Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Poll: what do you shoot?
Poll Options
what do you shoot?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 18-07-2007, 12:55 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
raw vs jpg?

what do you shoot?
being a new DSLR owner i have never been confronted with the ability of picking RAW format (or in Nikon land NEF). after doing much research i have found that if you get the shot right straight up then RAW is not needed and one might as well save room on ones storage device by shooting the highest qualiaty Jpg avaliable to the camera. However because RAW is not compressed and has had nothing done to it what so ever (hence the name i guess) no quality is lost at all... or rather everything is caught but then needs to be processed in order to adjust things like sharpening, white balance, brightnes/contrast and saturation (which come automatically in Jpg) and then converted to TIFF for printing or Jpg for the net... (sounds compilcated and long)

so given the above information i have decided that it would be best for me to mainly shoot Jpg and then in those rare instances where i am where an exceptional shot can be made shoot NEF so no data is lost and maximum tweekage can be made without damage.

what do you do?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:04 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,684
i use both
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:21 PM
Jonathan
Registered User

Jonathan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 442
I use mainly raw, only because I've got 11 gig of memory cards. Before I got my 8 gig card I used "jpeg fine" setting a fair bit, and would switch to raw whenever I thought there was a good shot, or if I knew I wouldn't run out of space on the cards. I always backup the .NEF files as .TIFF because there's no loss of quality and it is easier to work with now, and will be with future software.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:24 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,542
For astro I use RAW only. For the rest I either use RAW or RAW+JPG if I am out and about and want to view the results instantly on my ZenW. I occasionally use just low quality JPG for some stuff I am only going to want to throw on the web.

Last edited by rogerg; 18-07-2007 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Oops, I meant "low quality JPG" not "low quality RAW"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:25 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
I started out using JPEG (highest quality) but now I always use RAW. You might not always know in advance whether a shot is going to be a "keeper", or need that extra level of adjustments.

When I swithced to RAW my shots immediately improved, perhaps it was just allowing me to take more care in the post-processing and giving me the extra adjustments I needed.

It does add time to the workflow (adjust as RAW, convert to TIF, open in Photoshop, save to web as jpeg). But some people just use Photoshop for their RAW adjustment so it's probably quicker for them.

I use Raw Shooter Premium to adjust my RAW's, which doesn't physically touch the RAW's at all, it just saves setting files so that when you convert to TIF, it is applied only then. The RAW file is never changed and so you always have a backup.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:31 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
i need more memory
thanks for the replies so far
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-07-2007, 01:43 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
twas this that made me think about the topic:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-07-2007, 02:03 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Put it this way ving, with a jpeg you have 8 bits of data to work with (256 shades of grey) with Raw (canon) you have 12 bits of data to work with 4096 shades of grey to work with. This gives much more abiltity to stretch you data to bring out hidden highlights and shadows.

Which is why astro CCD are 16 bit (65536 shades of grey from black 0 to white 65535), in each channel that is recorded (RGB)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-07-2007, 02:05 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
I don't think I can help, as the Toucam isn't the same as a DSLR, but I capture in Raw which is .bmp with the modded Toucam.

I don't think I can capture in Jpeg with the Toucam.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-07-2007, 02:51 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ballarat
Posts: 10,825
A bit of both here, usually Raw, but sometimes Raw and Jpeg similtaneously (dont think that is spelt right) depending on what i'm after.

Leon.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 18-07-2007, 04:05 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by [1ponders] View Post
Put it this way ving, with a jpeg you have 8 bits of data to work with (256 shades of grey) with Raw (canon) you have 12 bits of data to work with 4096 shades of grey to work with.
ideally if you get the picture right fromthe start (ie when its taken) then little neds to be done to the Jpeg. in order to share the pic with anyone online you generally need to convert it to jpeg anyhow, thus compressing it. in the end it should turn out the same, the only difference being you processing a raw and compressing it or the camera doing it for you....

as pointed out on several sites tho the are positives and negatives to both.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18-07-2007, 04:14 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Ahhhh, I beg to differ there ving. There can be a huge difference between the outcome of working a RAW image and the default Jpeg a camera produces. Even if all you want to do is take a pic and put it online then the final result with a Raw (and just a bit of photoshop knowhow) will still be better than a straight jpeg.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18-07-2007, 04:49 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,988
I'm with h0ughy, I shoot both, Canons have the option to save both a JPG and raw of the same image. Memory cards are cheap I've got 2x2gb and 2x1gb as well as an image tank with 32gb of storage in case I fill all my cards.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 18-07-2007, 05:14 PM
Astroman's Avatar
Astroman (Andrew Wall)
<><><><>

Astroman is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paralowie, South Australia
Posts: 4,349
I shoot nothing but in the raw, gives you the greatest opportunity to stretch and manipulate an image. I started out shhoting JPEGS till I got used to the camera. now only in the raw is more.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 18-07-2007, 05:17 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
I must admit I would like to be able to shoot in both as I invariably convert them to jpeg to quickly view the keepers and throwers, but after that I throw the jpegs.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 18-07-2007, 05:38 PM
little col
gosh i love imaging

little col is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 286
i shoot in jpeg at the moment but still in the early learning vurve , i would convert to shooting in raw but unsure about what the processing and stacking difference is going to intail
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18-07-2007, 08:54 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by ving View Post
ideally if you get the picture right fromthe start (ie when its taken) then little neds to be done to the Jpeg. in order to share the pic with anyone online you generally need to convert it to jpeg anyhow, thus compressing it. in the end it should turn out the same, the only difference being you processing a raw and compressing it or the camera doing it for you....

as pointed out on several sites tho the are positives and negatives to both.

I have heaps of drama trying to get an image better once I have converted it to JPEG. It just isn't manipulative any more.

So I end up hunting down the original .bmp's, process them again from the start and then convert them to JPEG. If I stuff up again by trying to re-process them again while in JPEG, it's back to the .bmp's AGAIN!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 19-07-2007, 09:55 AM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
well the idea is that kyou get it right straight from the camera. that way all you need do is a resize and you are off... not much recompression of your jpeg

of course if you are doing some post processing then raw is the way to go.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 19-07-2007, 10:07 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Lately I take more care in getting it right while taking the shot - ie: checking the histogram after the shot, adjusting as needed, and re-shooting. It means deleting all the duds after but the ones I keep usually require less post-processing these days, unless i'm going for an artistic look.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 19-07-2007, 10:10 AM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
yup, i dont like having to correct errors in exposure and sharpness from por focus so i too reshoot if it doesnt turn out right.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement