Attached Link: Akpe

It is the way forward without a doubt !

Take control of your image workflow and make the choices yourself instead of using those set by a camera manufacturer. Of course there will be a learning curve to start with but the end result will be worthwhile.

The camera you use is considered to be one of the better performing models in the control of digital noise so this should not be an issue. 

If you want any help - just ask .

Richard.

Agree fully with Richard....once you start shooting RAW, you will not go back.
There are many threads on this in this forum....a quick search here should net some good info.

Go with RAW. There is no deference is noise. Its all in post processing.

Think of RAW as a digital negative..

The JPEG format looses detail..It's a "lossy compression" format.

THANKS ALOT GUYS. I THINK ITS HIGH TIME I START SHOOTING IN RAW FORMAT

The only reason there's is less noise with jpg is because of the processing your camera does. It's partly due to jpg compression and partly due to de-noise algorithms. You can do this yourself with the apropriate plugins like noise-ninja or grain-surgery for photoshop.

So it's not the raw images that generate the noise, it's the camera that removes it when saving as jpg.

Yeah Raw is the way to go... Not quite sure about the noise you talk of with regard to Jpeg as Raw images dont have any compression to start with and as you have to resize the jpeg anyway to post you are then adding further compression which will add  noise, and each time you save... In reality as you are posting on the web 72 dpi is all that is required you wont notice the improvement from Raw until you print at greater than A4

I fully agree with the comments from the other guys..

@All....note that not all RAW files are the same....some do in fact have compression algorithms.  Whether or not those are "lossless", is a subject of debate.

Attached Link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Besides, RAW has been out a few yrs now!!

:b_nervous:

What I meant Kort was that 16 bit can handle 65,536 levels of information as opposed to 8 bit that have 256!

If your camera allows it, it is maybe a good opportunity to store the image quality as an individuell setting.
For example: I've a Canon EOS400d and I store the image quality as an individuell setting.
Now I only have to press the Key and can change the image quality very quickly if I want.

I think it depends also on the photo you're going to make if you use RAW or JPG.

Maybe we can collect some tips here, when it make sense to use RAW?

If you are after the best quality and total control and have the time, RAW makes the best sense. Otherwise, shoot JPEG. ;')

I agree with everyone above - shoot RAW whenever you can, but also keep in mind some shots are not going to need the extra quality which is why you have the option to shoot jpeg.

"Maybe we can collect some tips here, when it make sense to use RAW?"

As far as noise - it usually only rears it ugly head with levels of underexposure. The more underexposed it is, the worse the noise will be. If possible, bring a reflector to bounce light into the shadow areas - you can always tone it down in post bt it will be CLEANER when you do it this way.

The main point - the more you can control your lighting (under AND overexposure), the better.
-Lew ;-)

infact what am going to do, is set my 20d to shoot raw & jpeg simutaniously, so that there are know regrets

good idea ! but you will need extra space on your CF.

i don't shoot jpeg anymore because sometimes you say 'these are not important pic, so i shoot jpg'... and at home on the screen.. surpriiiiiiiise : wow this pics is very nice !!! .. no luck, it's in jpeg, not in raw :o(

it's just my pov.

Olivier

Some thinks which should mention concerning RAW:

• the filesize of a RAW picture is about 3 times higher then a JPG picture
• it also uses more battery power
• it needs longer to transfer RAW images to your computer
• not all RAW converter programs can handle the RAW format

• the dynamic range of RAW images is higher
• the postworking is better because the quality of the image won't get lost
• I think there will be some other advantages

So IMHO: 
If you want to make really professional photos you should use RAW otherwise you should imagine if you use RAW or JPG

"...my 20d to shoot raw & jpeg simutaniously..."

My friend with the 20D does that and what she finds is that the jpegs look distinctly "softer" than the RAW files - maybe it's using a higher compression than normal, but they are unuseable for finishing. When she shoots in just jpeg mode they look better - she can actually use them for finishing.

She says she uses it to preview the images - but she's scrolling through both the RAW and the jpeg (2 of the same image) so it does her no good the way she's using it.

Basically, it's so you can quickly burn a CD of the jpegs for the client without having to wait for any software to batch-convert them. that way the client can preview them for composition, to make sure everyone is smiling and in place, and it's the same numbe as the RAW file so they can tell the photographer "I want you to finish image numbers..."

She can actually get away with shooting in jpeg for her professional work because the magazine she shoots for is only 5x7 inches.

I just find a useful link here, which in turn contains useful links at the bottom: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/raw.html

Attached Link: Amazon comment

The only time that you may have a problem with RAW is if you use it as an excuse to expose improperly and think it will be ok because it was shot in the RAW format and that you can just fix it later. Underexposure is noise's best friend - if you underexpose and try to pump up the exposure during raw processing it will bring on the noise. But that is also true of JPEG so just as long as your exposures are spot on you shouldn't have any problems. This is true regardless of which camera you use.

My experience is based on working my Olympus E1 which is a pretty noisy camera. As much as I love my camera I am aware of that fact so do have quite a bit of  practical knowledge of how to handle noise and thus consider underexposure to be the devil - just as bad or even worse than overexpsure in some cases.  Avoid underexposure, I can't stress that enough.

I also should mention that Canon's raw jpeg engine does have a tendency to "smooth out" the noise during its jpeg processing so you should experiment with your own camera to determine which format you like better. You mentioned trying to shoot in jpeg and raw similtaneously and that would probably be a good thing to try - much easier to compare and decide. I think that once you start shooting RAW you will probably prefer it - I know I do. I think the images also look sharper when captured RAW  which makes it worth the extra processing time involved for me most of the time. I avoid it when shooting events though - if shooting 400 or more pics it can be a bit of a hassle (weddings would be the exception there but I don't do weddings yet).

I hope my post added some useful points for you to consider. I do love your gallery - you have some pretty amazing images there!

'tis allready said...shoot Raw.  Now on Sunday, I took "snapshots' of a church picnic. That was jpg. Made sense for that.    Other pics I shoot raw not knowing "in fact" which is the one I truly want to make the best.  Agreed, print is the way to see the real difference and not in a small print.

Nikon allows "compressed raw" and uncompressed.  Both take a lot of space depending on your camera but are worth when you open an image then WISH you had taken it in raw.  Both the now bought out by Adobe "Rawshooter" and Adobe Lightroom do a credible job but there are other raw converters out there.              TomDart.

I read that a photoman that photo the Kentucy horse race shoot  both raw and jpeg. This is so he can sent the winning horse jpegs to the papers and magizines. They have a time table to keep. The raw he use for people who wish to buy his photos. I think he shoots over 700 photos a race. He sells a lot of photos at the races.
that the only reason i see for shooting in both.  
Wish I can shoot in raw. will do it one day.