Does Size Really Matter

[DoleWhipDVC]

Thanks to everyone who commented on my last question about shooting in both RAW and jpeg. I will use both formats for my upcoming trip. Now, is there a major reason for shooting in the large RAW versus medium or small RAW? Other than capacity on the memory card, I know there are reasons for shooting in the different sized formats. Can anyone give me some insight? For example, I've read that shooting in large RAW is better if you expect to do enlargements, but large RAW should not be used for high ISO shots as it shows more noise. Any other info to consider? I've purchased two 8 gig cards and have an empty 4 gig in the camera. I think I'm o.k. for storage space - what else should I be aware of? Thanks as always

 

[handicap18]

I didn't think there was more than one size RAW. There are different size JPEG's you can shoot like you describe, but as far as I know there is only one size RAW.

I just checked on my camera and there is only one size option for RAW. I think there were like 4 for JPEG. But only one size for RAW.

 

[Experiment_626]

I didn't think there was more than one size RAW. There are different size JPEG's you can shoot like you describe, but as far as I know there is only one size RAW.

I just checked on my camera and there is only one size option for RAW. I think there were like 4 for JPEG. But only one size for RAW.

Agreed.

Some cameras may offer a choice of compressed or non-compressed RAW, with the compressed option being a 12-bit file and the other being 14-bit. Technically, the 14-bit file would be better, but real-world examples that reveal the difference are scarce. In most cases, you'd be fine with either, and of course the compressed version would fit more images on the same memory card. However, writing to your card might take longer with the compressed option because the camera has to apply the compression on the fly.

Scott

 

[Bstanley]

Some Canon DSLRs offer 'sRAW' ('Small RAW') as an option. It offers the ability to select from a couple of resolution settings but still shoot RAW (14 bit color space).

A 50D for example can shoot RAW - 15.1 MegaPixels (20.2MB per shot), sRAW1 - 7.1 MegaPixels (12.6MB per shot) or sRAW2 - 3.8 MegaPixels (9.2MB per shot).

Canon advises that 50D RAW files be used for print sizes of 20" x 30" or up, sRAW1 be used for images of no more than 11 x 14 inches and sRAW2 for 8.5" x 11".


Unless you think you are going to run out of space I don't see any real advantage to shooting with less resolution than RAW.

 

[photo_chick]

Supposedly the lower MP RAW options that some cameras have are to give you shots with less noise. I've never really played with it on my 50D or researched in depth though. I keep saying I'm gong to really test it out, but I never do. Hmm... maybe I'll set something up and post the results.

edited to add... I just did a highly unscientific test. I took shots at the same settings with ISO 6400 at each setting (RAW, sRAW1 and sRAW2) at first glance they all look about the same noise wise. Resampling to make the larger images the same pixel dimensions as the smaller image eliminates pixels, and some of the noise, so in the end the RAW file sized down to 3.8 MP (the size of the sRAW2 image) had noticeably less noise. But that's nothing new, we all already knew that a Monet looks better from a distance. So anyway, based on my highly unscientific test I'd keep shooting full size RAW files. But I'm going to shoot more after I fix dinner so we'll see....

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's G11 does something similar called "pixel binning" where it combines 4 pixels into one at high ISO to give larger pixels and less noise. It works, although an article on the DXOMark website claims that more pixels does not lead to an increase in noise, all other things being equal.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

I would not use any setting that gives less than the best our cameras can offer unless it was for a photo I didn't care about, and then I would question why I was taking the photo anyway.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

I didn't think there was more than one size RAW. There are different size JPEG's you can shoot like you describe, but as far as I know there is only one size RAW.

I just checked on my camera and there is only one size option for RAW. I think there were like 4 for JPEG. But only one size for RAW.

I have settings for RAW and sRAW, and jpeg settings of fine, medium, and large. Altogether I have 14 different combinations I can shoot in when paring up the options and just considering shooting in only RAW or only sRAW. I'm using a Canon 40D.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

Some Canon DSLRs offer 'sRAW' ('Small RAW') as an option. It offers the ability to select from a couple of resolution settings but still shoot RAW (14 bit color space).

A 50D for example can shoot RAW - 15.1 MegaPixels (20.2MB per shot), sRAW1 - 7.1 MegaPixels (12.6MB per shot) or sRAW2 - 3.8 MegaPixels (9.2MB per shot).

Canon advises that 50D RAW files be used for print sizes of 20" x 30" or up, sRAW1 be used for images of no more than 11 x 14 inches and sRAW2 for 8.5" x 11".


Unless you think you are going to run out of space I don't see any real advantage to shooting with less resolution than RAW.

I agree. RAW will give me the most post processing options so I should shoot in that format. Lots of people shoot both RAW and jpeg so I was curious about the differences in the RAW and sRAW settings. I think I can use your info on the 50D as a guideline even though I'm using the 40D. I bought two extra cards for the trip to be sure I didn't run out of space, I'm thinking the two 8 gig cards and the 4 gig I already have should work. If I get in trouble late in the trip, I can always switch to a different resolution to save space. Thanks for the info.

 

[zackiedawg]

I was figuring something like that - that the RAW+JPG was part of the equation, related to the JPG size. Personally, I can't think of very many reasons to ever shoot in anything but the largest sizes...if you want to work on the RAW, you'll probably want the full size and resolution to work with, and if the resultant JPG comes out perfect and you want to use it without going through the RAW, you're going to want it to be the largest size JPG. So I'd stick with normal RAW instead of sRAW, and I'd stick with the largest and best quality JPG available.

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

Supposedly the lower MP RAW options that some cameras have are to give you shots with less noise. I've never really played with it on my 50D or researched in depth though. I keep saying I'm gong to really test it out, but I never do. Hmm... maybe I'll set something up and post the results.

edited to add... I just did a highly unscientific test. I took shots at the same settings with ISO 6400 at each setting (RAW, sRAW1 and sRAW2) at first glance they all look about the same noise wise. Resampling to make the larger images the same pixel dimensions as the smaller image eliminates pixels, and some of the noise, so in the end the RAW file sized down to 3.8 MP (the size of the sRAW2 image) had noticeably less noise. But that's nothing new, we all already knew that a Monet looks better from a distance. So anyway, based on my highly unscientific test I'd keep shooting full size RAW files. But I'm going to shoot more after I fix dinner so we'll see....

That's interesting. So If I shoot in sRAW, I should get less noise and save a bit of space on the memory card. I have enlarged some sRAW photos to 16x24 and they looked really nice. I can't imagine going bigger than that for personal use, so the sRAW seems to be the best bet (with another shot in jpeg to go along with it). Thanks for conducting your experiment!

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

I would not use any setting that gives less than the best our cameras can offer unless it was for a photo I didn't care about, and then I would question why I was taking the photo anyway.

I agree. My problem is that I shoot some random stuff now and then, and I think I care about the shot at the time, but never know if it worked until I see it downloaded. So I take up space on my card, but.....

 

[DoleWhipDVC]

I was figuring something like that - that the RAW+JPG was part of the equation, related to the JPG size. Personally, I can't think of very many reasons to ever shoot in anything but the largest sizes...if you want to work on the RAW, you'll probably want the full size and resolution to work with, and if the resultant JPG comes out perfect and you want to use it without going through the RAW, you're going to want it to be the largest size JPG. So I'd stick with normal RAW instead of sRAW, and I'd stick with the largest and best quality JPG available.

Another good point. It does go against what I thought after replying to photo chick's post, but I see what you mean. I can always set the options on my menu and see what it does to the available photo count. I do want the best resolution possible, as I'm getting better at post processing and can see differences as I work with the photos. Thanks for your thoughts

 

[zackiedawg]

Remember the one other thing, as sacreligious as it may be to photographers, and horrible as it may sound: Don't be a photo hoarder, and don't be afraid to cull and delete! There are always the arguments and excuses for why that so-so photo should be kept, or the one with slightly soft focus, or the just-cut-off-feet...but in the end you're doing the same thing the hoarders do with stuff piling up in their house. I've found it feels really good every once in a while to go back through some folders of photos, find the ones I never worked on and that still don't impress me or inspire me, and delete them. I usually start every photo download from the camera by first picking out all the junker shots - the unneeded duplicates, the bad focus, the poor compositions, etc. But there are those 'on the fence' ones I keep at first cull thinking I might work on them and get something useful out of them. And indeed, sometimes I do. But if 6 months has gone by, and I've done some recovery processing of past shots, and still passed by those shots, that's when I'll bite the bullet and delete. It worries me a bit at the time, but once they're gone I find I'm not missing them, and the extra GBs of space I've opened up on the harddrive feel great!