Image content in RAW format: Why ordering image content in RAW is better.
 

Why RAW is better for printing.

1) More possibilities for image editing, ajust colors, etc.
2) More suitable for printing (A4+ format)
3) Huge scaling/cropping possibilities
4) Quality is equal to slide shooting, but much less DAC/ADC convertions. You don't have to scan your slides, so you won't less image sharpness.

Sure, if you prefer JPEG sources - no problem, but in this case you should forget about those advantages listed above. And remember, each edit/save cycle will reduce overall quality of the image because of JPEG data loss.

http://mixphoto.com/samples/photo/100_scale01.jpg

http://mixphoto.com/samples/photo/100_scale02.jpg

:thumbsup

My camera shoots in RAW format, I will try it.
:thumbsup

cool:thumbsup

Sure , in addition to camera able to shoot in RAW you need good optics and wish to get good result :)

Only problem with RAW is the file size.

But slides film is still superior to Digital.

Slides, you see what you have, in terms of color and sharpness.
Digital you only find out when it's being printed other wise you are relying on the screen and software being perfect. Photoshop gives different colours to ACDsee. It never prints up as well as a slide.

Digital cannot be blown up as big as slides can.

Digital unless you are an ace at lighting gives a "flat" effect.

But digital is perfect for the Internet and small pictures.

If you are going to convert everything to jpg without toutching it, then jpg is the way to go .

If you are gonna use the files too design a site, then RAW is the way to go .

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
getting the high res images is the ONLY way to expect a decent design.

I think RAW is excelent format...

I have 3year experience with scanning slides and now I`m shooting with Canon D300 only to raw.

Of course RAW is little bit bigger in size in comparation to JPEG but two or three years back if you wanted to shoot in full size you have to shoot to tiff and this format is mayby 5 - 8 times bigger then RAW.

For people who are not photographers and from time to time they set wrong exposure the raw format is good since the exposure can be adjusted +/- 2.5 EV

Its the matter of time (1 - 2 years) when ccd chips in the digital cameras will have the same size as standart 35mm film and then the images from digital and sfrom slide will be the same quality.

Only weakness of RAW is processing to JPEG or TIFF since if you buy digital camera you have to deal with shitty software. If you want to process RAW comfortly and professionally you have to buy good software which costs $600 (talking about C1 pro) which is the best I think.
And processing of 100 RAWs takes you at least half an hour...

But still RAW rocks. :thumbsup

Cool examples...:thumbsup

Great shots!:thumbsup

Nice:thumbsup

I started shooting exclusively in RAW after I noticed some JPEG blocking artifacts in a night shot... even though it was set to 'fine' (best quality).

Cuzma is right... the software supplied with Canon's 300D is totally shitty. For each change you make the software has to decode the RAW image and draw it out again, which takes about 15 seconds on my PC. It doesn't cache images either, so you can't undo/redo back and forth rapidly to see the differences your change makes. Making more than a couple of minor changes to a RAW 'negative' would be a very frustrating task with this software.

BTW the very first thing I do now when I load the images into my PC is to extract the preview JPEGs from the RAW images. This takes a couple of seconds per image and can be done in a batch. It only takes a couple of minutes to have 50 images ready for previewing, to decide which ones are worth spending more time on.