sRAW vs. Large Fine JPEG?

[disneyboy2003]

Happy New Year!

I've been shooting photos in RAW over the past year. However, tonight I was taking pictures of fireworks & the SpectroMagic parade. I didn't have my camera bag with me cuz I didn't want the hassle of going through the overcrowded Magic Kingdom with a camera bag. Because my extra memory cards are in the camera bag (in the car), I didn't have an extra card with me at the park. With RAW, I can shoot a little more than 500 photos on an 8GB card.

So I didn't want to take pictures of SpectroMagic or the fireworks in RAW. I also know that I'll never print these pictures or do any high resolution stuff with them. The best that'll happen to these photos is just some post-processing and then posted onto my SmugMug account.

I'd normally switch over to Large Fine JPEG (>999 photos), but then saw the option to shoot in sRAW. I've never shot in sRAW before, but I really like the extra highlight & shadow information that regular RAW contains, which helps with post-processing my photos. So I figure sRAW probably contains some of this extra highlight / shadow information as well.

Normally, I'm okay with JPEG, but sometimes I encounter unrecoverable / blown-out highlights, or shadow areas that are tough to post-process. Or, the other thing is that I've set my camera to AdobeRGB color space, and I know I would have forgotten to reset it to sRGB, so my JPEGs would have looked a little dull.

So, in this situation where you don't want to and/or don't need to shoot in regular RAW, would you switch to Large Fine JPEG or sRAW?

Thanks!

 

[Groucho]

I'm not familiar with "sraw" so I can't comment on that, but if you're shooting raw, there's no need to specify the colorspace. Raw files will be the same no matter what you have colorspace set for - by and large, it's easiest to just leave it on srgb.

 

[ukcatfan]

I believe that sRAW is a normal RAW file but at a smaller resolution than the regular RAW files on your camera. I have heard that not many RAW conversion programs support it, so you might be stuck using the software that came with the camera to process them.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Thanks so much for your replies, Groucho & ukcatfan.

if you're shooting raw, there's no need to specify the colorspace. Raw files will be the same no matter what you have colorspace set for - by and large, it's easiest to just leave it on srgb.

That's what I thought. However, I had several pro photographers (Joe McNally, Matt Kloskowski, Laurie Excell, and others) tell me to keep it on AdobeRGB because of the larger color space, even when shooting RAW. I had always thought that the color space isn't assigned on RAW files, so I tried asking them about sRGB vs. AdobeRGB when shooting RAW. I'm not sure I've found a good answer to that.

I believe that sRAW is a normal RAW file but at a smaller resolution than the regular RAW files on your camera. I have heard that not many RAW conversion programs support it, so you might be stuck using the software that came with the camera to process them.

I did a Google search for this topic, and there's not a lot of information about this. However, this is what I found (these stats are specific for the Canon 40D):

RAW files:

• Resolution: 3888 x 2592 pixels = 10 megapixels
• Good for prints up to 8x13 (assuming 300 dots-per-inch)
• File size: 12.4 MB

sRAW files:

• Resolution: 1944 x 1296 pixels = 2.5 megapixels (!!!)
• Good for prints up to 5x7 photos (assuming 300 dots-per-inch)...you can maybe print decent 8x10s
• File size: 7.1 MB

Large Fine JPEG files:

• Resolution: 3888 x 2592 pixels = 10 megapixels
• File size: 3.5 MB

So with sRAW files, you lose 75% of the pixels. But the file size isn't 75% smaller. Instead, it's only 43% smaller.

What was also shocking was that shooting in sRAW essentially turns my camera into a 2.5 megapixel camera!!! It's been 10 years since I've had a 2.5 megapixel camera! (not including my cellphone)

Large Fine JPEG files, despite their full resolution, are much smaller files...even smaller than sRAW files.

Looks like the advantage of sRAW files is that you save a little bit of space with a smaller-resolution image, but you retain all the post-processing advantages & flexibility of RAW files.

So if you weren't planning on printing photos greater than 5x7, then sRAW may be a viable option. For example, apparently some wedding photographers may choose to shoot in sRAW for only the reception photos, since reception photos typically don't appear any larger than 5x7 in wedding albums. For formal posed photos, however, photographers would shoot those in regular RAW.

In the past, sRAW wasn't supported by Adobe in Lightroom. However, looks like they've been supporting sRAW for the past couple years now. I can view my sRAW files and do all my regular post-processing stuff on sRAW files in Lightroom. I don't know about sRAW support in Aperture or other photo editing programs.

In my case, I think I made the right choice in shooting SpectroMagic & fireworks in sRAW. Those were some tricky lighting situations, so I think sRAW will give me the flexibility and extra leeway in post-processing (much more so than JPEG).

Next time, however, I should just remember to bring an extra memory card with me at all times. That should avoid this sRAW vs. Large Fine JPEG thing.

Thanks again for all your help!

 

[mabas9395]

I have a canon 50D and I shoot sRAW almost exclusively. I like what RAW offers, so that eliminates jpg. But the 50d is a 15 megapixel camera, and I've found that I rarely need the full 20mb size file of a full raw, so I shoot in sRAW which can still give me lager than a 8x10 print but is only about 8mb in size.

And Lightroom has no problem reading the file.

 

[mabas9395]

And the 50D has two sRAW modes, sRAW1 and sRAW2. So the 2178 x 3267 that I get from sRAW1 is just as good for me as the 3168 x 4752 from full RAW. I think that sRAW2 is much smaller, so if I only had a very small sRAW option, that might change things for me.

 

[Groucho]

That's what I thought. However, I had several pro photographers (Joe McNally, Matt Kloskowski, Laurie Excell, and others) tell me to keep it on AdobeRGB because of the larger color space, even when shooting RAW. I had always thought that the color space isn't assigned on RAW files, so I tried asking them about sRGB vs. AdobeRGB when shooting RAW. I'm not sure I've found a good answer to that.

I think some of these "pro" photographers need to read the manual.

I did a Google search for this topic, and there's not a lot of information about this. However, this is what I found (these stats are specific for the Canon 40D):

RAW files:

• Resolution: 3888 x 2592 pixels = 10 megapixels
• Good for prints up to 8x13 (assuming 300 dots-per-inch)
• File size: 12.4 MB

sRAW files:

• Resolution: 1944 x 1296 pixels = 2.5 megapixels (!!!)
• Good for prints up to 5x7 photos (assuming 300 dots-per-inch)...you can maybe print decent 8x10s
• File size: 7.1 MB

Large Fine JPEG files:

• Resolution: 3888 x 2592 pixels = 10 megapixels
• File size: 3.5 MB

So with sRAW files, you lose 75% of the pixels. But the file size isn't 75% smaller. Instead, it's only 43% smaller.

UGH!

Memory cards are cheap - disk storage is cheap - backup media is cheap - why would you ever want to have your camera take a worse photo than it can? (I'm asking this to Canon, not to you. ) Maybe if you're in a pinch where you are running out of space - but I'd much rather have the large jpgs than a cut-down raw file.

 

[disneyboy2003]

why would you ever want to have your camera take a worse photo than it can? (I'm asking this to Canon, not to you. ) Maybe if you're in a pinch where you are running out of space - but I'd much rather have the large jpgs than a cut-down raw file.

As newer DSLRs are producing more and more megapixels, I think it makes some sense to offer smaller RAW versions. I have to admit, I really was shocked that the Canon 40D sRAW was only 2.5 megapixels, compared to the regular 10 megapixel RAW images.

However, with the Canon 7D producing 18 megapixels and with the Canon 5DII producing 21.1 megapixels (doesn't Sony's A900 produce almost 25 megapixels?!?!?!), I think that the smaller sRAW (small RAW) and mRAW (medium RAW) files make a little more sense, as mabas9395 alluded to above. I'm not sure I'd take Kilimanjaro Safari photos in RAW at 25 megapixels, but I'd still like the advantages of RAW with a little fewer megapixels.

 

[alan]

When I was shooting these fireworks photographs, I shot them in RAW and processed them at home later. I increased the exposure by around 1.3 EV, and then upped "blacks" to around 11 or 12 in Lightroom.

It may be possible to do the same with JPG, but I wouldn't count on it. The whole point about JPG is that it throws away detail you aren't seeing when you look at the picture, and it is that detail that you rely on when post-processing RAW files.

19xx pixels is bigger than most monitors, and at 200dpi would print at 9.5 inches... and would look entirely acceptable to those of us without "golden eyes" (and I don't mean Perrin Aybara).

That's why I would go with sRAW.







regards,
/alan

 

[MarkBarbieri]

As camera's are released with higher and higher resolutions, people sometimes find that they don't need all that resolution. sRAW is a way to still get the benefits of shooting RAW without all of the negative effects of extremely high resolution (larger file sizes, slower write speeds, etc).

Whether to shoot JPG vs sRAW depends on what your constraints are. If you want to maximize your resolution, shoot JPG. If resolution isn't as important as having a RAW file (greater color depth, more control over white balance, less in-camera processing), then go with sRAW.

I have a 21 megapixel camera with three levels of RAW shooting (RAW, mRAW, and sRAW). I have very rarely shot in anything but full RAW. If I'm going to downres, I'd prefer to do it in a more controlled environment. I pretty much never shoot JPG either.

I suppose that when I'm shooting low value stuff in tricky lighting (say a neighbor kid's birthday part in a gym), I could save space and processing time with sRAW. On the other hand, my standard CF card is 32 gig, I have well over 10 terrabytes of storage at home, and our primary computers are relatively fast quad core processor machines with lots of RAM. I don't think I'll notice the difference that much.

I think that sRAW is a cool concept, but the space savings aren't enough to justify the loss of resolution for me. My preference would be to have the ability to convert a RAW file to a lower resolution DNG file in Lightroom. Then I can shoot in full res and shrink my files selectively in post production. I'd like that.

 

[ford91exploder]

Nikon uses a proprietary lossless compression system instead so you get the full resolution AND smaller files but unfortunately this is only available on the newer DSLR's AND you need to use Nikon capture NX to unpack the files.

 

[Experiment_626]

Nikon uses a proprietary lossless compression system instead so you get the full resolution AND smaller files but unfortunately this is only available on the newer DSLR's AND you need to use Nikon capture NX to unpack the files.

I use Adobe Camera Raw to read the compressed NEFs generated by my D300.

 

[VVFF]

Space is cheap...I see no reason to use sRAW at the moment. Problem with sRAW is at a minimum cuts the resolution in half. For example on the 50D it cuts the resolution from 15.1MP to 7.1MP. I would consider scaling down a bit but 7.1MP is a bit lower than I'd want to go. Plus I enjoy to cropping room 15.1MP affords.

If I was that concerned about space I would process my RAWs on my computer and then delete them. At least then I got a chance to edit a full resolution file.