RAW vs. JPEG: Digital Camera Image Formats |  |
- RAW vs. JPEG: Digital Camera Image Formats
- Photography Tips on Facebook: Reaches 35,000 Fans
- Aerial Photography Tips: Patterns Are the Key
- How to Create Cinematic Style Photography and Lighting
| RAW vs. JPEG: Digital Camera Image Formats Posted: 12 May 2013 12:22 AM PDT There is much confusion among new photographers as to which format, JPEG or RAW, is best to use. The problem is there’s no one correct answer to the dilema. To be able to know when to use either of the formats, it’s best to have a solid understanding of each of their drawbacks and advantages. The following article will explore both sides of shooting in either RAW and JPEG image formats.  “JR 1″ captured by Pablo Ramos. (Click image to see more from Pablo Ramos.) JPEGA file saved using the JPEG compression format is just that–the image saved to the memory card is compressed using an algorithm. Because the image is compressed, there is an inherent loss in quality. However, the issues associated with JPEG go deeper than just the image saved to the memory card. If you do any post-processing work on your images, every time you save a change, the compression algorithm is re-applied to the image. This causes further loss in quality with each edit/save cycle. The average size for a JPEG image taken at full resolution on a 10.1 megapixel camera is somewhere around 2.6MB. RAWA RAW file simply contains the data collected by your camera’s sensor. In itself, it is not an image. It must be converted before it becomes an “image file”. RAW files are significantly better to work with in the post-processing stage. You can very easily adjust many parameters of the image. The average size for a full resolution RAW image on a 10.1 Megapixel camera is 9.3MB. This is approximately 3.5 times larger than a high quality JPEG image. The ComparisonIf you were to look at two pictures taken of the same scene, one in JPEG and one in RAW (without any post-processing) then, you might think the JPEG image looks better, and you wouldn’t be wrong. However, if you were to look at a RAW image with post-processing work done you would think that it was the superior image. But why? One of the most important factors for getting an image to look technically correct is to get the white balance right (I say “technically,” because you can take a technically correct image with bad composition and it can still be a bad image). Going into exactly what white balance is and how it affects the image is beyond the scope of this article, but I feel a few words on it are needed. White light is composed of all the colours of the rainbow mixed together with the result that it looks white. Some light sources (e.g. sunlight or an incandescent bulb) have a larger proportion of the colours at the red end of the visible light spectrum, giving the light a ‘warm’ feel. Other sources of light (e.g. fluorescent strip lights) have a greater proportion of the colours at the blue end of the spectrum, giving the light a ‘cold feel’. For your camera to get the colours correct in the scene it is ‘seeing’, it needs to know the proportions of each colour that are making up the light. This is called the “colour temperature” of light and is measured in K (Kelvin).  “Spain, Barcelona” captured by Desh Kapur. (Click image to see more from Desh Kapur .) Most amateur photographers will usually shoot using AWB. AWB does an OK job of getting the colour temperature (and therefore the colours of the image) correct. Now, I come back to my original question: why should a RAW image look better than a JPEG? The answer is RAW images are much easier to manipulate using image editing software such as Photoshop. In Photoshop you can easily adjust many parameters of an image such as white balance, exposure, colour saturation, colour tint, fill light, brightness, contrast and others. Of course, you can also do this with a JPEG image, but it is not so easy, the results aren’t as good, and you still have the problem of gradual degradation of image quality from the JPEG compression algorithm. In Photoshop (and indeed other image editing programs) you can very easily and quickly manipulate a RAW image to be superior to its JPEG alternative. So you may now be thinking, “why not always shoot in RAW?” As discussed earlier, RAW image files are approximately 3.5 times larger than JPEG image files. However, this is increasingly becoming less of an issue as flash memory gets cheaper and cheaper. There is another issue associated with RAW. Opening up a RAW file, manipulating it, and saving it as an image file (e.g. JPEG or PNG) can be time consuming when you have a large number of files to process. There are programs that will do a batch conversion, but the results are not as good as if you were to individually tweak and convert each file. There is, however, a solution to this. Many cameras support the option to shoot in both RAW and JPEG simultaneously. This allows us to review the JPEG images and decide which ones need some manipulation without us having to process and convert numerous RAW files.  “All Saints Church” captured by Hernan Vazquez. (Click image to see more from Hernan Vazquez.) ConclusionBetter results can be obtained by shooting in RAW. However, converting the files is time-consuming and tedious. The camera does a pretty good job at rendering JPEG files on its own, but it does sometimes get it wrong and it is easier and better to correct a RAW file than a JPEG in the post-processing stage. If you have a decent size memory card, I would recommended using the JPEG + RAW option. When this option is set, the camera saves both a JPEG file and a RAW file to the memory card. This then allows you to quickly look through the JPEG files later and decide which ones need some post-processing work, saving you a lot of time converting files. Of course this does use significantly more space on your memory card. I have an 8GB card, which I find to be enough for a days shooting with a 10.1 Megapixel camera using JPEG + RAW (my card currently has 485 RAWs and 672 JPEGs with 50MB to spare). About the Author: For Further Training:There is a downloadable multimedia tutorial (that is discounted for Mother’s Day) with videos that teaches you how to take control over your camera, and get creative and confident with your photography. By combining illustrations, text, photos and video, it will help you get control in no time. Includes a bonus Field Guide—a printable pocket guide with some of the most essential information beautifully laid out inside. It can be found here: Extremely Essential Camera Skills Go to full article: RAW vs. JPEG: Digital Camera Image Formats |
| Photography Tips on Facebook: Reaches 35,000 Fans Posted: 11 May 2013 03:45 PM PDT We love our Facebook followers, they are often the first to know if we have a new in-depth article posted and we value the comments, discussions and feedback we receive there. Today the number of photographers following us on Facebook surpassed 35,000! Thanks so much to all of you, we look forward to more exciting facebook activities! PictureCorrect Photography Tips on Facebook  Serving photography tips to over 35,000 photographers worldwide Go to full article: Photography Tips on Facebook: Reaches 35,000 Fans |
| Aerial Photography Tips: Patterns Are the Key Posted: 11 May 2013 03:25 PM PDT Aerial photographs offer a rogue view of the world that we don't often see. You could get fine aerial shots by using a ladder, bedroom window or riding in a hot air-balloon. But for Jason Hawkes, noted Aerial Photographer, the only way to go is in a helicopter (for those of you reading this by email, the video can be seen here): Landmarks that are rather mundane from the ground take on a whole new meaning when viewed at 3,000 feet. Number one rule for shots like this, a great harness! You also better have a crackerjack pilot because you are flying low and slow all the time, which is rather dangerous. Once you are strapped in, Jason doesn't want to you look at the usual landmarks. Instead, he likes to focus on patterns. Crop formations, salt marshes, or just a highway when photographed from the air take on a whole new meaning.
Occasionally, it is good to capture an object in your pattern. Jason states it is nice to get something man-made in, even if it is just a person or a boat. You can be 10,000 feet high or just 50 feet, it's very difficult to work out what exactly you are looking at. Just adding an electrical pole or something similar can give the frame a fantastic sense of scale. It may not be for everyone, but no one can deny that Jason Hawkes is showing us a dazzling view of the world with his stunning shots. Go to full article: Aerial Photography Tips: Patterns Are the Key |
| How to Create Cinematic Style Photography and Lighting Posted: 11 May 2013 10:39 AM PDT Theatrical lighting produces stunning photographs that look like stills from Hollywood films. But these types of images can be made using common photo equipment. Lauri Laukkanen provides a quick tutorial showcasing the set-ups he used to create dramatic lighting in two photos from his WWII-inspired photo series. For both photos, he used three lights in a simple studio to compose cinematic-style images (for those of you reading this by email, the video tutorial can be seen here): Take a look at the images highlighted in the video and see how they were produced. Double Agent, the first image discussed in the video, was made using two back lights positioned equidistant from either side of the subject’s shoulders. These lights highlighted the edges of the model’s cheek lines:  Double Agent The main light was positioned fairly far from the subject and served mostly as a fill light for the subject’s jacket and hat from camera left. Laukkanen asked the model to place his hand on the brim of his hat, which cast a shadow across the model’s face and increased the dramatic effect.  Gentlemen, We Are at War For the second photo, Gentlemen, We Are at War, Laukkanen moved the main light to camera right and set it at a 45 degree angle high above the subject (Via SLR Lounge). Rather than pointing the light directly at the subject’s face, Laukkanen feathered this main light away from the subject to produce a Rembrandt triangle on the subject’s cheek. By shooting from the shadowed side of the subject’s face, a cinematic-style was achieved. A back light was pointed at the back of subject’s shoulder to bring in a bit of fill light. In the video, Lauri Laukkanen shows that works of art can be made without a lot of bells and whistles. With just a small studio and three lights, you can create photographs that look like dramatic film scenes. Go to full article: How to Create Cinematic Style Photography and Lighting |
| You are subscribed to email updates from PictureCorrect Photography Tips To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment