Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugboat
is that only possible with a raw image ? or do you only take raw? I didn't like how big raw files are , takes up so much space on the computer,so stopped using it.
|
I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS shoot RAW. It always surprises me when people say they don't shoot RAW because of the file size.
Consider this - you spend £'00 if not £'000 on your camera equipment & lenses, and then compromise your image quality by shooting jpg when you can buy a 2Tb external had drive for about £70!!!
Lets put this into some context with the following example
Camera
.......Sensor Size
.......RAW File
.......Jpg File
Canon 40D
......10mp
............~9-12Mb
.......~5Mb
Canon 7D
........18mp
............~18-22Mb
.....~6-10Mb
Nikon d800
......36mp
..............~72Mb
........~30Mb
So OK RAW files are bigger - typically twice the size of fine jpg files BUT jpgs compromise your image quality.
I created a full resolution jpg file from the original unprocessed RAW file, & then carried out the same processing as above. Ive attached the result & as you can see its just not as good. I've attached a 100% crop comparison & you can see that, when you push an image this far, the jpg is WAY noisier in the sky & there's less fine detail in the stonework.
Final thought - that 2Tb hard drive I mentioned above, depending on your sensor, will store between 27,000 (Nikon) - 180,000 (40D) images which equates to 0.2p/image (Nikon) - less than 0.04p/image (40D).
Are you seriously going to compromise the quality your images when it costs so little to shoot RAW?