D for motorsports. Talk about sloooooowwwww . . . 3fps for 9 consecutive shots. I didn't think this would be a big deal when I purchased it, but now I know - :frown: it bothers me!! The 20D is 1.6 times faster and even that is slow. The fastest digital camera Canon makes is the 1D Mark II at 8.5fps. Even at 8.5fps the 'PowerDrives' on film cameras are so much faster. I guess you have to compromise between the convenience of digital and inconvenience of film.

 

[RSO 34]

Although "slow," the 10D is up to the task once you get used to it. I shot my D60 for many track events and never really had a problem with the speed. Granted, my 20D is much faster and versatile in that department but I had tremendous "success" with track photography with a "slow" D60. Most of the track photos on my website were taken with the D60 and the only times I wished for more "speed" involved spins or other incidents when I wanted to capture the entire "moment" but may have had to wait for the camera to "catch up."

 

[ss_md]

Here is a 4 shot sequence at 3fps.