Comments on: Nikon D700: RAW and JPEG Files Compared http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/ The Blog for Quillcards Distinctive Ecards Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:35:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Straight out of the Camera: Nikon D700 at 1600 ISO http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-628 Straight out of the Camera: Nikon D700 at 1600 ISO Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:39:36 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-628 [...] For more shots, take a look at the article on RAW files versus JPEGS in the Nikon D700 at Quillcards, whose strapline is distinctive ecards. You can find the specific article in the Quillcards Blog. [...] [...] For more shots, take a look at the article on RAW files versus JPEGS in the Nikon D700 at Quillcards, whose strapline is distinctive ecards. You can find the specific article in the Quillcards Blog. [...]

]]> By: David Bennett http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-617 David Bennett Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:31:54 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-617 I just had a look at a couple of your files and I can see they are around 128KB for images that are about 600x400 pixels. You can probably halve that or more and not see any difference on screen. I'd be interested to know how you get on. I just had a look at a couple of your files and I can see they are around 128KB for images that are about 600×400 pixels. You can probably halve that or more and not see any difference on screen.

I’d be interested to know how you get on.

]]> By: Shipra Chauhan http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-616 Shipra Chauhan Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:38:46 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-616 Ah, I see. I have been using bigger Jpeg file sizes, and of course it's been a pain. Thanks, I definitely have to look into instilling RAW to Jpeg conversion in my regular web work-flow. Getting greater compression will be a great added benefit. Ah, I see. I have been using bigger Jpeg file sizes, and of course it’s been a pain. Thanks, I definitely have to look into instilling RAW to Jpeg conversion in my regular web work-flow. Getting greater compression will be a great added benefit.

]]> By: David Bennett http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-615 David Bennett Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:16:08 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-615 I aim for a file size of around 40KB or less for an image that is 500x333 pixels. I aim for a file size of around 40KB or less for an image that is 500×333 pixels.

]]> By: Shipra Chauhan http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-614 Shipra Chauhan Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:24:38 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-614 Good pointer- I will definitely try that to see where a 40-50% RAW to JPEG compression leads me to, as opposed to using a large JPEG straight from the camera. Would you really need compression if you were starting off from a Jpeg? What's the image size you generally aim to use on the web? Good pointer- I will definitely try that to see where a 40-50% RAW to JPEG compression leads me to, as opposed to using a large JPEG straight from the camera.

Would you really need compression if you were starting off from a Jpeg? What’s the image size you generally aim to use on the web?

]]> By: David Bennett http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-612 David Bennett Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:11:48 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-612 I normally convert to full size jpeg at 100%. The I save for web at around 41%, which is about right for the balance between file size and preserving detail in a 500 pixel wide image. Maybe if I started with a coarser jpeg the trade off would be that I would have to save for web at more than 41% in order to maintain quality. I normally convert to full size jpeg at 100%. The I save for web at around 41%, which is about right for the balance between file size and preserving detail in a 500 pixel wide image.

Maybe if I started with a coarser jpeg the trade off would be that I would have to save for web at more than 41% in order to maintain quality.

]]> By: Shipra Chauhan http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-611 Shipra Chauhan Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:20:53 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-611 Great post David! I use the Nikon D90, and it also allows me to shoot Jpeg and RAW versions at the same time, which I have been doing quite religiously. To be honest, I have not been processing and using the RAW images most of the time,but I have been keeping a stock of RAW files nonetheless, in case I need them for a much finer quality image. For the very reasons you noted here. For the purpose of sharing images online (esp on my blog), I do find using finer Jpegs straight from the camera much more convenient (for the little time and space they consume). The difference in RAW converted to Jpeg and Jpeg straight from the camera, is so very obvious here! The sharpness, detail, color gradations are all packed with much more information in the RAW version. Needless to say, I definitely like the RAW version better. Not just because RAW would allow me to post-process better, but also because the RAW image is so much closer to what our eye actually sees and registers while taking an image. And that is the whole point of capturing an image, right?! :) More about the various compressions of Jpegs available straight from the camera: I get to choose, Standard, Normal, Large/fine Jpegs. Here, I have chosen to shoot only Large/Fine Jpegs (along with Raw). I have not compared these Jpeg versions until now, and I do wonder if these too will show a big variance on the computer screen, apart from the difference in space they take up on my hard disk. Other than that, I am quite sure that a marked difference will be quite evident in blown up prints. Great post David!
I use the Nikon D90, and it also allows me to shoot Jpeg and RAW versions at the same time, which I have been doing quite religiously.

To be honest, I have not been processing and using the RAW images most of the time,but I have been keeping a stock of RAW files nonetheless, in case I need them for a much finer quality image. For the very reasons you noted here. For the purpose of sharing images online (esp on my blog), I do find using finer Jpegs straight from the camera much more convenient (for the little time and space they consume).

The difference in RAW converted to Jpeg and Jpeg straight from the camera, is so very obvious here! The sharpness, detail, color gradations are all packed with much more information in the RAW version. Needless to say, I definitely like the RAW version better. Not just because RAW would allow me to post-process better, but also because the RAW image is so much closer to what our eye actually sees and registers while taking an image. And that is the whole point of capturing an image, right?! :)

More about the various compressions of Jpegs available straight from the camera: I get to choose, Standard, Normal, Large/fine Jpegs. Here, I have chosen to shoot only Large/Fine Jpegs (along with Raw). I have not compared these Jpeg versions until now, and I do wonder if these too will show a big variance on the computer screen, apart from the difference in space they take up on my hard disk. Other than that, I am quite sure that a marked difference will be quite evident in blown up prints.

]]> By: David Bennett http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-566 David Bennett Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:40:54 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-566 Yes, that is one of the main attractions of jpegs, if not the main attraction. Yes, that is one of the main attractions of jpegs, if not the main attraction.

]]> By: Hanna http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-564 Hanna Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:54:48 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-564 RAW files are a lot bigger than JPEG files. RAW files are a lot bigger than JPEG files.

]]> By: Joan http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Joan Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:37:35 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-525 Does shooting in RAW take up more space on the disk or use more battery power? In other words, I can't figure out why someone would shoot in jpeg rather than shooting in RAW all the time. Does shooting in RAW take up more space on the disk or use more battery power? In other words, I can’t figure out why someone would shoot in jpeg rather than shooting in RAW all the time.

]]> By: Joan http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Joan Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:35:08 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-524 About the only difference I notice is that the RAW image is a bit sharper, perhaps lighter, as seen in the white area of the fur. In that case, I would prefer to work withe the RAW image. Thanks for demystifying this subject for me. I would think most photographers would prefer their images in the RAW. I would. About the only difference I notice is that the RAW image is a bit sharper, perhaps lighter, as seen in the white area of the fur. In that case, I would prefer to work withe the RAW image. Thanks for demystifying this subject for me. I would think most photographers would prefer their images in the RAW. I would.

]]> By: Nick Lewis http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-523 Nick Lewis Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:27:34 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-523 Most definitely - I shoot entirely in RAW myself. Most definitely – I shoot entirely in RAW myself.

]]> By: David Bennett http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-520 David Bennett Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:55:10 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-520 Glad you think so - the evidence is clear, as you say. Glad you think so – the evidence is clear, as you say.

]]> By: plantfivetrees http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-519 plantfivetrees Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:42:49 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-519 [...] This post was commented on at Twitter by plantfivetrees [...] [...] This post was commented on at Twitter by plantfivetrees [...]

]]> By: luis faustino http://quillcards.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/29/nikon-d700-raw-and-jpeg-files-compared/comment-page-1/#comment-518 luis faustino Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:42:17 +0000 http://quillcards.com/blog/?p=1231#comment-518 There is clear evidence the JPEG obtained from Raw conversion has better sharpness & colors. There is clear evidence the JPEG obtained from Raw conversion has better sharpness & colors.

]]>