yes quite right, most cameras I've seem/used/played around with have several differant options for any given image size something like:
Originally Posted by torags
Fine, Standard and Low
Superfine, fine and standard
(or the equvilant).
It can get a bit confusing since it would seem that at a given size the density of the pixel would/should be the same. ???
Yet, say with my G9, (which I happen to have sitting here on my desk) for an image size setting of "M3" it has "Superfine, Fine and Standard" options for picture quality yet they are all listed as 1200x1600 image size, for the M3 setting.
So for any given image size go for highest quality option available.
(ok, now *I'm* confused! )
I guess I don't really see the point in saving images in RAW versus JPEG format. I've looked at the different images produced and for my purposes JPEG images are quite nice and adequate. In particular, I like being able to take the chip out of the camera and directly upload the image to the computer and view it without needing to do anything eles.
Originally Posted by SNC1923
I've asked several professional photographers and of those I've spoken with they use JPEG as the format in which images are saved.
If there is some compelling reason that illustrates quality of image versus ease of use / viewing I'd like to know of it. I'd like to see some graphic examples that portray the advantages of RAW versus JPEG.
Well I think that to a certain extent its a personal choice, many on dgrin swear by RAW while other are quite happy with jpeg. there are pro's and cons to both, for me RAW is nice because I have greater control over such things as color balance, if I forget to set it right I can correct it in RAW which I can't do in jpeg, IN RAW there is no (or very little) pre-processing going on IN CAMERA and no compression so no data loss. the down side is that every photo has to be run thru some sort of front end to share or print it, thou you can see RAW files even in the XP windows explorer, or at least I can see both Canon and Nikon ones with the proper drivers installed from the disks supplied. they are somewhat larger in size as well since there is no data tossed out so they do take a bit longer to load.
Originally Posted by robsmoto
jpegs do load faster can be viewed directly on any system and as you say can often be used right away without anything more than downloading.
I'm not sure how we could do a comparison here as you can't display RAW files in this format. I could try to take some of the files I did just a few weeks ago when shooting in both RAW and Jpeg formats in camera of the same scene from each single shot taken and see if after conversion to jpeg of the RAW if there is a noticeable diferance without making any changes to either, as I remember there was some and interestingly enough some looked better in jpeg and some looked better in RAW after conversion. I am not sure why or what factors effected them thusly thou.
I Used to Be Someone
Yeah, I didn't anticipate getting a 1440 X 900 screen either!
Originally Posted by tommcgee
The pics for stories has a been a problem. I wanted to put together a Wyoming story for ON but have NO high res pics of the area, so I just posted in on the forum.
RAW vs JPEG
I usually just use Microsoft's Photo Editor to crop and do any editing of photos. My goal is mostly to get an image suitable for inclusion in a technical report, proposal, or powerpoint presentation.
This simple editing program has a balance and auto balance feature that has thus far proved adequate. I'm just pleased with the images that I get and the speed with which the pictures are available (no more need for photo processing by a lab or darkroom). I do tend to take a LOT more photos with the digital camera than I ever did with film cameras. So it is easier to toss the pictures that are unacceptable.
Even though my digital cameras have automatic features I like to play with the settings and bracket important shots. Sometimes though I miss using my F3. I used it for a far longer interval than any other cameras, but my digital cameras have taken more pictures.
That makes perfect sense, you use the tools that give the results desired and choose that which works quickly and efficiently for your needs at work. RAW is more geared towards "artsy" stuff where higher quality and attention to fine detail needs to be considered over speed of processing. I quite understand what you are saying having been a technical illustrator for some years involved with producing camera-ready copy for print. The quality of the image plays a less important role than does content and readability.
Originally Posted by robsmoto