Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Photography F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 26 6:56 am)
Is there a way to save as NON 8 bit? That would make things better for you. I agree RAW does look better but if you can get 16 bit images then JPEG may be allright. Also have you considered a 3rd perty software. There are many packages which will batch convert raw images. Such as Olympus CAMEDIA or something made by KODAK. bsteph
Yep, it's in the proof. :) There is no quicker way with RAW files. That is the down side to it...but as you said it depends on what you are shooting. If you are wanting something for print I would definitely shoot in RAW and you have more control over the settings to correct certain situations. Sometimes spending the extra time pays off. It all depends on what best suits your needs. Great show of difference. :)
Remarkable Amazing Wonderful
And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies
live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to
sea in a Sieve.
Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html
Nice illustration of the benefits - thx for sharing :) The Raw image certainly does have more detail in this comparison. The chamfer around the S video socket really shows this.
And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies
live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to
sea in a Sieve.
Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html
Attached Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
Two good links : http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/index.cfmOH right RAW!!! Thanks for the reminder. OK. UM well in that case...I used to have some program which converted from RAW to JPEG. But I'm not sure if it did batch conversions. I didn't think MACS regurly needed to do match processes. That really what you need I think. Maybe if you search for a MAC batch picture processor... Bsteph
On a personal level I do not want to batch process my RAW files,the major advantage of using RAW is that when importing into Photoshop there are a range of adjustments you can make using the introduction applet ( colour balance, exposure adjustment, shadow, brightness, contrast,saturation etc ) before actually getting to work in Photoshop proper. If you do not have this facility I would suggest you visit the Adobe web site and browse the download section and see if the RAW import file for your particular camera is there, this section is upgraded on a regular basis as new cameras are launched, even cameras from the same manufacturer need a more recent import file, despite promises RAW is not universal and still has some individual requirements depending on your camera. Working with RAW files gives so much control over what you can do with the image, when your work is complete then is the time to save it as a tiff or jpeg dependent on end usage but always keeping the RAW file untouched as the digital negative in case you wish to revisit it in the future. The point raised about using jpeg for normal use and if you know you need a high quality print then shoot in RAW, I would just ask you to consider shooting RAW all the time as you can always make the image into a smaller file size but you cannot succesfully reverse the process, once the camera has compressed a 10 Mb image down to maybe 2 Mb that large quantity of information is gone for good, the shot you take as jpeg just may be the best shot you take in your entire photographic life ! As you can tell I an a dedicated RAW file user, I compare the control it gives me to the work I used to do in a wet darkroom, memory card these days are relatively inexpensive, I always work on the premis that my next image will be my best. I would respectivly suggest you experiment as TwoPynts has done above, one shot as a jpeg and one as RAW and see the improvement.
I think your JPEGs are still 8-bit per color channel -- 3 x 8 = 24. Don't stress tibet2004uk. I'm sure you'll get a camera with the RAW function eventually and if you are shooting for the web and not for print, chances are you won't see too much of a difference unless you really blow up your images. I'm glad my experience was helpful to everyone. Thanks for the feedback. Macs rule! ;^] ( I let me work speak for the quality of my OS Jordy ) heheh
Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations
Pascale, you are correct 8 bits for each color, RGB. Have fun deciding on the right camera--that can be even harder than raising the funds for it! ;]
Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations
Oh my!!! Why r u telling me this??? I've got time to think about that anyway since we just bouhgt the cam I use now which is a Sony cybershot DSC F717 and, knowing nothing about photography, I must say that I'm quite pleased with it! The lens especially is really good! But I'm sure I will find it very frustating when I'll get to know more! ;)
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations