Your Canon(s) should have come bundled with raw conversion software. From what a friend of mine (with a Canon) has said, it's not the world's best program, but it will at least teach you the basics of how to convert and the effects of the assorted adjustments. He switched to Adobe Camera Raw, which is a free download available here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3275
You need to have one of the following programs to be able to use it:
Adobe Photoshop Elements 3
Adobe Photoshop Elements 4
Adobe Photoshop CS2

Elements (3 or 4) often comes bundled with printers or cameras so you may have it already, if not, then it's not that expensive to buy.

Regards,

Duncan.

Thanks,Duncan,I have now downloaded Rawshooter essential,thanks to Stephens help,and I have just sent for a 2gb card.I do have Elements 4 but only use Elements 2 on the PC.It is easier to use,and I can find my way around the prog.I was going to have a try today,but was quite overcast and could not find anything specific to try with.Will wait until the week after next.

Christine it would be interesting to hear your observations on using RAW compared to jpeg. Do you feel it makes a real difference or are the memory card, hard disk and blank cdrom suppliers the only ones who gain ?

The advantage of taking RAW is you can correct brightness, sharpen, white balance etc in the pc without any degraded. Doing those things with jpeg files will usually degrade the pictures. I always use RAW and love to adjust them with Nikon Capture 4. In camera correcting are for average photographs which likely mean human faces. I shoot birds and bees and reptiles and do not want camera engine to smooth out their faces.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat/500/page/1

We are well aware of the rhetoric used to make the case for RAW. This thread is trying to illustrate the differences. So do you have any examples where your camera has degraded the image by using jpeg to a point where it is noticable.

From the practical tests I have made there is no clear advantage for me to change to using RAW 100% of the time. I would dearly love to use RAW if it gave more than a marginal improvement.

Personally I think it is questionable that RAW processing does not degrade the image in anyway. Stephen has already highlighted that Nikon are using some form of super fine loss compression method in their Compressed RAW format.

You have to remember that a lot of processing has to take place to get the senor signals into a usable image in the first place.

I use RAW all the time because when I made mistakes, quite often, I can correct them if they are RAW files. I can go as much as +/- 2 stops without showing any sign that the photo had been corected in the pc. I would like to show you such pictures but I do not know how to post my pictures here.

If the pictures are perfect in exposures etc, then you will not see the differences between RAW and jpeg. But how often do you make perfect exposure?

Pictures of small insect like this one. http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat/500/page/1 is very hard to set the exposure right on the spot. This Fruit Fly is 6 mm long. Even with spot metering I had to correct by 0.5 stop. I added sharpening. With Nikon Capture4 if you use jpeg file the software will not allow you to modify exposure and sharpening etc.

ruchai,

You'll find the instructions on how to add pictures to your posts here:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...67&postcount=1
Note maximum file size, try and keep it to less than 200KB.

Rob,I will certainly let you know after I have had a go.The memory card was on special offer from "My Memory.com".They have a discount on memory cards at the moment,and after reading that one can shoot very few pics to one card,thought I had better be prepared.Yes,it will be interesting,as I do not understand cam settings,and only use the basics in editing.But who knows,I may be pleasantly surprised.But if a camera does offer the extra facilities,then it is good to try them.There certainly do seem to be many varied opinions re the RAW prog.Some people say it is a waste of time and good Jpgs are just as good,and others say that they never shoot in any other mode than RAW.knowing my limited knowledge,I will more than likely make a complete hash of the whole set up,but at least I will have tried.So,watch this space!!.

Christine a few weeks have passed, how is the RAW processing going ? Do you feel it is worth the effort ?

No examples as yet from ruchai either.

Here is a picture taken in RAW. It was adjusted with the Nikon Capture. The original picture was ok but with a little adjust to match this particular situation was made to make iy looks better. I think it worth the effort. This is the Robberfly, taken with Nikon D50; Nikkor 60mm macro lens in our garden early in the morning.
I love taking macro of insects. I can easily find new strange models for my camera each day.

Wow ruchai that is a fantastic macro shot I bet you are well pleased.

I'll second that. Lots of detail and very sharp.

Don

ruchai,

Excellent picture. Do you have a pair of pictures of the same subject, one taken in raw, one using in-camera jpeg? Whilst everyone agrees that raw can produce some excellent pictures, it would be interesting to see examples of both for comparison.

Duncan

I took in RAW + "jpeg basic". I usually use the faster loading jpeg to Cull the pictures and delete them away. If compare with "jpeg basic" they are obvious that the RAW pictures are much better. I can not explain the differences in words but when I started using this method I rejected many jpeg pictures only to find out later that they are more than ok in the RAW version.

Ruchai

Next time you get an example could you post 100% crop of the affected area of each using best quaility jpeg so that we can see for ourselves. Your Robberfly shot is very nice but it does show some jpeg artifacts.

Many thanks

Here it is. The same picture saved as 'excelent quality jpeg'.

Bees starting their new colony in our garden, flocking together. Taken with D50, Nikkor 80-400VR in RAW+JPEG.

I think the differences are obvious. If you do not care much about details then use jpeg. If you want to get all out from the pictures use raw. Every time you saved or make corection in jpeg you lost some details. Digital cameras adjust values for average people. If you are not taking birthday party pictures then they did not programed for you. Taking pictures of birds or insects it is far better to have the camera leave all the adjustments to the photographers.

I only started using raw a few months ago. People in the net told me like I am telling you now. I made a try and like it. It is not difficult, the only draw back is it take more time to do and more memory to store the bigger files.

The first one is RAW (222.5KB), the one on the right is JPEG (196.8KB).

Thanks for your posting Ruchai

Yes you can see a marked difference in your images. I wonder if this is a Nikon thing as I've not noticed such a marked difference on Canon. I think I will try some more experiments next time I am on a shoot.

Another rock into the pond !!!
 

Following Ruchai's wonderful picture and Duncans comment I decided to do a comparison. The weather here is dull, cold and wet, so it was a workshop and flash thing. Afraid no fancy butterflies or food shot this time. :D

The main subject is a milling tool I made up to allow me to shape the covers on my ML7 model. I added a bit of colour and a vernier for fine detail to allow the differences to show up.

I have never used JPG Basic before so thought it would be interesing. Certainly if you shoot a lot of RAW I can see merit in Ruchai's method of saving RAW + JPG Basic to speed up sorting ' wheat from chaff '.

I have been doing a bit of a web trawl and there does appear to be differences in how camera's process data off the sensor. Within the Nikon brand for instance the degree of in camera processing of JPG's is different depending on the target market for the camera.

So these results may be specific to the D100. The pictures were taken one after the other at the same camera settings of 1/160 @ f16

The attached composites have not been processed other than to convert the RAW image. The softness at this stage is a D100 thing.

Don

Ruchai,

Would it be possible to post pictures that have NOT been processed other than the conversion of the RAW file. Preferably of a subject like your Robberfly, where there is something to really compare. The reasoning behind the thread was to look at the effects of in camera processing. From what I have read there is processing of both RAW and JPG files. It is just that depending on the target market JPG's can receive significantly greater in camera processing than RAW files.

Thanks

Don

Rob,

If you get time for a test that will be interesting. I certainly cannot find much difference between RAW and JPG Fine on the D100. Even the basic amazed me.

Don

Am I missing something here? All I can see is a lot of subject movement. I don't think it matters if you are using raw or jpeg with this kind of subject, it's a blurred image regardless.

Thanks for the samples Don, this is just the kind of thing we are looking for. It seems to me that the jpeg basic appears to be better resolution than the jeg fine. Have you got the labels round the right way? Perhaps it's my eyes going funny from lack of food.

Duncan,

Labels are correct. I think in camera must add a smidge of sharpness to the basic image. Perhaps I need to do a foodie to maintain concentration. :D

Interesting link about RAW here. Its a PDF file, just saved it myself. http://www.photomet.com/pdfs/technotes/12bits.pdf

Off in search of more info. I'll have to think of another test after reading this.

Don

I think we need a bit of input from Stephen now as he shoots RAW.

My thinking ...... may be completly wrong but here goes.

JPG = 8 bit
RAW = 12 bit
TIFF = link attatched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF

So when RAW is converted to JPG our nice 12 bit image becomes 8 bit. Tiff on the other hand would retain the 12 bit. So a print from a TIFF file will retain all of the 12 bit colour. The downside of TIFF is file size. If I remember from early experiments when I got my camera these are huge in comparison to RAW.

This is where Stephen could help by giving an idea of the growth in file size going from RAW to TIFF on a 12 mega pixel camera. I will take my RAW file from this and do similar.

Don

12-bit compressed NEF = 9.5 to 11.5 MB
12-bit uncompressed NEF = 20MB (approx)
TIFF from converted 12-bit compressed RAW = 80 to 100MB with no compression selected.

Now thats a disk filler!

I think I need a NEW BIG PC
 

Thanks Stephen,

Finally the results for this image are .................

TIFF ( RGB ) 35.571mb
RAW 9.57mb
Conv. RAW 5.58mb
JPG Fine 2.58mb

Using Paint Shop Pro 8 I did a colour count ............. strange result for the RAW conversion

TIFF 419808 colours
EX RAW 203528 colours
JPG Fine 206895 colours

I attach the pic again as we are over the page.

My computer needs a rest now !! :rolleyes:

Don

PS The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera !!

Is this a fair test ?

on the left is bees jpg , middle robin feather jpg , right bees raw.

The Robin feather detail was shot at the weekend using jpg fine. Canon 20D 300mm 1/80 Sec f7.1 ISO 400.

A 100% crop no other processing.

I appoligise for this Rob but I think Duncans needs are greater - see attached pic. :D

Other than the ability to correct WB and exposure probs the main advantage of RAW appears to be 12 bit colour.

Another little experiment ...........

1) Convert the BLT from RAW to TIFF and from RAW to JPG using Nikon Capture.
2) Convert the TIFF to JPG.
I did not take this pic as a JPG fine but the previous post suggests it would have had a higher colour count than ex RAW.

Results :-

TIFF 34.78mb file ........... 698848 colours
JPG ex TIFF 3.65mb file ... 297901 colours
JPG ex RAW 6.11mb file ... 263905 colours

So for those with limited HD space the better option appears to be RAW to TIFF to JPG to retain max colour count. Then delete the TIFF.

Of course the next question will be how large do you have to print to see the difference ?

Don

Nikon v Canon v Nikon
This would cause a riot on DPR :D

Don

I believe RAW are not designed to use without processing in the computer. If you want to do the work by your self take in RAW. If you want to let the camera do the work shoot in JPEG. Such small DSLR can not match pc with WindowsXP in capability to do the job. I am interest mostly in insects and birds. If you did not do it right-on the pictures can always be improved. The D50 has spot metering which help but to expect the 3mm spot meeter to measure light falling on smallest insects is a bit too much.
My D50 could be set to process for different subjects. But I never know what the next shot will be. So I prefer RAW than settings in the camera. With RAW you do not have to bracket exposures. If it off by + or - two stops it always can be corrected easily.

Ruchai,

The purpose behind this thread was not to say how members should be working, but to try and put forward unbiased information. I have seen a lot on the net that RAW is the only way to go. Generally these views are not supported with pictures to demonstrate the reasoning, rather authors use the fall back position that JPG is for amateurs and if you care about photography RAW is the only way to go.

While I do not deny that RAW allows you to manipulate the image for exposure and white balance the question here is. Is RAW the magic bullet it is porported to be as far as pure image quality is concerned.

A lot of people getting their first camera may not have the latest ALL POWERFULL pc and may be like me on 800hz. 128mb ram. Under those circumstances RAW can be a positive pain in the neck !!

We know that different camera's have different processing algoithms and some may well produce better files from RAW whilest others are cabable of excellent JPG's. These test have shown that with a D100 and well exposed image there is NO benefit to RAW. On the other hand I have read that the D200 does not process JPG's as well in camera, but with no pictures to support that statement. The D50 on the other hand is reckoned to produce superb JPG's straight from the camera.

So if we can get rid of the hype and show with images, readers of the thread can make a better judgement as to which method would best suit them.

Don

JPG Quality
 

To return this thread to in camera processing and dispell some of the myths about JPG I am posting this.

Sorry to the foodies but I will do another later. :D

When I moved to digital from medium format I thought a series of tests were in order to establish the capabilities of my then new Nikon D100. I took the picture of the F2 to use for the purpose. Due to the limitations of my pc I wanted to know how good the JPG files were. The attached pictures are of the print I made then, ( nearly 4 years ago ) hence the colour fade visible.

For those not familiar with this camera, it was released in 2002 and is 6 megapixel. In camera image processing is therefore not up to todays standards. For those using D70 and D50 cameras I hope this gives you some added confidence in your kit. As for Canon users I would expect the same to apply. The image was processed through Genuine Fractals but that only smooths jaggies it cannot add detail.

You will have to excuse the glare on the print but I do not have a polorising filter to suit this lens. There is also sunlight fading to take into account, so blacks are not what they were in some areas.

If you look at the lens crop, you can see the clouds in the sky through the window. A copy of the full image is pasted top left to give an idea of what proportion of the full image, this detail occupies.

Don

During the short time I have been a subscriber to this forum, I have kept a watchful eye on this thread, and though I may not have read every post I feel I understand the gist of what its about and why Don originally started it, indeed his summary above somewhat negates the need to go read all the thread :)

At the end of the day though I can't help feeling that its only a variation of the long standing discussion RAW v JPEG.

I'm no 'pixel peeper' and so am not about to start setting my camera up to take images of a subject in both RAW and JPEG. I'm happy to let others do that ;) and FWIW in the test shown yesterday the first image, the RAW one, was unquestionably the best IMO.

I was a JPEG only user for several years with digicams and the Nikon D1. At the time I felt the differences were not significant and the extra time it involved in the workflow could not be justified, especially when I had a lot of images to process. Not to mention the fact that at the time I did not have the benefit of the software that would enable me to use RAW in an efficient sort of way. Raw files from the D1 were not as easily handled then as NEFS are today.

It is a fact however that my approach to these matters has matured and developed over time and as new software develops. I am now a 100% user of Raw. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that for me it is the best method to use. From a software point of view, I use CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which in conjunction with Adobe Bridge has made processing images a breeze. I have also used Raw Shooter Essentials (RSE) which has made a quality RAW converter available to everyone. I would have bought the Premium version except for the fact I had made a concious decision to use ACR.

For me, its not about comparing images on the screen and pixel counting. The fact is I always SAVE to JPEG which as we all know is a 'lossy' format. For my own purposes saved in Photoshop at highest quality (12) its perfectly adequate for my needs, even though I know the data in the file has been reduced from 23mb down to around 5-8mb. If in the rare situation that I ever notice a loss of quality, I always have the RAW file to return to, its my 'negative'

RAW mode offers me the versatility I require, but most importantly I have the option to make the decision on how the data is processed rather than letting the camera do it all. Do you all take photos in full Auto mode even just P mode. Most serious photographers like to have the creative input to adjust the camera exposure to what they want, they like to be in control. Using RAW is simply an extension of that.

Then of course there is the fact that RAW has more dynamic range than JPEG. However I am not convinced about this 12bit red herring mentioned earlier. To the best of my knowledge the 12bit RAW image is always processed into either an 8 or 16bit image. Saving to TIFF has no bearing on this. However I will stand corrected on this I'm not familiar with all conversion software. The fact is though that PS only works in 8 or 16bit. Frankly unless asked to do so I would never use 16bit

Finally, I have often used the image below to illustrate how a duff exposure can be retrieved in the RAW converter. The left side was straight out of the camera, and the right side is the same shot after adjustment. It was one of the situations that did it for me :) I would have struggled had it been an in camera JPEG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...s/IMG_8580.jpg

Well said, Stephen. I think to compare using RAW versus JPEG is like comparing cooking your own food versus buying food in cans. If you do not have time to spare then eat from cans, if you think eating is important to you then cook your own food. I used JPEG most of the time before I have NikonCapture4. It is very easy to use and very effective. I do not think there is any thing wrong with using JPEG but I feel I could save many pictures because I took them in RAW. I enjoy playing with my pictures in the computer just as much as taking pictures.

Hi Ruchai
A very apt simile, and I think you can go a little further, in as much as besides the meat and veg even the smallest grain of salt and pepper is there in the Raw file for us to manipulate.

I now shoot only in Raw, not because I am anything near an expert photographer, quite the opposite in fact.
The camera which I use is programmed to adjust itself which ever program I use,
ie., in A it chooses S , in S it chooses A in P it chooses A and S, provided I give it a fair idea of the ambient light situation and dial in a reasonable ISO and focus correctly, then the Raw file will contain all the information I require to produce an acceptable photograph.
All my old Raw (negatives) I have stored on disks, and now as I slowly get more proficient with CS, I am returning to those old files and in quite a few cases getting very pleasing images out of them. If I had shot them originally in jpeg I would have junked them and they would have been lost and gone forever

I have also done a quick test with my 350D 18-55mm. Both are 100% crop.
First one is raw. 2nd one is fine jpg. nothing done to either image.

So what is your conclusion Christine. Apart from the obvious difference in levels I can see no difference. The RAW shot however to me is more pleasing, which suggests the in camera processing is not doing such a good job.

What prog was used to convert the Raw file. Do you think the default settings is adjusting levels

Christine what software did you use to convert raw to jpg ?