DSLR or not

[dheerajpant]

hmm yes u are right...for artistic shots its worth ...I will try next time....the issue i faced was when going to a shooting trip for birding and landscape i used to shoot around 500 shots...then out of that i try to edit around 50 ....now editing RAW 50 files is a very big work ...it will take lots of time...then maybe I will just create a RAW conversion profile and use it for every pic ...which will be similar to jpeg conversion by DSLR.

For this reason alone I shoot in RAW+jpeg format so that I have to process only those I desire for the rest jpegs would doo .

 

[sujoyp]

but dheeraj then it takes more space and more time to save...and burst speed will reduce ...not always good

 

[dheerajpant]

but dheeraj then it takes more space and more time to save...and burst speed will reduce ...not always good

True,

My 16GB card shows ~550 shots with this mode and yes definitely it would have an impact on burst mode(but I don't take burst modes that frequently) and if I have to I will switch to jpeg.

 

[izzikio_rage]

Camera's jpeg is much better than comparing RAW images I process

This was my perception too initially (still is for a lot of shots). But if try shooting RAW in some sunset shots, or even a few night shots (light trails and such) and spend some time pushing the curves, increasing saturation and all in some PP software. You'll enjoy the results. Again, it's not a magic substitute that'll suddenly make bad shots amazing, but for things like sunset/sunrise shots you'll get almost HDR like results without the effort of shooting 3 shots, combining them and then PPing them.

but dheeraj then it takes more space and more time to save...and burst speed will reduce ...not always good

I cry over this too, my Raw files are 16/17 MB vs a 2/3 MB jpeg. but found a very strange thing. I PPed some of the RAW files and saved them to Jpeg at the highest quality. The resulting file is around 7 to 9 MB. So is my camera deleting 4 Mb of info from every jpeg it saves, what is the quality of the jpeg that it saves (telling me standard and fine and super fine still can't allow me to match it to the numerical value). That is one of the reasons I started shooting RAW


Guys can we shift the PP discussion to the PP thread *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/cameras-c...-images-final-step-getting-awesome-click.html It's a bit hard to continue it in two threads and feels cheap to copy paste the same info into two threads.

 

[dheerajpant]

Guys can we shift the PP discussion to the PP thread *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/cameras-c...-images-final-step-getting-awesome-click.html It's a bit hard to continue it in two threads and feels cheap to copy paste the same info into two threads.

Izzikio thanks for this thread didn't noticed it, now I would do all the PPing related discussion there.

 

[raja manuel]

For some reason I havent bothered to dig into, the high-ISO RAW shots from my 600D are significantly noisier than the Jpegs (in-camera long shutter noise reduction enabled for JPEGs). A cursory glance showed me no significant easily visible advantage that the RAW had over JPEGs in this particular case (High ISO, longer shutter open periods). On the contrary if I can get a JPEG that looks better than the corresponding RAW, I have no real reason ATM to switch to RAW and then use PP to get rid of the noise. The noise was of the chroma type and it was significant.

As izzikio_rage said, the reason for this is the extensive post-processing that happens in camera. And again as he said (I seem to agree with him a lot) it makes more sense to decide the post processing parameters yourself rather than let the camera decide for you. If you don't want to start from scratch there is a very easy workaround for DPP users. Load the RAW image in DPP, the use the picture style option to choose whichever picture style you would have used in camera and you immediately get the RAW file processed exactly like the JPEG in your camera. You can now use this as a starting point to tweak the file further, with all the latitude that RAW allows.

Also raw files generally have a lot more color depth, 12bits compared to the 8 of a jpeg (will confirm the numbers), all that info is lost by the cam if a jpeg is made. And it can make all the difference when shooting a scene with a high range.

And I agree with him (again). I very often find myself hitting the limits of JPEG bit depth. I'm surprised that others aren't as frustrated as I am working with JPEGs.

maybe I will just create a RAW conversion profile and use it for every pic ...which will be similar to jpeg conversion by DSLR.

Only if you set up a JPEG profile in your camera that is perfect for the shooting conditions. If not, getting the RAW settings just right in one file and running a batch process with that recipe on a bunch of files will yield significantly differnt results to out-of-camera JPEGs.

For this reason alone I shoot in RAW+jpeg format so that I have to process only those I desire for the rest jpegs would doo .

The RAW files have a JPEG file embedded in them so RAW+JPEG is a bit redundant unless you have a burning need to send the files out directly after shooting, like being the first to upload your pics to Facebook or something like that.

and burst speed will reduce

I suspect that is to do with the speed of the memory card. The burst slows because the buffer is full.