File :-(, x, )
RAW or JPEG? Anonymous
Which do you most often shoot, RAW or JPEG format? Why do you prefer one or the other?

I typically use fine JPEG, but I'm thinking of switching to RAW once I get an additional memory card.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE7900Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:11:21 13:41:40Exposure Time1/490 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating50Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
RAW here, not only because it's lossless, but allows for better editing afterwards.
>> Anonymous
>>31314

yup what he said.
>> Anonymous
That freaked me out, thought it was AIDS, but then I relized it was a banana. MY bananas usually get brown in lines, not in spots D:
>> Anonymous
RAW.
Once you go RAW, you never go back.
>> Anonymous
do you just convert RAW to JPEG and then work on that, or do you edit RAW directly?
>> Anonymous
>>31329
Not entirely true. When I first started shooting digital, I used RAW all the time. Now I mostly shoot JPEG. I use JPEG like I used to use slide film... just get it right the first time. The reason I quit shooting RAW is that I got tired of having to process all the images and dealing with significantly larger files.
>> Anonymous
>>31339

OTOH, slides are a "lossless" format.
>> Anonymous
Question: What's the point of shooting in RAW when you're gonna convert it to a JPEG file eventually? (newbie here)
>> Anonymous
>>31333
>>31343
RAW has 14 bits of brightness information, JPEG has only 8.
>> Anonymous
>>31343

it really depends on what you are shooting for....blah, blah ...etc


if you shoot RAW then you can at least convert to jpeg if you need the smaller size. What if you took a picutre you really liked in jepg and then just wished you had it in RAW?
>> Anonymous
film, you fucking tool
>> Anonymous
Because JPEGs are more heavily compressed than other image formats, their information is more volatile and likely to expand at high speed through an unchecked buffer, poorly allocated resource or any other available system space. I'd guess you're probably losing image data through one of these means.

You see, when you load a JPEG into memory, the EXtra colour Information Format (EXIF) header is loaded into RAM in order to prepare the video prebuffer for the incoming high-speed flow of colour information from the uncorked JPEG. If your bus isn't ready for this information, the rapidly decompressing file information can flow through other parts of your system.

Ordinarily this isn't a problem: as a matter of fact, JPEG was designed for this sort of thing. Older computers couldn't handle the explosive power behind the fledgeling image decompression algorithm, so rather than fight it, image experts invented the Jampacked Picture Extraction and Gathering (JPEG) protocol. They cleverly decided to allow the image data to spray wherever it would, knowing that after the extraction phase would send raw data all over the inside of the computer, the gathering phase would locate it all and reassemble it into an image. With the advent of faster computers the delay between spray and collection is so small as to be unnoticeable, while newer and bigger video cards are more capable of withstanding the onslaught of colours.

Still, the primary weakness of this algorithm is the haphazard placement of decompressed data. There's just too much of it to channel through normal means, so any loss of data containment results in corrupted images. In your case, it would appear that you're losing image data through the empty hole where your goddamned shift key should be.
>> Anonymous
>>31383

wtf?
>> Anonymous
>>31383
Let's read that again.
"...their information is more volatile and likely to expand at high speed through an unchecked buffer, poorly allocated resource or any other available system space."

That's no problem, just invert the polarity of the bogon flux field and you're home safe.
>> Anonymous
Is this Star Trek or something?
>> Anonymous
no fools its bananas
>> Anonymous
A... A girrafe's ass?
>> des
epic.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>31343
There's quite a bit of stuff going on on the way between RAW and JPEG, and it's always good to be able to choose non-default algorithms and settings. It also makes possible to make bigger adjustments with lesser quality loss.

The more you know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

Also, you eventually do not want to convert your photo to a JPEG, you want to make a nice big print out of it. And you don't want to see enlarged compression artifacts on it.