RAW versus Fine/Nikon D50

Deleted Member MS

Registered user
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
442
Reaction score
0
Location
N.Lincs
Not quite "computor help" but as I want to blow some of my pictures up, to poster size, and even tho my local "Pro" AND the nikon manual says there aint much point using the camera in RAW, which "mode" should I be using for the best/sharpest results.I have had 2 poster size prints done, 1 in RAW, 1 in the "fine" mode".The RAW 1 is awesome, the "Fine" one isnt.Even tho the RAW setting slows the camera, and the PC down, is the Nikon manual, and the Pro wrong about this ??
Ie, For best/sharpest results when blowing pics up, should I ignore the manual/pro, and keep to the RAW setting !!!!!?????
 
fine or super fine should be just that, RAW allows you to dodge and burn areas in like sky and things that the camera would normally not get right or just the way you want them. I think that's called polishing but it's been a while since hanging around the photographic types...

Recently I've just been using my camera on auto and it's seems fine
 
RAW etc

All i do with software is perhaps lighten/darken etc BUT i want my pics to be as sharp as poss when i blow up to poster size.When i first got my Nikon d50, and when using RAW, i got an awesome poster print from a particular shot.Ive just got another large print back which i took using camera in "Fine" mode and its really unsharp.(No, it isnt camera shake by the way).
Im confused, especially as some people are saying that the camera in fine mode shouldnt matter, and the print should still be really sharp !!!
 
well your right that sounds really odd, on mine in the largest file mode it's as sharps as you like. The only thing i can think off is that your F-stop aperature is not large enough to give you a good depth of field....

They use to sell these calibration charts, I use to use news paper to see lens abortation...is there a particular spot on the pictures thats sharper than else where?

Or is all out of focus?

reason bing if a single place is sharp I would say it's depth of field if the whole lots is out then the chip or lens could be out of alignment or something...
 
raw etc

Well, the first pic is of a superfast motorbike racer(Where maybe you'd expect camera shake, as the bike is fast and you'd maybe expect a too slow shuurt speed).However, it is perfect (done in RAW).
The 2nd pic taken on the summit of a snowy hill, where you 'd expect to "get away" with a slower shutter speed (altho im not saying it was slower), and in "fine" mode is really not sharp at all. ??????????????
 
well you might have the answer there as snowy conditions you need to exposure compensate? due to strong reflected lighting giving false readings which can cause underposure and simulate camera shake.... over expose by 1 F stop ish or shoot raw and adjust when polishing the picture
 
RAW is the way to go

It allows you much more flexibility in the final result. It will take longer but rather than use the cameras limited processing power it allows you to tweak the shot using your much more powerful PC. Slight errors in exposure etc. can be easily sorted in RAW, it won't fix an out of focus shot but does look much better once tinkered with.
 
RAW is unprocessed data from your cameras CCD. RAW images haven't been subjected to in-camera adjustment to white balance, sharpening, contrast etc, etc.

A RAW image requires processing whereas a JPEG has already been processed in-camera. If you just want to shoot and print without having to process the image, stick to your camera's JPEG settings. However, for complete control over your images, RAW is the way to go. :thumb2
 
Raw etc

So, back to my original question.If my priority is SHARNESS with large size prints, what "Mode" should I use, Raw or Jpeg, or does in not matter ??????????????????????
 
RAW vs Jpeg : Benefits and drawbacks

Cut and pasted fom the Wikipedia:-

"Benefits

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so RAW is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, RAW permits much greater control than JPEG for several reasons:

* Finer control is easier for the settings when a mouse and keyboard are available to set them. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete values like "daylight" or "incandescent".

* The settings can be previewed and tweaked to obtain the best quality image or desired effect. (With in-camera processing, the values must be set before the exposure). This is especially pertinent to the white balance setting since color casts can be difficult to correct after the conversion to RGB is done.

* Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of brightness information. But you cannot compare this number alone to other methods. JPEG stores a brightness gradient in an 8-bit number every 4 or 8 pixels and stores color values even more infrequently depending on the parameters used. Because of this JPEG loses fine details and is ill-suited for major color or brightness changes. By comparison the mosaicing used by the Bayer filter in raw files changes colors every 3-4 pixels and brightness every 1-2 pixels producing much finer resolution detail in a same size image. And because it is 12-bit each of these values are far more precise.

* The working color space can be set to whatever is desired.

* Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.

Drawbacks

Camera raw files are typically 2-6 times larger than JPEG files. Some raw formats do not use compression, some implement lossless data compression to reduce the size of the files without affecting image quality and others use lossy data compression where quantization and filtering is performed on the image data. This avoids or reduces the compression artifacts inherent in JPEG, but means that fewer images can fit on a given memory card. It also takes longer for the camera to write raw images to the card, so fewer pictures can be taken in quick succession (affecting the ability to take, for example, a sports sequence).

The time taken in the image workflow is an important factor for choosing RAW instead of ready to be used formats."



If the result you're after is making you want to use an SLR then it's definitely worth the candle to use RAW. If only for the extra couple of stops of latitude of exposure you'll gain making up the finished print.

...and if it's worth an SLR and RAW then most surely it's worth getting the colour balanced correctly and the way you really deserve with the Whibal accessory.

WhiBal_RAW_PocketKit300.jpg
 
the mode

martin s said:
So, back to my original question.If my priority is SHARNESS with large size prints, what "Mode" should I use, Raw or Jpeg, or does in not matter ??????????????????????
Click to expand...

will not have that much of an effect on the sharpness of your final image, although RAW should be marginally better. The main things that will affect your sharpness are the lens and your technique. No amout of photoshopping will correct a badly focused or shaky image.
 
Hi.
The main difference between the two is. Fine/Jpeg reads what the ccd sees and shoves it through the in camera software which the , Sharpens. Saturates colours, adjusts white balance etc. all depending on what your setting is on the camera. Portraight , landscape etc. Which has been worked out by nikon to give what joe public expects......

Were as the RAW is exactly what the ccd s=has seen. No adjustment whatsoever.

BUT the advantage is you have a digital negative . once you learn how to use photoshop for instance. you adjust your levels, white balance , saturation etc to what YOU want . the problem is there are so many adjustments, it gets to a point where you either dont know what you want or you havent the time to do it???????
but when you do, it is amazing what you can do with it.
Also quality wise. JPEG is a loss file format. meaning everytime you change something and save it..... the file loses quality...... the more times you change and save , the more you lose.....

Where as RAW and TIFF are lossless..... so always good to have a backup.

After allthis i would never shoot a pic with anything less than fine. for the sake of getting more piccies on the card. sods law will always make you suffer when you take the photo of your life , only not to give the quality it deserves......
As for poster size from a D50... will always be blurred , 6MP cannot print sharp at 300dpi at larger than A4 . But if you want me to ramble a bit more ( sorry just got back from bike show and had a few beers now!!!!)
Ive got a great tip to increase your pics to poster size with very good results.

Anyway. The sharpening crack!!!. really depends on when you take it....
Even in daylight. Whack it on a tripod, and it will Always look better somewhere on the picture.

Hope this helps.:beer:
 
A4 prints/D50/Blow ups

Bazza.Im listening to what everyone says etc, and taking noitice/advise.However, the 1st print I got back was 24" x 24" square, and thats the one thats spot on.This proves that bigger prints CAN be done from a 6meg camera.Thats what annoying, the fact that for some reason, I cannot repeat it.I am beginning to think its the local processer thats not got his set up as good as the time when the above print was done.
I think im going to stop using Nikons own software and start using Photoshop(altho this doesnt answer my original query)
Which version of Photoshop should i go for(Needs to be as simple as possible) ?????????????
 
there's lots of variables here,

camera shutter speed
RAW and JPEG
Printer man with blob interface to operate the machine in shop.

You need to narrow down the margins first camera's are scientific instruments shoot a test page under ideal circumstances to get a reference point.

nice glossy magazine print stuck to side of house or other flat surface under really bright sunlight photograph it and make marks to page to allow you to see which test number shot it is.

This will prove lens drop off, be it caused by shutter speed, apperature or lens aboration

You should be able to make a virtually exact copy of the magzine cover, I think what it's a combination of things which your having.

Shot one perfect perhaps because you got lucky? or everything was in your favour I don't know

Shot two adverse conditions give rise to misleading readings in camera and causing some form of abborations.

The the printer well because it's digital there is no physical source all you can do is open both images and enlarge on screen side by side and see at what magnification the images looses quality. This could prove the difference between the shots also you maybe able to see the image data shutter speed and aperature used this could explain loss of definition?

You also need to see if there is a single spot that sharp this could show incorrect camera operation in focusing.

Then you have the pritner bloke in the shop does he know his onions?

There's no software that can do magic if the picture is not in the camera software will not and can not make it any better, sorry to put it like that....

I for instance have filmed a piece for TV on a cheap and shit camera but because we controlled everything around the camera, light, sound, eviroment etc. the footage was perfect and when I showed the client he could not believe what I'd created. So the kit is very capable however sometimes you can be unlucky.....

people keep talking about photoshop elements it's supposed to be simple, Ulead make a similar thing it's easy enough does not have all the cool stuff. I use CS2 (complex)

Why not post the images on line and we'll have a look at the patient?
 
photoshop cs2 is the dogs nuts. but photoshop elements is good enough for us mortals....
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom