Have been considering the purchase of a digital slr camera.
One of its function will be to (hopefully) photograph textures.
Has anyone used the raw format for textures and if so what do
you think?
Any input appreciated.
I am saving for the Canon EOS 5D with the full size Sensor. That Sensor is also the one with the lowest noise. Practically none. I will not shell out any money for those smaller sensors. An expensive Camera so… I made the choice after looking for a Digital SLR now for 2 Years.
Lemo
At about 3000 dollars, admire you taste.
Had the privilege of holding it (delicately)
Loved the viewfinder, spotmeter and focusing.
Price was a bit too much at the moment.
You know that one of their lens’ 24-105mm zoom is about 1000.
Canon has always been a pricey son of a bitch.
If you work with slave flash at all, Nikon D200 ain’t bad to check
out.
However have you ever worked with the raw format?
Heard good, bad.
Saw images that started out raw, printed to 16X20 (color)
File size is a big question.
.
I downloaded Raw Pic’s and looked at them. To be honest… I don’t see the big difference. The file size WILL scream 64Bit for post processing as the resolution is just obscene. Nice is that you can shoot your own HDR’s with a camera like that. Of course with multiple exposures.
Yes, pricey piece of equipment. But I save since 2 years. Mybe I can afford it in Feb for my Birthday 8-). Steady drop…
Lemo
I haven’t really ‘worked’ with RAW, more mucked around with.
I am also doing the which digicam dance at the moment and have picked up a few bits of info - whether they are new to you or not I don’t know.
As I understand it, the issues with RAW files, relative to other file types, are:
-Size is bigger - but if you are buying expensive kit then you’re also investing in a decent size mem card too right?
-In-camera processing time is slower, though this isn’t so bad in SLRs (will also be different depending on specific camera). This shouldn’t be an issue for shooting textures, unless maybe you want to capture that live cheetah skin.
-You need software that can deal with RAW files - RawShooter essentials is free, however.
If I had space on a mem card I would always shoot RAW files for textures.
If your camera can save out in a lossless format (rather than JPEG) I shouldn’t have thought there was any need to work with RAW files directly for textures. Just make sure you can output as TIFF ,for example.
There’s some interesting information here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
The RAW picture is actually the fastest processing for the camera. BUT then storing the behemoth comes into play… But RAW is preferable with Cameras of reasonably high resolution or all your investment goes down into the .jpg artifacts and reduced color/brightness gamut.
Lemo
As was explained
Jpeg: smaller files, more per card, universal format. Negative is that it is “lossy”
which throws some picture information away.
RAW: larger files, more time needed, between shots, particular software needed
to process( have photoshop cs2 ,makes it a nonissue) contains original
unprocessed picture.
I guess what I am asking is that has anyone seen a raw file that has stood
head and sholders above a jpeg?
Not beating this into the ground but it is a big selling point made by
camera dealers and one which I am having difficulty finding comparisons
on.
As Bonecradle pointed out the cards ain’t cheap, and it has been a
practice to use more than one on a shoot.
hi bicc
check out these forums if you haven’t already…haven’t had a chance to go there lately so can’t say anything new about raw is being discussed but am sure it’s probably still being weighed. Perhaps there will be some pros and cons discussed that will help tip your scales for you.
I would go with raw myself…can always convert. I would want the best quality I could get for the buck for all possible things I might be using it for. Specially when printing. But the good always has drawbacks. Everyone must decide these kinds of things for themselves I think, if ya can try to get some hands on with it somehow.
use raw. the reason to use it is because theres MUCH more information within the file. if you use something like raw shooter then editing files is quick enough that the ( post workflow) is really a non issue.
a few reasons why you want to choose raw.
1.) if you under expose an image then you can bump up exposure in post and get an image that shows more detail. ( ofcourse you cant under expose TOO much, because if theres no data within an image then theres no way to get it back). same happens when you over expose. you can go down and get a more pleasing image. jpeg will not help at all in this case and the compression will be more prominent when you try to increase or decrease the contrast/image intensity.
2.)sharpness is much better on raw, because no compression has been applied. you can also change things like the colour temperature within the raw if your white balance was off to begin with ( usually it will be off( and in low light situations, most likely WAY off ).
on a jpeg white balance will be baked in, so you wont be able to change it.
its especially useful for textures since you want to use them in many different scenes most likely. but what if the texture was in shade, and you wanted a more neutral colour than what youll get by default ( blue hue )
its like any type of photography. you never throw out the negatives. if you need to have jpeg quickly then just take pictures in combination ( as in your camera will take a raw+jpeg at the same time.
Many thanks AW, exactly what I had hoped to find.
Photographer?
its a hobby. fun when travelling around. plus its useful to take pics of things that ill be modelling later ( or texturing later ).