raw v jpeg

[peem]

Hi  It seems to be the opinion that you should shoot in raw . So you shoot in raw , fiddle about with your photos in your chosen programme and when satisfied convert it to jpeg. Dosnt this defeat the purpose of shooting in raw in the first place since you are going to loose data. I know you can save them in tiff but this gives huge files -44mb . Can anyone put me right Thanks

[Psychobilly]

When it's in Raw format it will have a higher bit depth typically 12 or 14 bits so you have much more scope for tweaking... Also things like white balance etc can be applied to the raw data...

The jpeg image will be 8 bit so anything more than a gentle tweak can lead to posterization effects showing up...

You want to do all you post processing at the highest possible resolution and bit depth and only convert to a lower res  jpeg at the end of the processing...

Peter....

[DaveS]

JPEG should be considered a delivery format, not an acquisition one.

Acquire your photos in raw, do all the post work you need to in raw then convert, either to JPEG for the web or TIFF for printing.

44 meg isn't a large file really, some of my video files measure in several tens of gigs, with maybe 20 or 30 or mere in a folder.

[David Smith]

I'm not very good with the technical bit behind this but can vouch for the benefits of using RAW file format. I started my solar imaging work shooting in jpg format but was persuaded by a group on this forum to try RAW. The increase in the level of detail was quite a surprise to me even though I was converting to jpg at the end of the process and doing my post processing in GIMP rather than PS (8 bit rather than 16).

My advice would be try it, I suspect you will like it.

The intial headache of having extra steps in your processing routine soon becomes second nature to you. I use PIPP to crop and convert to TIFF before Registax and then GIMP to finish up.

[frugal]

Jpeg is also a lossy format. It compresses the data by dividing the picture up into blocks and if aa rectangular are contains prety much the same colour then it is be stred as a rectangle of a single colour. For daytime snaps of highcolour images there is no visible difference in a lot of cases. However for astrophotograhy we really care that this area of black is actually different to this other area of black.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

[NIGHTBOY]

I tried shooting in raw but photoshop cs2 won't open the files.

[poogle]

I tried shooting in raw but photoshop cs2 won't open the files.

You might have to download definitions for the raw files from the camera manufacturer. I had to do this for my Nikon

/Patrik

[Leveye]

I tried shooting in raw but photoshop cs2 won't open the files.

You must use the Camera Raw plug-in to open Raw files in Photoshop. If you have a newer camera you might need newer versions of both program and plug-in for it to work.

[peem]

Hi does gimp handle raw files Thanks

[Alien 13]

I allways shoot using the RAW and Jpeg option just find it makes deleting bad images quicker.

[David Smith]

Hi does gimp handle raw files Thanks

No, afraid not. Hence I use PIPP to convert to TIFF before stacking.

[DaveS]

Gimp doesn't handle raw directly but a plugin called ufraw does.

What camera do you have? it might come with a free raw converter.

[DaveS]

Or else stack in DSS I think the latesr is 3.3.3 beta), it will handle most raw formats.

[frugal]

I tried shooting in raw but photoshop cs2 won't open the files.

Older versions of photoshop won't open newer versions of the raw file format. One of Adobe's ways of forcing you to upgrade.

You either have to use Canon's Digital Photo Professional utility to convert them to TIFF, or download the Adobe utility that coverys them to Adobe Digital Negative that CS2 will open.

I have this same problem with my Canon 60D and Photoshop CS4.

The other fun Photoshop problem is that it will not open the DSS autosave.tif, but it will open a tiff file from DSS if you explicitly do a Save-As...

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk