raw format looks like more noise

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by willg133, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. willg133

    willg133 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    i don't know what it is but the raw doesnt look as nice as a jpeg coming out of my 300d....i adjusted a few things using ps CS but it just looks more grainy...anyone got any insight?
     
  2. willg133

    willg133 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow i feel stupid...i jacked up the exposure..of course there is going to be noise...anyway...do any of you only shoot in raw mode? is there a big advantage?
     
  3. Meysha

    Meysha still being picky Vicky

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,152
    Likes Received:
    58
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I've never used RAW before but from reading this forum, apparently it's a better quality because there's no compression. and in a JPEG, it gets compressed before it's written to the card. Also I think I read somewhere that everytime you reopen and save a JPEG in PS more noise is created or the quality goes down or something. But with a Raw that doesn't happen. Someone will have to clarify this though.
     
  4. Daniel

    Daniel TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Dublin
    I shoot exclucivly in RAW mode, as it gives more control over the final image. White balance can be easily adjusted to my liking with a simple mouse click. Every time you save an image as JPEG you lose more image quality as the compression accumulates. There are many more reasons why shooting in RAW is the better option in my opinion.

    Here are 2 very good articles that dicuss the RAW format:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml
     
  5. willg133

    willg133 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    an output from a 300d in jpeg format is going to print a very nice 8x10 even with multiple low compression jpeg saves though right? just because the image is such high res anyway
     
  6. Daniel

    Daniel TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Dublin
    It will still print ok, depending on how many times you save it and the compression rate you select. But I don't see why you would want to lose any information in the image data when you can avoid it easily?
     
  7. andycarnall

    andycarnall TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Swindon, UK
    The basic reason that most people are a bit disappointed with raw the first time they use is is because most digital cameras (300d definitely does this) apply sharpening and contrast to the raw image when they convert it to a jpeg in the camera.

    Using RAW you get the file without any of this processing done, which is great if you know what you're doing, but it does mean that out of the camera the images don't look great.

    There's lots of advice and tutorials on how to work with raw if you do a couple of searches - Luminous Landscape was my starter bible, it's a really good site.

    Personally I shoot RAW for anything I think I may want to print (so most things) and then convert them to TIFF files to store on the PC. I convert them to jpeg as the last step so I can upload them to the web. For printing I usually send tiff files to the processor (don't have a printer at home)

    Tiffs are quite large files, but don't have any of the compression issues that jpegs have. Every time you hit save you lose data in a jpeg file, given that I save the file every 4-5 minutes when I'm working on an important picture I may have saved it 30-40 times before I'm done, and by then the jpeg issues can appear.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. catweh00

    catweh00 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with one of the things Andy said: RAW is great if you know what youre doing with it. With my d70 I've dabbled a bit in RAW and JPEG. It is great to have RAW files to work with--but actually working with them is a pain in the rear for me. I do not if anyone else experiences this, but even with 1gb RAM, Nikon Capture is still the slowest program I've ever used (with RAW).

    I got so tired of it, I decided to work with JPEGs and my prints (11x14) always come out fine--of course, you need a good picture to begin with to have nice prints.

    One person told me "If you have to ask about the benefits of RAW, then you shouldn't be using it." He was implying that working with RAW is easy enough for people who know what they want and how to get there.

    My 2 cents.
    Craig
     
  9. BadRotation

    BadRotation TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Burton, MI
    remember jpeg is only 8 bit (256 brightness levels), while raw is 14 bit (16,384 brightness levels)
     
  10. photong

    photong Typo Queen

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,235
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Tornto, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    is raw sharper too?
     
  11. SLOShooter

    SLOShooter TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    RAW is super if you have the time and desire to sit down and post-process every shot that you take. True you can do batch work but I find that every shot needs something different. There's a bit more leneancy in exposure in white balance when shooting in RAW too. However if your at a shoot and your taking hundreds of images it might be a better idea to shoot in the highest quality JPEG setting and spend a bit more time getting the balance and the exposure setup correctly in-camera.

    Personally I enjoy fooling around with the digital negative in PS almost as much as actually taking the picture so I always shoot in RAW. However I have found it a chore to edit images after a long weekend or after a vacation where JPEG would have worked just fine.
     
  12. andycarnall

    andycarnall TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Swindon, UK
    Normally no - depends on the camera. Most (I think all) use an anti-aliasing filter infront of the sensor, the in camera processing applies sharpening to the image when conveting to jpeg. Raw is recorded before this, so you need to do the sharpening on the PC (hence the batch process actions around)

    For Canons (to varying degrees) the RAW will look less sharp and less saturated out of the camera compared to the jpeg. The higher level camera do less processing of the RAW to jpeg, but the 300d applies quite a lot of sharpening to the image.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
my raw files are very pixelated
,
raw make more noise
,
shoot raw why lot of noise
,
when shooting in raw what makes my photos look too pixelated
,
why are my raw files grainy
,

why are my raw files noisy

,
why are my raw files so noisy
,
why do my raw files look grainy
,

why do raw files look grainy

,
why does my raw image look grainy when i open it