RAW files... why didn't I do this sooner

[pw]

And I would highly recommend picking up Lightroom for post processing. You can probably give it a test drive with the new Adobe Creative Cloud package for photographers for cheap.

There is a 30 day free trial of Lightroom available from Adobe.

[pw]

Also, any reason to shoot in RAW+jpeg and plow through more memory card space, or is shooting in just RAW fine?

I mostly just shoot raw. It's simple to convert to a jpeg. There are times when I know conditions are straightforward that I just shoot jpegs. Grab a 16 gig memory card if space is a concern. With an 18 MP sensor, my 16 gig card can hold around 600 raw files. That's a bunch.

[cpb145]

Thanks again for all the responses. I am going to clear out my memory card a bit (only have an 8mb currently) and give RAW another shake on Elbert tomorrow.

Now that I am at my laptop, I checked on the test pics I took when I first got the camera. It is actually outputting the RAWs in ORF format. The ORF files are in the area of 13mb, and when converted to jpeg were all about 1.6mb. However, just shooting in high quality jpeg nets me around 3-3.5mb. I guess that's why I am still a bit confused and made the original decision to not bother with RAW. It appeared hold half the info a regular jpeg did after being converted. However, it sounds like it is in the conversion process that it is being stripped down so much. I guess I don't know why the camera's factory software would do that when set to the highest quality conversion. Any Olympus owners using Olympus Viewer 2 have any thoughts?

[jdorje]

Jpeg is a lossy compression format, but just because a file is half the size does not mean it has half the data. Maybe it's just being compressed more intelligently. Or maybe it is being compressed at a lower quality, but you still gain more in space savings than you lose in quality that way.

[mtn_nut]

What kind of olympus do you shoot?

I find that the manufactures software doesn't work nearly as well as something like lightroom.

If you want me to show you what i mean, send me with a link to a raw file of one of your better photos. you do your conversion, i'll do mine in lightroom, and you can judge the difference yourself.

-Ted

[cpb145]

What kind of olympus do you shoot?

I find that the manufactures software doesn't work nearly as well as something like lightroom.

If you want me to show you what i mean, send me with a link to a raw file of one of your better photos. you do your conversion, i'll do mine in lightroom, and you can judge the difference yourself.

-Ted

I'm shooting with a E-PM2, one of their micro 4/3's style cameras. I played around with the RAW conversion bit in their software some more and I must have been doing something wrong before, as now I am getting them to convert at around 5-6mb per pic; a definite improvement over the 3.5mb HQ jpegs. I am definitely going to shoot in RAW tomorrow when I am out and about on Elbert, and will probably get to editing/converting sometime on Tuesday. Even though it appears I may have fixed my dilemma, I might want to take you up on your offer anyway Ted just to see how lightroom performs with a seasoned user. It will be interesting to see, and if it comes out great maybe I'll switch over. Sometimes it's a pain just to do the post work, and now that my post work would consist of two different steps in two different programs, I see it being even more of a pain. If lightroom is a good all-in-one solution, I'm sold. Thanks again!

[mtn_nut]

What kind of olympus do you shoot?

I find that the manufactures software doesn't work nearly as well as something like lightroom.

If you want me to show you what i mean, send me with a link to a raw file of one of your better photos. you do your conversion, i'll do mine in lightroom, and you can judge the difference yourself.

-Ted

I'm shooting with a E-PM2, one of their micro 4/3's style cameras. I played around with the RAW conversion bit in their software some more and I must have been doing something wrong before, as now I am getting them to convert at around 5-6mb per pic; a definite improvement over the 3.5mb HQ jpegs. I am definitely going to shoot in RAW tomorrow when I am out and about on Elbert, and will probably get to editing/converting sometime on Tuesday. Even though it appears I may have fixed my dilemma, I might want to take you up on your offer anyway Ted just to see how lightroom performs with a seasoned user. It will be interesting to see, and if it comes out great maybe I'll switch over. Sometimes it's a pain just to do the post work, and now that my post work would consist of two different steps in two different programs, I see it being even more of a pain. If lightroom is a good all-in-one solution, I'm sold. Thanks again!

thats a pretty good sensor, so i'm interested to see what i can do.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/ ... ___874_840" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Assuming you have a pretty decent lens on that sucker that is.

I almost bought an E-PM2 when they had some really good sales on them about a month back, but i decided to hold out since i really want to get something like a Sony A7 when i finally get something with an interchangeable lens.

[mattpayne11]

Jpeg is a lossy compression format, but just because a file is half the size does not mean it has half the data. Maybe it's just being compressed more intelligently. Or maybe it is being compressed at a lower quality, but you still gain more in space savings than you lose in quality that way.

It is actually far, far less data. An 8-bit jpeg can represent around 16 million colors, whereas a 16 bit-depth file can represent over 28 billion.

[kaiman]

Any time you convert a graphic image file from vector (lossless) to raster (lossy) you will see a decline in quality. Even using a state of the art editing program like Lightroom is going to give you mixed results. It has less to do with the program you use than the image format.

Vector images (which includes TIFFs, PNGs, EPS, AI, RAW, etc. all use a mathematical formula to determine the size of the image from the center to the images edge (radius).

Raster images (such as JPGs, GIFs, and BMPs calculate the size of the image based on the number of pixels per inch (or dots per inch).

Where these things really comes into play is during the conversion or resizing process. When a vector is resized the formula recalculates the distance from the center of the image to the edge but doesn't get rid of the "extra" data it just condenses it, which is where the term lossless comes in and is the reason you can resize certain vector images up as well as down (say someone sends you a logo in Illustrator and that is 4" x 6" you can then take that file and enlarge it to 4' x 6' if you want to.

Raster images on the other hand actually remove pixels as the image is compressed or resized discarding them as the image gets smaller. Let's say you take a 10 x 12 picture with a white background that has 100,000 white pixels and resize it to 4 x 6, then that image may only have 10,000 white pixels and the others are discarded or lost hence the term lossy. This is why you can never take a smaller JPG and make it larger as it will become blurry and distorted as it is missing pixels to show correctly at the larger size and is the reason as mattpayne pointed out that a JPG is a far smaller file size than it's RAW equivalent because it does indeed have less data.

The same thing applies when you are going from RAW to JPG as you are changing the way the data in the image is calculated. Even the best photo programs out there can't do this conversion without some loss.

The problem as you know is that vector files tend to be larger where as raster files are smaller (and more universally viewable) so a conversion is usually necessary. The rule of thumb that most photographers that I know use is to shoot as large as image as possible in RAW format and then convert them to as large high quality format as possible. Even still you should expect some differences in image quality and subtle changes in the picture itself.

Good luck and happy picture taking,

Kai

[thatmushroom]

Any time you convert a graphic image file from vector (lossless) to raster (lossy) you will see a decline in quality. Even using a state of the art editing program like Lightroom is going to give you mixed results. It has less to do with the program you use than the image format.

Vector images (which includes TIFFs, PNGs, EPS, AI, RAW, etc. all use a mathematical formula to determine the size of the image from the center to the images edge (radius).

Raster images (such as JPGs, GIFs, and BMPs calculate the size of the image based on the number of pixels per inch (or dots per inch).

Yes and no, with a whole lot more no.

Yes, vector graphics are resolution independent because they are mathematical objects.
No, most of those file formats listed are not vector formats.

RAW gets its name because it is essentially the raw sensor data from your camera. Before you can even view it as a picture, it needs to be interpreted. Each camera maker has their own program to convert it (which may not be apparent to the user), and there are lots of 3rd party programs as well. Lightroom hides the conversion very well, so it's not really something you have to ever think about.

RAW files or TIFF files are generally considered lossless formats, where every pixel gets a value, meaning that it does have the most information. JPEG is a lossy format, so pixels which are similar might get grouped together. The more compressed a picture is, the more information is discarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jdorje]

An 8-bit jpeg can represent around 16 million colors, whereas a 16 bit-depth file can represent over 28 billion.

I was talking about a comparison of jpeg to jpeg. The complaint was that a jpeg created from a RAW file was half the size of a jpeg created directly by the camera. But, since jpeg is a compressed format, that doesn't necessarily mean the smaller jpeg has less data, if it is just being compressed more efficiently.

Reading about the RAW format is fascinating. But complicated!

[djkest]

So my understanding might be a little OFF, so correct me if I'm wrong.

With a RAW file, each pixel has it's own value. With a JPEG, it is compressed so clumps of pixels are grouped together. This really doesn't matter much if you don't edit your photos, but if you do, the difference is staggering.

With a JPEG file, if the photo is really overexposed or underexposed, you have a slim chance of changing it into a good shot, because a lot of the data from the photo is lost in the compression process. Similarly, I have noticed that Colorado skies really suffer with the big gradient in blue tone as the angle changes.

When I used to edit JPEG files, it was a delicate balance in lightroom because too much adjustment and the image became visibly pixelated or blocky.

With RAW files, my ceiling is much higher. I can adjust the sky for example about 3x as much without artifacting, I can bring under/overexposed pictures back much better, and the clarity is much better. I also am able to change the white balance better for indoor photos.

I shoot Raw + JPEG so I can put the JPEGs on facebook, and after I am done editing the RAW files I convert them to JPEG. Although I'm thinking about starting to save them as .PNG, since the quality is so much better.