RAW or processed?
 

I've just got a digital SLR and wondered if anyone could advise on the best format to store the pics on my memory card. I know RAW takes up a lot more space but have read that each time you open a jpeg you lose some information as the file re-compresses itself. Also how do you get the printer to match the colours shown on the monitor? I've tried saving the pics with or without an ICC colour profile but neither seems to make any difference.

Re: RAW or processed?
 

RAW format is basically just a dump of the CCD. You can then chose the convertor to decode that image. There are better ones than offered by the camera inbuilt or even by the software that comes with your camera. Some graphics programs (the Gimp for example) can handle RAW images directly.

JPEGs are used because they offer small file sizes for a set size image. It is also accepted as the defacto standard for images on the imternet.

So basically, if its image quality you want, shoot as RAW and experiment to find the best decoder you can. If its convenience use JPEG.

I use both depending on what I'm doing. At Accyweb meets JPEG is fine. When I went up the Coppice the other day or when I'm taking pics of my baby daughter I use RAW.

As for printing colour calibration, not been there as I tend to go to Garth Dawsons and let him print them as his machine costs a few pennies more than my home inkjet and his prices are very reasonable even against internet printing sites.

Ian

(Fuji S7000 btw)

Re: RAW or processed?
 

I think it would be cheaper to have the pics printed at Garth Dawsons or somewhere similar but there again I could buy trout at a supermarket. The ones I catch myself always taste better though.
As to RAW vs jpeg I'll give it a try and see if saving the pics in RAW format solves the printing problem. The camera's a Minolta Dynax D5 btw.

Re: RAW or processed?
 

For the most part I use JPG with hardly any compression so I dont lose much data.. Oh and its every time you save not every time you open you lose data:)

RAW I have recently started using for night matches because the quality os so poor (only the floodlights to light the scene) and wiht RAW I can manipulate so much more and quicker.

Colours.. I have eceryhting default and a epson r200 printer and everyhting seems to print hunky dorey :)

Re: RAW or processed?
 

Raw if you want to print them at a high res, or do any cropping or photo editing, jpeg if there just snaps or images for the web, your kind of right about it compressing every time you open it but only does it if you change something, ie it wont re-compress if you open - view then close it but if you for example sharpen the pic then close it it will compress it. Yeah Raw do take more room up but if your set to jpeg mode and that pic of a lifetime comes along then you've missed it. main bonus is you dont need to worry about white balance in raw as this can be set after, once its saved as a jpeg its too late, the draw back though is raw takes up a lot of your time :-(
Colour calibration there a a few about, pantone "spyder" is reasonably priced and works quite well, i have this one, then there is macbeth monac and gretag, your printer won't be far out if its a newish one, its probably your screen thats out of calibration, have you got adobe? this comes with monitor calibration, its not as good as the stand alone programs but it will improve things. If your images are no better after the calibration you will need to get your printer calibrated, i use pantone colourvision printfix but you'll have to check your printer is supported. There are places online who will do a printer profile for you but it costs about £30