Okay, I'll admit that I was was wrong. RAW definately yeilds the better image. I took these two shots under less than perfect conditions. Indoors, handheld and in fairly low light. I think the shutter speed was at 1/10. This is a small portion of the back of a DIRECTV receiver at my job. This way I could tell the boss I was doing product testing. ;) They are obviously both 8-bit JPEGS now, but you can see the difference shooting in RAW made. The JPEG is fairly noisey and much detail is lost while the RAW image is much smoother and more noise free. The colors are true and it is just more accurate overall. This was my very first RAW import into PhotoshopCS so I didn't mess with the setting much. If anyone can tell me a quicker way to bring in RAW images I'm all ears. To have to adjust each one as it load would be a major time drain. Because of that, I will probably shoot JPEGS for most things still, but if I know I'll want a high quality image, I'll snap off a RAW shot too. I hope this helps those on the fence. Quality vs time, who wins? --Kort

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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

I work on a Mac Bsteph so PhotoshopCS is pretty much my best option.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations

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.cfm

OH 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

I would like to know how you get RAW 16 bit. So far mine go 12 bit..Is that a camera or editing thing.

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions."

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.

thank you Kort!! was really interested in your findings since we have the same cam, will definately give it a try but have many of the same concerns as you

can definitely tell the difference!!!

snigger See, TwoPynts even feels he has to justify himself for using a Mac - such is the social stigma.... ROFLMAO (",)

WOW! This forum is such a fantastic source of info!! Thx for that! The difference between the 2 is quite amazing actually and I now feel VERY frustrated since my cam doesn't even have the RAW option!! :( How's that!? It sucks!

oh but my JPEG images are 24 bit though! Is that any good?? O_o I mean, does it make a difference? Oh man, I'm so ignorant!! crying out loud

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

Ah! That's what it means then!! But why 3x8?? What's the 3 for?? Is it because there's 3 color channels? O_o And yes I will definitely get a cam with the raw option when I'll be a bit more "shooting litterate"! ;) Thx for the info Kort! :) And my name is Pascale dear! :)

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! ;)