why no RAW photos?

padraig

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
can somebody please help me as i have been trying to get my camera (fujifilm s200exr) to take .RAW shots and i know it has the capability.
but on the side it has a button for continuous shots and has
* top 6 (raw 3)
*last 6 (raw 3)
*top 24
*last 24
does anyone know how i can get my camera to take RAW format shots and what the listed options do?


cheers
patrick
 
No idea what those settings are, but 'continuous shots' is a drive mode. You'll want to find the quality settings. RAW should be in there.
 
RAW a is good choice if you have a very good reason to use it. In most cases it leads to lower quality final outcome because the amount of detail is likely to suffer. You have better control with RAW (including pseudo-HDR) but it is way more difficult.
 
RAW a is good choice if you have a very good reason to use it. In most cases it leads to lower quality final outcome because the amount of detail is likely to suffer. You have better control with RAW (including pseudo-HDR) but it is way more difficult.

How does detail suffer?
 
If you let your camera to create a JPEG, it does a better job detail-wise than when you let it create a RAW and then convert it into a JPEG yourself. Sure, you can also do a better job coverting it than your camera does but that requires lots of skill. People tend to over-use RAW. Most people get better results when they skip RAW. RAW is useful for people who really know what they are going. If you simply take a RAW file and convert it into JPEG with PhotoShop, you get a worse result.
 
Some basic understanding of editing is needed I agree, which is why I encourage people to start in JPEG+RAW (easily done these days with very cheap memory cards) and then move onto only RAW as they get better and more confident with the editing.
One does not need to be a master though to get good and better results out of RAW though.
 
If you let your camera to create a JPEG, it does a better job detail-wise than when you let it create a RAW and then convert it into a JPEG yourself.


That's a broad generalization that is somewhat incorrect. Sort of. If you're using a Nikon, and you're using Nikon software then the .jpg produced by the Nikon software is pretty much what the camera is going to produce. It requires no skill beyond opening the raw .nef file, and from it you can produce either a high-quality .jpg or a 16-bit .tif file as easily as loading the .nef and saving it as a .jpg or .tif.
 
RAW a is good choice if you have a very good reason to use it. In most cases it leads to lower quality final outcome because the amount of detail is likely to suffer. You have better control with RAW (including pseudo-HDR) but it is way more difficult.

Totally wrong. It's not more difficult as settings are applied in default just as they are in JPEG, it's not got less detail because all the data is right there in the original RAW, and some companies (Adobe), seem to interpreted the RAW data better than others (Nikon in my opinion), and in any case you are stuck with the hand full of settings your camera gives throwing away data that could be used for highlight recovery, boosting shadows, making fine tone adjustments, etc, etc, etc.

It's only as hard as you make it, but RAW is NEVER of a lower quality than the camera JPEG, if for nothing less than the fact that the camera manufacturer's RAW processor will apply identical algorithms to the camera.
 
If you let your camera to create a JPEG, it does a better job detail-wise than when you let it create a RAW and then convert it into a JPEG yourself. Sure, you can also do a better job coverting it than your camera does but that requires lots of skill. People tend to over-use RAW. Most people get better results when they skip RAW. RAW is useful for people who really know what they are going. If you simply take a RAW file and convert it into JPEG with PhotoShop, you get a worse result.
That's not true.

RAW is a lossless format. You can import that straight into PS or other editing software and have full control over exposure, vibrance, saturation, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. The final output will be better than what your camera can produce if you know what you're doing.

If you're a complete novice and have no clue how to use these software tools, then that's a different story. But to make a blanket statement that a camera can process RAW images more effectively than a desktop machine is inaccurate.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top