okay, so my new camera came today, and it has the ability to shoot in RAW, JPEG, or TIFF formats...i'm new to the prosumer scene (didn't want to go quite d-slr, but i wanted more than my simple p&s), so i'm not quite sure what i want to shoot in...yes, i've googled, but i keep getting all these in-depth explanations, and really what i want is a fairly simple explanation...here's what i know so far:

JPEG, as it's compressed, is obviously going to have a smaller file size, and it's already been processed...additionally, from my understanding, JPEG100 is supposed to be the highest quality of compressed image available

RAW is simply the raw image data, and can vary in camera model/fw version...therefore, there's concern (supposedly) that some RAW data can't be simply converted and compressed in every program...however, unlike TIFF, the size is smaller (because of missing processed information, right?)...additionally, when blowing up images, RAW data has a higher quality, correct?

TIFF is a processed, uncompressed image file, but because of this it's freaking huge in terms of file size...i haven't bothered to research more than this because i THINK i'm debating between shooting in JPEG and RAW, not TIFF (depends on what i find out here, i guess)

the camera is a panasonic lumix dmc-fz30k, 8.0mp, and i have a 1gb sandisk ultraII sd card, so i don't THINK space is a problem (i should be able to transfer files before i fill up the card), but in the case that i DO run out of space, i've got a second 1gb lexar card (not high-speed, though)

also, i have software that will batch-process the RAW files, so compressing them into JPEGs isn't really a big deal for me

i'd appreciate anyone's advice or knowledge concerning the subject...i admit my ignorance and lack of desire to muck through google results to find the information

thanks for the info!

5/2/2006 3:13:02 PM

Shoot in jpeg mode unless you have a full version of photoshop and you know how to use it. Shoot in TIFF mode unless you really know what to do with the RAW files. You can save jpegs from the TIFF files once you've doig any editing. Archive the TIFF on removable media. You'll want them if you ever want to re-edit an image.

RAW files allow you to apply some custom settings and give you the ability to manualy adjust white balance, noise, grain, color bias, etc... Most professional photographers have a set of scripts that import and automatically make adjustments to their RAW files that are specifically tailored to their specific camera and the shooting environment. Manipulating RAW image files give you a powerfl amount of control over your final digital images. However, you have to know what you're doing to be able to take advantage of the control that RAW formats give you.

5/2/2006 3:20:17 PM

I actually prefer the JPEG over the TIFF on my DMC-FZ5...test it out and see which looks best to you.

5/2/2006 3:21:30 PM

^ The only real difference between TIFF and JPEG should be image compression. JPEG will add some color shift and some compression artefacts.

5/2/2006 3:26:49 PM

JPG = 8-bit color = 16.7 million color values for a pixel (converted down from what the camera image sensor "sees")
RAW = 12-bit color = 68 billion color values for a pixel (this is what the camera image sensor actually "sees")
TIFF = 16-bit color = 281,474,976,710,656 color values for a pixel (but this is converted up from RAW so you dont get any extra info, thats also why the TIFF files are so fucking huge)

You'll get ALOT more photo quality by shooting raw and using a high quality RAW converter, dont use the shitty RAW converter software that came with that camera

[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 3:45 PM. Reason : "sees"]

5/2/2006 3:45:04 PM

thanks for the information...i really appreciate it

i will be shooting photos at 3264x2448 (4:3 - approx. 16"x12") or 3072x1728 (16:9 - approx. 15"x8.5"), and i'd like the ABILITY to enlarge these to small poster size (not planning on doing this regularly, but would like to now and then if i get a very good shot)...which format would be the best in order to do this with minimal pixelation? i'm assuming RAW or TIFF

^ do you have a program that you would recommend? i have access to both paint shop pro 10 and photoshop cs2...i have no clue about photoshop's capabilities (because i haven't really used it), but i know psp does batch conversion and i've always been happy with the results (but nothing on this scale)

camera came with arcsoft software, but i've never used it

[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : arcsoft]

5/2/2006 3:57:11 PM

^^
Please note that your numbers are per color channel

^Always shoot using an uncompressed image format. You can compress later, but you can't get back the image information that's lost due to compression. Photoshop is the industry standard digital image editing software. Learn it!

Read these:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

5/2/2006 4:10:12 PM

Adobe Photoshop is the de facto standard for RAW image processing

You should try out taking a picture and comparing a RAW image processed with Photoshop, then with Arcsoft, then the JPG that comes out with the camera

btw, I think your camera automagically saves a JPG when you shoot in RAW mode

5/2/2006 4:12:10 PM

i know this is a n00b response, but - i've really got a lot to learn...i'll work with some photoshop soon and learn to play with it...

ISO settings...higher or lower is better?

my dad does a lot of photography, but he prefers a standard slr, so i have no one to help me in terms of the digital aspect of this...again, i appreciate the help

5/2/2006 4:26:30 PM

Quote :

" ISO is the number indicating a digital camera sensors sensitivity to light. The higher the sensitivity, the less light is needed to make an exposure. Digital cameras automatically select the ISO but most have a setting to change it manually. Auto ISO generally works best for bright scenes. Shooting at a lower ISO number requires more light than shooting at a higher number. Lower numbers result in images with the least visible noise, which is desirable. The higher the number, the more noise. The amount and degree of noise varies from camera to camera. Digital single reflex cameras (dSLR), because they have larger sensors, are best for producing noise-free images. However, some consumer digital cameras now have improved sensors that produce acceptable images at higher ISO numbers. ISO settings AUTO ISO - digital camera automatically sets the ISO speed according the the brightness of the scene, increasing or decreasing the sensitivity. User has no control over which ISO number is used. ISO 50 - 80 - for taking photos in bright light; excellent for close-ups, landscape, and portraits. Produces fine detail and image quality. ISO 100 - for extra sensitivity with little, if any, reduced image quality. ISO 200 - cloudy and overcast days. Acceptable image quality, with some visible noise. ISO 400 and above - suitable for indoor photography whether or not a flash is used. Useful for "stop-action" and sports photographs. High to very high noise. Changing ISO also changes the aperture and shutter speed."

http://www.digicamhelp.com/advanced-digital-camera-settings/iso.htm

5/2/2006 4:33:02 PM

never use tiff, it is useless compared to the best jpg setting and the files are huge.

I shoot all raw files with my Nikon D70 and use Nikon Capture to convert to jpg for use in photoshop or for printing.

5/2/2006 4:41:09 PM

^ You should always use TIFF for archival purposes. Otherwise you'll have color loss and compression artefact if you don't use a lossless format. Since the RAW format of his camera doesn't need the high color depth of TIFF files, I would shoot in RAW and then output everything to PNG in photoshop. PNG give you lossless compression and 24bit color.

5/2/2006 4:53:07 PM

i didn't realize PNG was lossless...well, you learn something new every day

so cs2 has RAW batch conversion? or is it a plugin?

5/2/2006 4:57:36 PM

Use RAW for everything. You can zip/rar your photo archives to cut down on the storage space if you like down the road.

JPEG fucking BLOWS, avoid it at all costs. PNG is definitely a better option if you are going with a compressed format.

And that 1gb card will fill up quick. 8mp RAW images will be from 2.5-3mb each on average. So you are lookin at a few hundred shots before its full.

The other nice thing about using RAW over tiff/jpeg is you save battery life. Not a lot, but it can get you a couple extra shots on a long battery day.

5/2/2006 5:33:50 PM

you should never take the picture in a lossy format - why would you? just buy a 2GB flash card that can hold hundreds of lossless TIFFs at maximum settings

also, set your camera to take the picture at its max resolution and color depth, etc.

you can always scale a picture down - you'll never be able to scale it up

5/2/2006 7:10:04 PM

tiff it worthless unless you have a rare camera that actually has a 16bit ccd

5/2/2006 7:13:07 PM

i don't give a shit what format you use as long as its lossless - that was my general point

also, always keep your camera on max settings

5/2/2006 7:15:08 PM

NO lab takes a png file so jpg is used there, and I always have the RAW file to go back to so tiff files are useless there. If I am editing (retouching) a photo I'll have a psd w/ layers for all of the work, then save as a jpg setting 10 for printing. There is no difference between a jpg saved at 10 and a tiff, except the jpg is much smaller in size. Try it, save a tiff image as a jpg 10 and then open it and overlay it on the tiff file in photoshop, then set the blending mode to difference. If the image isn't completely black then something is wrong. I agree that if you repeatedly open and save a jpg you can have degredation in quality but it isn't something to worry about unless you try to introduce artifacts, or save at a lower quality.

Quote :

"8mp RAW images will be from 2.5-3mb each on average. "

my 6mp compressed raw files are 3.5-5mb each, 8mp would be 4-6mb compressed, 10+ uncompressed.

[Edited on May 2, 2006 at 7:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2006 7:16:53 PM

all i'm saying is this - save your master copy with lossless compression and maximum settings.

i don't give a rats ass if it is tiff, bmp, raw, png, mp3, or txt!

5/2/2006 7:18:17 PM

^^ah good catch, Yea I was using the compressed Nikon numbers

5/2/2006 7:23:41 PM

here's a question:

If I'm shooting only in JPG, then I retouch shots on my machine and resave as TIF, is that dumb? Should I be saving as something else? (PSD, Photoshop PDF... ?) I definitely don't want to resave as JPG. Thanks!

-ZiP!-

5/2/2006 9:36:48 PM

as long as you save it as a jpg with the same compression as the original (or 10-12 in photoshop) its not going to make any difference, resaving as tiff is pointless.

save em as png's if you want lossless at that point.

5/2/2006 10:11:46 PM

what is the straight-up PSD format all about?

-ZiP!-

5/2/2006 10:14:55 PM

i mean you *can* save em as psd, but unless you really want to keep the layers or comments or something, its just more unecessary largeness again.

5/2/2006 10:17:02 PM

i don't like having to pick a level of compression though (i mean, just the idea of it), however resaving as tiff is making them massive. thanks for the answers

-ZiP!-

5/2/2006 10:24:09 PM

i dont think 99% of you are at the level where you need to worry about the details you are worrying about

5/2/2006 10:40:10 PM

guess I'm in the 1%

5/2/2006 10:46:42 PM

Quote :

"i dont think 99% of you are at the level where you need to worry about the details you are worrying about"

what a fuckin' dick thing to say

-ZiP!-

5/2/2006 11:04:29 PM

^ agreed

5/2/2006 11:06:12 PM

did i hurt your feelings

5/2/2006 11:07:22 PM

a little, yeah

aside from hurt feelings, i think blowing up pictures for the sake of making a poster for myself, and wondering what format would be best for doing this is a perfectly valid reason for this question and therefore i believe i'm at "this level"

5/2/2006 11:15:47 PM

would saving a JPG as a JPG ruin your poster-making abilities?

5/2/2006 11:29:37 PM

please point out to me where i asked about saving a JPG as a JPG...i must have missed it

5/2/2006 11:35:46 PM

Unless your posting your images on the web, use PNG over JPEG.

5/3/2006 12:48:41 AM

unless you are in an industry that doesn't accept png files, use jpg.

5/3/2006 9:00:03 AM

OOOH BABY I LIKE IT RAAAAAW

5/3/2006 9:37:21 AM

^^ web displays PNG just fine (i am, of course, excluding those who have a browser that's 5 years old, in which case they can't possibly be important enough for me to care if they see my picture or not)

5/3/2006 10:14:15 AM

^^im too slow 8(

5/3/2006 12:38:48 PM

^^ yes, but JPEG has better compression and will save bandwidth

5/3/2006 12:44:03 PM

^^^I'm not talking web industry

5/3/2006 1:31:42 PM

^ sorry, i meant to reference darkone's post above yours

5/3/2006 2:22:55 PM

thats ok

5/3/2006 2:23:28 PM

okay, so when i try to open a RAW file in photoshop CS2, it gives me a dialog box:

height/width (i'm assuming the same size as the JPEG that the camera made in conjuction with the RAW file)

channels
- count (photoshop has it set to 1, with the grayed-out option for interleaving)
- depth (ps has it set to 8 bits, with option for 8 or 16)
- byte order (set to ibm pc with mac as an option)

header size in bytes (with option to retain when saving)

i've tried a few different settings, and all i get are diagonal gray lines...any ideas as to what i SHOULD be putting in there?

5/6/2006 5:33:51 PM

leave the size and resolution as the default, space (if you have the option) as srgb, depth at 8 bit. Do you have the latest adobe camera raw? 3.3 should be the newest. You can check by going to help, about plug-in, camera raw when you are in photoshop.

http://download.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/cameraraw/win/3.x/Camera_Raw_3_3.zip

just unzip that into your C:/Program Files/Common Files/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS2/File Formats folder.


if you still get messed up pictures, send me one of the raw files to stowaway@gmail.com and I'll look at it, see what's going on.

5/6/2006 6:01:58 PM

Quote :

"i dont think 99% of you are at the level where you need to worry about the details you are worrying about"

i pretty much agree. What are you doing with these photos that you need such high quality?
yeah i can see how you would want that for blowing up an image for a poster

for just usual storage and photo-sharing, if you popped up a RAW/TIFF/JPEG image most people could not tell the difference. i did a few experiments and found that the average person couldn't find artifacts when using quality levels higher than 80% on photoshop's JPEG scale.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : quote not image! (and also reading the posts)]

5/7/2006 2:02:15 AM

now im interested in this whole "jpg=8bit,RAW=12bit and Tiff=16" thing

not from any educated standpoint of course.
but it does make me wonder if saving to some of these formats can be compared to keeping your bike in an airplane hangar or buying an entire IMAX theater just for showing home movies dad took of your football games

5/7/2006 2:40:57 AM

exactly

5/7/2006 3:07:22 AM

no consumer camera sensor (and even most professional ones) won't provide 16 bits worth of data, most have trouble getting 12 bits out of them. Considering a huge number of professionals use the highest quality jpg from the camera it can't be THAT bad. Most true photo printers (ones using true chemical processing) can only do 8bit worth of data and every lab I've dealt with wants an 8bit file (preferably jpg, some take a tiff) and will charge to convert to an 8 bit file.

using a lossless 8 bit format for edited files would be a good idea if you do heavy editing, retouching, etc, but if you save as a new file high quality jpg you shouldn't have any problems.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 8:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2006 8:35:07 AM

well, aside from making posters of my favorite shots (again, not something i'll do often, but i'd appreciate the opportunity, you know?), i want to be able to store my photos in a lossless format (PNG apparently being the best choice for this)...but it's pointless to convert JPG into PNG, so i would really like to convert my RAW files to PNG and store them (you never know what you might want to do with them in the future, so if i have the capability now, i'd like to take advantage of it)

that said, found out my camera supposedly will only recognize a 2gb card (i think...there's some discrepency in people's responses), so that means i can only get about 100 pictures per card in RAW format

5/7/2006 2:32:01 PM

okay, so i finally got the plugin working (and then just noticed that there is another Camera RAW update 3.4 released today )

anywho, i was playing around with CS2 and found the DNG (digital negative) conversion, which apparently gives me lossless compression with a file that's half the size of the RAW file...what disadvantages are there to using the DNG format for archival purposes?

also, something i really like about digital cameras is that the pictures all have timestamps and camera information embedded in them...however, the RAW files appear to have no such information...is it there, or is it only in the JPEG files because they were converted in-camera?

5/8/2006 11:00:12 AM