Portland, Oregon, USA <---- ******************************************************************* ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address ******************************************************************* [allowsmilie] => 1 [showsignature] => 0 [ipaddress] => [iconid] => 0 [visible] => 1 [attach] => 0 [infraction] => 0 [reportthreadid] => 0 [isusenetpost] => 1 [msgid] => [ref] => <3F19D671.F5ED9E42@cox.net> <3F1A51C5.2520D94E@cox.net> [htmlstate] => on_nl2br [postusername] => Andrew [ip] => usenetMYSHOES@b [isdeleted] => 0 [usergroupid] => [membergroupids] => [displaygroupid] => [password] => [passworddate] => [email] => [styleid] => [parentemail] => [homepage] => [icq] => [aim] => [yahoo] => [msn] => [skype] => [showvbcode] => [showbirthday] => [usertitle] => [customtitle] => [joindate] => [daysprune] => [lastvisit] => [lastactivity] => [lastpost] => [lastpostid] => [posts] => [reputation] => [reputationlevelid] => [timezoneoffset] => [pmpopup] => [avatarid] => [avatarrevision] => [profilepicrevision] => [sigpicrevision] => [options] => [akvbghsfs_optionsfield] => [birthday] => [birthday_search] => [maxposts] => [startofweek] => [referrerid] => [languageid] => [emailstamp] => [threadedmode] => [autosubscribe] => [pmtotal] => [pmunread] => [salt] => [ipoints] => [infractions] => [warnings] => [infractiongroupids] => [infractiongroupid] => [adminoptions] => [profilevisits] => [friendcount] => [friendreqcount] => [vmunreadcount] => [vmmoderatedcount] => [socgroupinvitecount] => [socgroupreqcount] => [pcunreadcount] => [pcmoderatedcount] => [gmmoderatedcount] => [assetposthash] => [fbuserid] => [fbjoindate] => [fbname] => [logintype] => [fbaccesstoken] => [newrepcount] => [vbseo_likes_in] => [vbseo_likes_out] => [vbseo_likes_unread] => [temp] => [field1] => [field2] => [field3] => [field4] => [field5] => [subfolders] => [pmfolders] => [buddylist] => [ignorelist] => [signature] => [searchprefs] => [rank] => [icontitle] => [iconpath] => [avatarpath] => [hascustomavatar] => 0 [avatardateline] => [avwidth] => [avheight] => [edit_userid] => [edit_username] => [edit_dateline] => [edit_reason] => [hashistory] => [pagetext_html] => [hasimages] => [signatureparsed] => [sighasimages] => [sigpic] => [sigpicdateline] => [sigpicwidth] => [sigpicheight] => [postcount] => 10 [islastshown] => [isfirstshown] => [attachments] => [allattachments] => ) --> Portland, Oregon, USA <---- ******************************************************************* ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address ******************************************************************* [allowsmilie] => 1 [showsignature] => 0 [ipaddress] => [iconid] => 0 [visible] => 1 [attach] => 0 [infraction] => 0 [reportthreadid] => 0 [isusenetpost] => 1 [msgid] => [ref] => <3F19D671.F5ED9E42@cox.net> <3F1A51C5.2520D94E@cox.net> [htmlstate] => on_nl2br [postusername] => Andrew [ip] => usenetMYSHOES@b [isdeleted] => 0 [usergroupid] => [membergroupids] => [displaygroupid] => [password] => [passworddate] => [email] => [styleid] => [parentemail] => [homepage] => [icq] => [aim] => [yahoo] => [msn] => [skype] => [showvbcode] => [showbirthday] => [usertitle] => [customtitle] => [joindate] => [daysprune] => [lastvisit] => [lastactivity] => [lastpost] => [lastpostid] => [posts] => [reputation] => [reputationlevelid] => [timezoneoffset] => [pmpopup] => [avatarid] => [avatarrevision] => [profilepicrevision] => [sigpicrevision] => [options] => [akvbghsfs_optionsfield] => [birthday] => [birthday_search] => [maxposts] => [startofweek] => [referrerid] => [languageid] => [emailstamp] => [threadedmode] => [autosubscribe] => [pmtotal] => [pmunread] => [salt] => [ipoints] => [infractions] => [warnings] => [infractiongroupids] => [infractiongroupid] => [adminoptions] => [profilevisits] => [friendcount] => [friendreqcount] => [vmunreadcount] => [vmmoderatedcount] => [socgroupinvitecount] => [socgroupreqcount] => [pcunreadcount] => [pcmoderatedcount] => [gmmoderatedcount] => [assetposthash] => [fbuserid] => [fbjoindate] => [fbname] => [logintype] => [fbaccesstoken] => [newrepcount] => [vbseo_likes_in] => [vbseo_likes_out] => [vbseo_likes_unread] => [temp] => [field1] => [field2] => [field3] => [field4] => [field5] => [subfolders] => [pmfolders] => [buddylist] => [ignorelist] => [signature] => [searchprefs] => [rank] => [icontitle] => [iconpath] => [avatarpath] => [hascustomavatar] => 0 [avatardateline] => [avwidth] => [avheight] => [edit_userid] => [edit_username] => [edit_dateline] => [edit_reason] => [hashistory] => [pagetext_html] => [hasimages] => [signatureparsed] => [sighasimages] => [sigpic] => [sigpicdateline] => [sigpicwidth] => [sigpicheight] => [postcount] => 15 [islastshown] => [isfirstshown] => [attachments] => [allattachments] => ) --> Raw images question - Photography

Raw images question - Photography

Are Raw images better quality than jpg, if yes, would I a complete novice to digital photography notice the difference. Is my camera a Canon Ixus 400 capable of taking Raw images, if so how do I do it. I see that Adobe has Camera Raw that works with Photoshop 7. Best regards John...

  1. #1

    Default Raw images question

    Are Raw images better quality than jpg, if yes, would I a complete novice to
    digital photography notice the difference. Is my camera a Canon Ixus 400
    capable of taking Raw images, if so how do I do it. I see that Adobe has
    Camera Raw that works with Photoshop 7.

    Best regards

    John

    John Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Raw images question


    On 19-Jul-2003, John Vincent <co.uk> wrote:
     

    Raw images are processed into jpeg images either in the camera or in the
    computer using a raw converter. Many photographers prefer to do the
    raw->jpeg (or tiff) conversion in the computer because it gives them more
    control over the conversion process and the ability to correct some exposure
    and white balance problems. Raw images usually have more data per pixel than
    a jpeg image, so in that sense raw images have better quality than jpegs.

    I don't think your camera supports writing raw images, so you don't have the
    choice.

    --
    Tom Thackrey
    www.creative-light.com
    Tom Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 20/7/03 12:38 am, "Robert E. Williams" <net> wrote:
     

    Why do you think that?


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Raw images question

    John Vincent wrote:
     

    RAW is the best.. Not so much for better resolution, but for the fact you can
    make MAJOR adjustments to a RAW file far easier than you can a JPEG.

    Don't worry about it though.. As far as I know, the Ixus400 isn't capable of
    saving images in RAW. It's JPEG only. But don't worry.. It's still a great
    camera.



    Jim Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:01:10 GMT, John Vincent
    <co.uk> wrote:
     

    The big thing I like about shooting RAW is the ability to recapture
    lost info in n out parts of the image.
    It really is more like a digital negative.
    I always use it when space on my memory cards permit.

    Larry
    Larry Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 20/7/03 1:54 am, "Andrew" <com> wrote:
     

    OK, I accept that you can't get Raw prints from Costco and the like -
    although I wouldn't expect many people with that capability to be wanting to
    in the first place. I guess what I really picked up on is the novice/pro
    differentiation you used. Most of us fit into the wide range in between
    these extremes, and any serious amateur could benefit from using Raw files.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 20/7/03 9:24 am, "Robert E. Williams" <net> wrote:
     

    But don't all Raw-capable cameras come with drag-and-drop Raw converters to
    negate this?
     

    I would suggest that the same applies to JPEG, if you want any real control
    over the final output.
     

    True. As I pointed out elsewhere, I was not suggesting that it is suitable
    for rank novices, but rather that it is not exclusively for Pros as was
    being suggested.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Raw images question


    "Larry Miracle" <net> wrote in message
    news:com...
    SNIP 

    Actually, it is the latitude for underexposure that helps. Overexposure,
    like with slide film, loses information beyond reconstruction. But if you
    underexpose a little, then you indeed gain better headroom for highlights.

    Bart


    Bart Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Raw images question

    Pat Chaney wrote:
     
    >
    > But don't all Raw-capable cameras come with drag-and-drop Raw converters to
    > negate this?[/ref]

    Yes, but using this 'drag and drop' software is a pain. Canon RAW for
    instance, cannot be veiwed directly on a monitor. It has to be converted to
    TIFF first. The process of converting a RAW to TIFF takes quite a while on a
    2Ghz computer.

    Dealing with many RAW files directly is very time consuming. That's why I
    don't use RAW that much.


    Jim Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Raw images question

    Jim Townsend <address> wrote:
    : Pat Chaney wrote:

    :> On 20/7/03 9:24 am, "Robert E. Williams" <net> wrote:
    :>
    :>> RAW is not a universal format like jpeg or tiff. It is proprietary to each
    :>> camera manufacturer.
    :>> Most photo editors cannot open RAW images directly.
    :>
    :> But don't all Raw-capable cameras come with drag-and-drop Raw converters to
    :> negate this?

    : Yes, but using this 'drag and drop' software is a pain. Canon RAW for
    : instance, cannot be veiwed directly on a monitor. It has to be converted to
    : TIFF first. The process of converting a RAW to TIFF takes quite a while on a
    : 2Ghz computer.

    : Dealing with many RAW files directly is very time consuming. That's why I
    : don't use RAW that much.

    I wouldn't suggest RAW for novices, but for people who know what they
    are doing they can work OK. I use Breezebrowser to view/convert my
    Canon RAW images, and I don't have to convert them to view them on a
    monitor. Even so, I can batch convert all of them (with my D30,
    conversion takes about 12 seconds per image on my 2GHZ laptop) and
    look at them later.

    Andrew
    --
    ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
    ************************************************** *****************
    ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
    ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
    ************************************************** *****************

    Andrew Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 20/7/03 5:10 pm, "Jim Townsend" <address> wrote:
     

    Adobe Camera Raw is pretty quick to open Canon RAW files and display them as
    thumbnails in the Photoshop file browser. It doesn't seem to take any longer
    than opening TIFF or PSD files.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Raw images question

    In message <net>,
    "Robert E. Williams" <net> wrote:
     

    Why do you say that? RAW files store all of the settings that would be
    set for a JPEG in them, as instructions for default conversion. If the
    output file from the conversion is a TIFF, or some other lossless 16-bit
    format, you suffer no JPEG compression.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Raw images question

    In message <com>,
    com (Andrew) wrote:
     

    Irfanview and other programs will view the JPEGs embedded in the Canon
    RAW files. When you see one you want to dig into further, you can open
    up the converter program.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 21/7/03 1:47 am, "Andrew" <com> wrote:
     

    You may well be right, but do you know that for sure?

    Also, the Adobe plug-in only takes a few seconds (here) to open the RAW file
    from the file browser, and then only a few seconds more to open it in
    Photoshop. And I notice you can save as RAW too, although I'm not sure why
    you'd want to.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Raw images question

    Pat Chaney <com> wrote:
    : On 21/7/03 1:47 am, "Andrew" <com> wrote:

    :> : Adobe Camera Raw is pretty quick to open Canon RAW files and display them as
    :> : thumbnails in the Photoshop file browser. It doesn't seem to take any longer
    :> : than opening TIFF or PSD files.
    :>
    :> Yeah, it's quick to display a RAW thumbnail because it doesn't
    :> actually do a RAW conversion - it just extracts a small JPEG file from
    :> the RAW file. Actual RAW conversion is a lot slower.

    : You may well be right, but do you know that for sure?

    As I understand it, Canon RAW files are not in a format that can be
    displayed directly - they must be converted into a more bitmap-like
    format before they can be displayed at all. Canon releases Windows
    and MAC binaries libraries to do this - they do not release source
    code. I know at least a few people/companies have created their own
    RAW conversion of Canon files, but that doesn't mean their conversion
    is as optimal as Canon's. Canon's conversion tends to be slow. On my
    laptop, a 2GHZ Celeron, it takes about 6 seconds per image to convert
    RAW images - much slower on a slower CPU.

    : Also, the Adobe plug-in only takes a few seconds (here) to open the RAW file
    : from the file browser, and then only a few seconds more to open it in
    : Photoshop.

    I can't see how they could get a dramatic speedup over how Canon does
    it. But as noted above, RAW conversion time is CPU dependent. If you
    have a 3GHZ CPU loading a Canon RAW file would probably not be much
    slower than loading any other type of graphic file - conversion would
    be fast.

    : And I notice you can save as RAW too, although I'm not sure why
    : you'd want to.

    Well, Canon RAW files are much smaller than compressed TIFF files yet
    are lossless. That would be one reason to save them. But I wonder if
    you can truly save as "Canon RAW" (CRW) - there are different types of
    "RAW" format - Canon's is proprietary, completely incompatible with
    other manufacturers' RAW formats.

    Andrew
    --
    ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
    ************************************************** *****************
    ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
    ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
    ************************************************** *****************

    Andrew Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Raw images question

    On 22/7/03 9:03 am, "Andrew" <com> wrote:
     

    Well if the dreadful interface on the Canon software is anything to go by I
    wouldn't expect it to be very efficient - or surprised if the Adobe plug-in
    was faster.
     

    You're right - I just checked and PS saves it with a .raw extension rather
    than .crw (even on my Mac, where extensions are not necessary). I assume
    it's Adobe's own format then.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Raw images question


    "Chris Cox" <com> wrote in message
    news:220720032014496395%com...
    SNIP 
    >
    > Because perhaps Adobe knows how to write applications, and certain
    > hardware vendors do not?[/ref]

    Do you mean that one of the world's leading manufacturers of waver steppers
    doesn't know how to write (or contract writers of) software that interacts
    with hardware? ;-)
    Quite an assumption.

    Has it occurred to you that it might also have something to do with the
    price. The Canon raw converter is "free". How much is the ACR?

    Bart



    Bart Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Raw images question



    Ok, so some people can't take a hint...


    In article <3f1e72ba$0$49101$xs4all.nl>, Bart van der
    Wolf <nl> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Because perhaps Adobe knows how to write applications, and certain
    > > hardware vendors do not?[/ref]
    >
    > Do you mean that one of the world's leading manufacturers of waver steppers
    > doesn't know how to write (or contract writers of) software that interacts
    > with hardware? ;-)
    > Quite an assumption.
    >
    > Has it occurred to you that it might also have something to do with the
    > price. The Canon raw converter is "free". How much is the ACR?
    >
    > Bart[/ref]
    Chris Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Placed Images in CS : Quick question >>>
    By BKR@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Illustrator Windows
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 29th, 11:12 PM
  2. ASP Question - Images ...
    By Suburbiana68 in forum ASP
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 22nd, 01:32 PM
  3. Tutorial Images Question
    By Buff Charters webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 6th, 12:35 AM
  4. Images in Filemaker Pro Question
    By i_luv_h8@nospam.hotmail.com in forum FileMaker
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 5th, 07:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •