What format do you shoot in?

I have always shot in JPEG and then saved better shots in TIFF. I see some mention they shot in TIFF.

Does TIFF not create a lag while the image stores? Also, is there a quality benefit to shooting TIFF over JPEG and then converting to TIFF.

Correct me if I am wrong Eric but in am sure Watt and Fleetham were shooting in JPEG.

I always shoot in JPEG purely because of the storage time lag. Time U/W is precious. Although obviously quality will be far superior in Tiff or RAW mode. If you have that special shot requirement & have the time then fine TIFF away. These files rarely save less than 10Meg, whereas your average high quality JPEG will be around 1 Meg. Storage is also an issue (unless you use microdrive).

I think for high end quality uncompressed is a prerequisite and you have to live with the storage lag. For the vast majority I am sure high quality JPEG will more than suffice.

It will be interesting to see what the new high end cameras (Kodak 14 full format) produce in terms of storage lag.

Mark H

Hi Todd,

I don't see any reason to shoot in TIFF. I can shoot a full-rez RAW file at 12 megs on my S2 when the same TIFF will be 35 megs. I just convert the RAW to TIFF at home. I only convert the shots I want.

So the question falls to: Should I shoot RAW or JPEG? If I could switch during a dive, I'd choose JPEG as the "default" and then only switch to RAW when the "shot of a lifetime" appears.

If I'm going on a dive where I think/know I will get some shots that I consider "special" then I shoot all RAW. That's what I did on the sealion dive that Eric and I did over Thanksgiving. But then Eric shot JPEG and his shots are great...

Cheers

James

I really like that V-MP3 and it accepts JPEG.

I would like to avoid taking my laptop as I do not like spending time editting pics while on a trip. I like being able to review them for adjustments though.

Editting on a plane is not a bad thing of course.

You just use the x-image storage and borrow viewing capabilities if I understand correctly?

I use the Image Tank for storage and review the shots for focus and exposure on a TV. Just about everywhere I go has a TV (fortunately, or unfortunately) The Fuji comes with a cord so that I can plug it into any NTSC television.

I wouldn't mind carrying a light laptop such as a Panasonic R1 of a VAIO R505. Then I could burn CD's for extra backup.

Cheers

James

I was truly confused and undecided about this topic before my last trip but ended up shooting full resolution RAW in Belize with my S2. Using a 512 CF card, I can get 39 shots. Having just transformed from film to digital, that's a 3 shot bonus in my view. I just picked up some 16 x 20 enlargements where the resolution seems to be nice and sharp even though they are crops from the original. I'm really glad that I was shooting the highest resolution available for these.

To me it's kind of like what I learned with film. If you are going to spend the time and money getting there, why restrict yourself. I never bought anything but the best film and never dove with less than a full roll, many times wasting unused shots from the dive before. You now have the equipment and technology to match resolution with film. Why cut yourself short?

Not to mention that you can easily "push" the shot later if it's a RAW format. You can do that in photoshop with Levels - but I think it's better if you do it straight from the RAW to TIFF.

Cheers

James

I'm planning on shooting in RAW for my first trip with the cp5000..........I'm using a Viking 512 compact flash card and the record time is approximately 15-18 seconds

It's 10-12 seconds shooting in fine

Does this sound right?

Karl

Are you sure it's 10-12 seconds shooting in Fine? I thought it was much less, like 4 or less.

Cheers

James

I'm sure.............????

I borrowed another brand CF and it was barely any faster

Ideas?

Karl

With the 5000 should write to fine in 2 to 4 sec. I've measured it several times. I have 512 Viking and SanDisc Ultra 24x CF cards. The Viking is a little faster. Took around 10 sec for Raw.

This is significantly faster than a Tiff file. :ph34r:

wonder what I'm doing wrong..........is there another setting that could control this?

I've measured this several times and it's always consistant.........slooooooooooow!

Karl

discovered that I had the info.text setting turned on..............when I turned it off, the record time for "fine" dropped to 4 seconds

record time for "RAW" is 22 seconds

Yahsemtough, as you've noticed, you have options for the type and quality of image you wish your camera to capture.

You may already know this, and others have touched on the some parts of it, but with jpeg format, there is always some level of compression involved. Jpeg uses an algorithm that more or less randomly discards pixels of the same color in order to make the file smaller. It does this each time the file is resaved as a jpeg. If you select the highest quality available, which has the least compression, the least amount of data will be discarded from your image. Each time you edit it afterward and resave it, more and more data is discarded until eventually the image is unrecognizable. TIFF and RAW formats do not have any compression so no data is lost. But their files are much larger, which means longer file saving times in the camera and longer download times but better data quality. is he going to ramble on like this forever?>

I have a Fuji S2 digital SLR. It is capable of shooting in RAW, TIFF and jpeg. TIFF got ruled out right away because only 27 would fit on a 1 gig microdrive and it took way, way too long to write the file to the disc. Not acceptable. That left a choice of RAW or jpeg. The write times for RAW and the highest quality of jpeg were pretty similar but the download times for RAW was a lot longer. RAW also has the additional processing step of converting to TIFF required but I was willing to live with that if the image quality difference was significant. So I did a test.

We set up the camera on a tripod and took a photo of the cushion on my sofa. (lots of fibers and detail and stuff) The same image, one shot in RAW and one in jpeg. Then we loaded both into the computer, converted the RAW to TIFF (required), blew both of them up to 300%, and printed out the center portion of the images at 5x7.

The test became even better when we accidently dropped the two prints and got them mixed up. We were unable to tell which was which. There was that little of a difference. It should be pointed out that the jpeg had only been save, and compressed, once at this point and only then with the most pixels and least amount of compression possible. Save the jpeg a few more times and try the test again and the results could be drastically different.

Now... If there is so little difference under such conditions, there doesn't seem to be much of a compelling argument, to me, for the extra hassle of shooting in RAW.

Since then, I shoot everything in the highest quality jpeg. Lots of file storage on the microdrive, fast shooting speeds, easy downloads, etc. Once it's in the computer, I pick the files I really like, load them into Photoshop to make any edits necessary, and then save the result as a TIFF to prevent further loss of quality. It's been working great so far!

Please let me know if this rambling missive was confusing and clarification is needed.

John

Actaully I did know most of the technical differences but, was wondering on the qualty difference vs writetime etc.

Your test helped. You should actally post the pics so we can see, or has someoen done a similiar test underwater. I know I would be interested in seeing it.

If not I will try it next month when I get the chance.

Thanks for your input it is appreciated.

Hi John, and welcome to Wetpixel!

I'm sure you'll find a lot of lively discussion here from other digital shooters and especially the other "S2-heads."

I agree that the quality difference isn't that great for most shots between 12 megapixel JPEG's and 12 megapixel RAW->Tiff.

But just wait until you get that one chance to take "the shot of a lifetime" and it comes out underexposed. This is where the advantage of RAW shooting truly comes into play.

Using the RAW converters, you can "push your film" by up to 3 stops!!!!! When shooting in low light conditions, I was able to "save" some of my sea lion shots this way. This push is far greater and more accurate than using levels in Photoshop.

Todd: Unfortunately, since we can't switch between RAW and JPEG underwater (yet) it will be hard to do a comparison.

Cheers

James

I think I can switch...hum I better check that out tonite to be sure.

I'm not an S2-head but I like RAW because it gives me everything the camera EVER had. You no longer need to be concerned with white balance while UW, for example. If the camera creates JPG's it will cook the RAW data then discard a bunch of it. That cookin' had better be right.

Bingo.

Amen to that. I'd love the extra space for images on the CF card, but I'd rather take home the best images I can.