Small RAW

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
I just do not get it...

Where and why would we use the small raw feature?

Thanks folks!(y)
 
If my cards got full up... or nearly full up.... id swith to small raw.. but cant think of another reason tbh. :)
 
open toed sandals
card readers
and now...small raw's

jebus :bang:
 
I'd say casual snapshots where you still want to have the flexibility of raw files or a, say, sports event, where you know you'll take lots of shots, you might need raw just in case you had a special shot that won't be printed big but that would still be worth playing with.
Just a couple of thoughts.
 
:LOL:

Thanks all, you have confirmed my (possibly unenlightened) suspicions...(y)

Let's see though if anyone will come up with a credible argument in favour of...(y)
 
Anton Roland said:
I just do not get it...

Where and why would we use the small raw feature?

Thanks folks!(y)
Click to expand...
Maybe it's telling us that the quality of digital cameras is getting too good for some people. For example, small RAW will probably produce perfect prints up to and a little above A4. Many people will be very happy with that I'm sure. In the past, we didn't all use Kodacrome all the time did we?
 
Fair point...

Personally I would hate to use a fantastic piece of kit and then:shrug: deliberately hamper my image quality... with regards to print size at least...

(y)
 
what is this RAW you speak of?? :thinking: :p
 
Anton Roland said:
Fair point...

Personally I would hate to use a fantastic piece of kit and then:shrug: deliberately hamper my image quality... with regards to print size at least...

(y)
Click to expand...
You're of course right, but I can still see a time when the potential quality of a photo is far higher than required for anything we are going to do with it.

If the photos are to be used on the web, we can get away with tiny files. A wedding will very rarely need larger prints than a 10x8 so I sometimes wonder why we need such high resolution.
 
dod said:
what is this RAW you speak of?? :thinking: :p
Click to expand...

It is a bit like when your neggies are not properly dried in the film drier...slightly wet to the touch:LOL:
 
Badger UK said:
You're of course right, but I can still see a time when the potential quality of a photo is far higher than required for anything we are going to do with it.

If the photos are to be used on the web, we can get away with tiny files. A wedding will very rarely need larger prints than a 10x8 so I sometimes wonder why we need such high resolution.
Click to expand...

Very true...as I read your post I immediately think "but what if THIS image must be printed A0...

I have never printed ANY paid work over A3... go figure...:bonk:

But if we WANTED to we can and so we make the camera companies even richer...
 
Forgetting about size, res and open toed sandals, is there a minimum raw quality requirement for alterations/pp
It's plain to see jpg's posted here in the "shop this better 4 me" category are just not up to much manipulation at all, you can't really show someone what can be achieved in pp with a piddly jpg.
 
joxby said:
Forgetting about size, res and open toed sandals, is there a minimum raw quality requirement for alterations/pp
It's plain to see jpg's posted here in the "shop this better 4 me" category are just not up to much manipulation at all, you can't really show someone what can be achieved in pp with a piddly jpg.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question: Why would you then want to do it with a piddly RAW?:thinking::thinking::thinking:

What am I missing?:shrug:
 
joxby said:
For you can't really show someone what can be achieved in pp with a piddly jpg.
Click to expand...

I agree, but we are reaching a stage where an sRAW is far from a piddly jpg. sRAW is probably as good as the 10 grand pro cameras where 5 years ago.
 
Badger UK said:
I agree, but we are reaching a stage where an sRAW is far from a piddly jpg. sRAW is probably as good as the 10 grand pro cameras where 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

So if I understand correctly then sRAW would be used to have RAW type quality and PP options with the benefit of using less card space...

Oh and with the obvious limitation to printing around A4 / 8x 10 max?

Should put a damper on the Mp chasers to a certain degree:LOL:...
 
Anton Roland said:
Which begs the question: Why would you then want to do it with a piddly RAW?:thinking::thinking::thinking:

What am I missing?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Think advanced highlight recovery, white balance, more room for PP (curves) and such in a smaller package than usual, good enough for the web and smaller prints.
Less visible noise as it gets smaller (naturally).
 
Anton Roland said:
So if I understand correctly then sRAW would be used to have RAW type quality and PP options with the benefit of using less card space...

Oh and with the obvious limitation to printing around A4 / 8x 10 max?
QUOTE]

I think I might do a few experiments with my 40D and sRAW to compare the diff between sRAW and proper RAW.

Give me a few days and I'll post something.
Click to expand...
 
What I'm saying is, the bigger it is (more content) the more there is to work with, but there must be a point where its no longer an issue.
Is sRAW big enough in content to edit the same way you would a fullsize RAW.
Is say, the depth of exposure compensation the same in both formats ?

I'm just interested in the thinking behind it, card space aside, what other possible reason is there for sRAW

Is it just a Canon thing, is there a money spinner hidden in it that we haven't noticed yet.

ok, so I type with my nasal hair....*rolls eyes smiley*
 
Slapo said:
From a 12 MP camera, you should get a 3 MP sRaw - perhaps with almost as much sharpness as the Sigma SD9?
Click to expand...

If file size is anything to go by, the 40D has a full size RAW of +- 12.XX Mp and sRAW of approx 7.xx Mp...

If this is anything to go by then the 40D 's sRAW should be roughly 5-6 Mp??:shrug:

:shrug:
 
joxby said:
Is it just a Canon thing, is there a money spinner hidden in it that we haven't noticed yet.
Click to expand...


I'm inclined to think that it's just a way to give the same advantages of RAW with few pixels.

There will be advantages to lots of photographers like sports togs who want a fast camera to card transfer rates for lots of continuous shooting. and those who are shooting specifically for the web and want to take as many shots as poss without stopping to change cards etc...
 
Badger UK said:
Anton Roland said:
So if I understand correctly then sRAW would be used to have RAW type quality and PP options with the benefit of using less card space...

Oh and with the obvious limitation to printing around A4 / 8x 10 max?
QUOTE]

I think I might do a few experiments with my 40D and sRAW to compare the diff between sRAW and proper RAW.

Give me a few days and I'll post something.
Click to expand...

Badger, I think the real test would be to print an identical image in A4 from full size Raw and sRAW and see if there is a really worthwhile difference:shrug:

Then also, depending on what test 1 tell us, to increase the print sizes gradually to the point where the diffs really become worthwhile:shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Anton Roland said:
Badger UK said:
Badger, I think the real test would be to print an identical image in A4 from full size Raw and sRAW and see if there is a really worthwhile difference:shrug:

Then also, depending on what test 1 tell us, to increase the print sizes gradually to the point where the diffs really become worthwhile:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes. Thats the way I feel. I'll let you know.
Click to expand...
 
Love to see a comparison, personally I see it as unnecessary, but perhaps your tests will show me to be wrong. Why deliberately drop file size, ok I see all the arguments for flexibility, but can't imagine I would want to fiddle about switching from one to the other, I'd probably forget to switch back and b***er up!
 
George said:
Love to see a comparison, personally I see it as unnecessary, but perhaps your tests will show me to be wrong. Why deliberately drop file size, ok I see all the arguments for flexibility, but can't imagine I would want to fiddle about switching from one to the other, I'd probably forget to switch back and b***er up!
Click to expand...

:LOL:Agree 100%:LOL:

Thank goodness my cameras do not have sRAW...

RAW + horrible small JPEG works fine for me(y)
 
Anton Roland said:
me too

i would have thought faster transfers would be a big plus, event tog with onsite printing as another advantage:shrug: old pc and macs struggling to process the larger raw files?

a4 = approx 6mp i think, so 90% of joe bloggs out there wont want more than that, the prob is the cams are getting very big very fast, and might be something they are introducing before the files get bigger and testing on us general public. cant be long before we start hitting the 25mp on the lower end models.
Click to expand...
 
I am not saying they are useless, and indeed may have a place for very specific types of photographic requirements, but I don't see the advantage for the great majority of us. I changed up to a 1Ds mk3, and I personally don't find the increase in file size too much of a problem (I shoot RAW to one card and smallest jpeg to another so if I need something quick to email, it's easily available) and the two alterations I've made are to a) raise my cf card sze from 4 to 8Gigs, and 2) increase the size of my portable memory backup to 160 Gigs. These additions have in fact cost less thanwhen I bought my first 1 Gig card for my original 1 Ds 5 yrs ago, as memory /byte has come down so much.

Oh and transfer rates are now so much faster both camera to card and card to computer.
 
fletch5 said:
me too

i would have thought faster transfers would be a big plus, event tog with onsite printing as another advantage:shrug: old pc and macs struggling to process the larger raw files?

.
Click to expand...

Isn't on-site printing and RAW PP sort of mutually exclusive / counterproductive?
 
Well at this size and quality for web viewing I should hope there won't be a difference...

Linky to full size images?:nuts:

Smashing images though!(y)
 
have to agree, at 800 pixels all should be the same IQ wise.

anton, no idea on event toggin never done it
 
Anton Roland said:
Well at this size and quality for web viewing I should hope there won't be a difference...

Linky to full size images?:nuts:

Smashing images though!(y)
Click to expand...

Now your asking, i'll try to find them later, but i have printed all three at 12x something, no difference in printed IQ bewteen sRAW and j-peg, but the full RAW file made the better larger print but at 10x i couldnt tell.
 
Well, there are 2 riders in the first shot...........!!
 
fletch5 said:
anton, no idea on event toggin never done it
Click to expand...

I have been on a moderate scale and I can tell you it makes for an interesting chain of events with little time for RAW prcessing:D
 
so do you shoot jpg instead?
 
fletch5 said:
so do you shoot jpg instead?
Click to expand...

For sporting events, yes...

Set up a dedicated custom WB and let fly!

Have done some sports stuff with a local pro friend...wrestling, karate etc and we are 2 togs covering 4 mats with one guy running cards back and forth and one guy downloading and putting up proof sheets and handling sales.

Quite labour intensive and (while being good fun) not always a great money spinner...
 
direct sales are always going to be hit and miss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top