How to handle JPEG files if you can’t shoot in RAW

[Siki]

Is it best to take your JPEG files from your camera and immediately convert them to TIFF? My concern is to get the file into a loss less format asap.

Does it matter what program you use to convert the files into TIFF? I have been using IFRAN View but I don’t have enough experience to know if there is a better way.

Thanks

Siki

[Jonathan Bird]

Once your files have been compressed to jpeg, you have lost a lot of data in the compression scheme. Converting to TIFF and doing all your work in TIFF is certainly better than using jpeg where you will get even more degradation every time you re-save. I would splurge on Photoshop Elements ($99) for your software. It's nice to use the best.

Does your camera have a RAW setting?

[Siki]

Actually, I am in the process of choosing a point & shoot camera.

Would you sacrifice 1 megabyte of file size for the option of shooting in RAW mode?

This is the difference between the Canon Powershot A640 at 10 megs and no RAW capabilities and the Fuji E900 at 9megs and with RAW capabilities.

Aloha

Siki

[Jonathan Bird]

I would absolutely rather have a 9 MP camera with Raw over a 10 MP without it. Raw is much much better and the difference between 9 and 10 MP is moot.

Jonahtan

[plazma]

Actually, I am in the process of choosing a point & shoot camera.

Would you sacrifice 1 megabyte of file size for the option of shooting in RAW mode?

This is the difference between the Canon Powershot A640 at 10 megs and no RAW capabilities and the Fuji E900 at 9megs and with RAW capabilities.

Aloha

Siki

You can shoot RAW pictures with Canon A640.
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/FAQ#FAQ

-Pasi

[Olmen]

Sacrificing space for RAW is a always a win situation. Go with RAW and get Adobe Lightroom which is the best thing since sliced bread. I've not shot any underwater yet (just got my OWD license this summer) but from the other photography work I do I can tell you that I've saved countless of photos (and money) from shooting with RAW. The nice thing about RAW is that there's SO much more color information than in a normal JPEG. You can accidentally underexpose almost 2 stops and overexpose about 1 stop and still get a very decent picture when using RAW.

Photoshop CAN be used as a RAW "manipulator" but I'd recommend Lightroom since it's easier to use and a lot cheaper.

[Jonathan Bird]

Go with RAW and get Adobe Lightroom which is the best thing since sliced bread.

I couldn't agree more.

[Clay Coleman]

I'm looking to upgrade my software from an ancient version of PS. What advantages does Lightroom have over Elements? -Clay

[tarczy]

Clay-

Trust me on this one . . . plunk down the $200 for Lightroom and start using it!! You will see all of its inherent advantages in about ten minutes. It's phenomenal!!

I would normally take the time to list all the time saving advantages Lightroom provides, but frankly, I don't have the time.

That said, I will tell you that, by using Lightroom, you will eliminate about 10 minutes of post production time per image. If you have an absolute "must-have" image of something, but it needs some extreme tweaking, then you use Elements. Otherwise, 99% of your images can be post processed in a twink of an eye by using Lightroom.

TWO THUMBS UP!!!! :D :D :D :D

[dbh]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS] you will eliminate about 10 minutes of post production time per image.

If ANYONE is spending 10 minutes + on post processing....they need to be taking better photos. 2-3 minutes max., unless it is a one-of-a-kind image.

YMMV, IMHO (and all of those other disclaimers).

Dave

[tarczy]

If ANYONE is spending 10 minutes + on post processing....they need to be taking better photos. 2-3 minutes max., unless it is a one-of-a-kind image.

Dave

Yeah . . . yeah . . . blah, blah, blah! Same old drill. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Forgive me for using some hyperbole to make a point about just how great Lightroom is at improving digital work flow. For a more in-depth discussion about digital workflow and Lightroom, see this thread . . .

http://www.uwphotochat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202 (http://www.uwphotochat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202).

[Clay Coleman]

Hmm. If I save 10 minutes on something that takes 2 minutes, will I go back in time? -Clay

[tarczy]

Hmm. If I save 10 minutes on something that takes 2 minutes, will I go back in time? -Clay

Ha ha!

Try it . . . see what happens!!

I'm gettin' younger every year!! ;)

[Jonathan Bird]

Not necessarily if you have clunky raw software and you have to manually do a lot of stuff. Maybe not literally 10 minutes per image, but Lightroom is a godsend for speeding up stuff and managing large libraries of images.

Mark is right, trust me and him, it's the best $200 you will ever spend on digital imaging. I would list all the benefits, but it would take forever. Seriously. Just "buy it now and thank me later!"

Jonathan