dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
ghost said:
I'm not going to be the one to convince you if it's good or not. I think, in my opinion, they look fine. You have to go to your local camera shop. Go ahead, ask them to show you a 4x6 print from the camera. If they are worth their salt they'll do it for you - it's no skin off their noses
Only you are going to be the determining factor in whether a print will look good enough for yourself.
We get caught up when we talk digital because a lot of folks love to enlarge the original image to 400% to determine just how "bad" the image out of the camera is. They then never bother to print when we all know that we do not press our noses up to framed photos on the wall to view said photos. It's always been an issue with digital images and cameras as long as I've been reading/using them.
Dave
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Are the RAW and TIFF formats qualitatively comparable?
My little Casio does not support RAW but TIFF. Is that comparible to RAW? I have only had this baby for over a week and thus haven't performed many tests yet.
My little Casio does not support RAW but TIFF. Is that comparible to RAW? I have only had this baby for over a week and thus haven't performed many tests yet.
ampguy
Veteran
huh?
huh?
have you used one? what did you think?
huh?
have you used one? what did you think?
ghost said:
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Kevin
Hi Kevin
maybe.
RAW and TIFF are both uncompressed, and both have advantages and disadvantages.
tweakers like RAW, but it's not standardized, you need proprietary software to view or modify the image.
TIFFs are a standard, and viewable with standard pc/mac software, and ready to go to print.
TIFFs are less flexible, in that in most cases the ISO and white balance from the camera settings are embedded in the image and cannot be changed as with RAW images.
RAW capture may be higher resolution (12-bits/pixel), where TIFFs may be 8 bits, bucketized into 12-bit TIFF files. Check your camera specs.
I don't know the specifics of your Casio's TIFF dump, I have a Lumix and if you know to set the ISO and WB correctly at photo time, the TIFFs will be good, and not benefit from RAW tweaks for my needs.
So the answer to your question is maybe, but there are parameters you likely can't tweak in the the TIFF that you could in RAW with enough time and proprietary software at hand.
Hi Kevin
maybe.
RAW and TIFF are both uncompressed, and both have advantages and disadvantages.
tweakers like RAW, but it's not standardized, you need proprietary software to view or modify the image.
TIFFs are a standard, and viewable with standard pc/mac software, and ready to go to print.
TIFFs are less flexible, in that in most cases the ISO and white balance from the camera settings are embedded in the image and cannot be changed as with RAW images.
RAW capture may be higher resolution (12-bits/pixel), where TIFFs may be 8 bits, bucketized into 12-bit TIFF files. Check your camera specs.
I don't know the specifics of your Casio's TIFF dump, I have a Lumix and if you know to set the ISO and WB correctly at photo time, the TIFFs will be good, and not benefit from RAW tweaks for my needs.
So the answer to your question is maybe, but there are parameters you likely can't tweak in the the TIFF that you could in RAW with enough time and proprietary software at hand.
Kevin said:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Kevin said:
Unfortunately the big difference is that raw supports 12 bits per color, while TIFF only 8 like JPEG, essentially a TIFF image has already been processed by the camera, while the raw image is raw datra coming from the sensor.
The only advantage that TIFF has over JPEG is that it is not compressed, so it's free from any artefacts due to the JPEG compression, however IMHO the quality difference between high quality JPEG and TIFF is negligible, and does not justify the amount of memory used by TIFF.
John
Well-known
OK I'll bite. I have a Canon Power Shot S 50 5 megapixel p+s. It is capable of shooting raw. After I run the raw files through the Canon utility and save as tiffs - what workflow should I try? I have Elements 4 and Gimp, (and others). Levels adjust? auto adjust? Should I apply unsharp mask second last and noise ninja last? (if required). Point me in the right direction so I can read up on it.
ampguy
Veteran
here's what I would do:
here's what I would do:
take the tiff to your local drug store and enlarge to 8x10.
put your M3 on a tripod, and take a picture of the 8x10.
Take the film out of your M3 and go back to the drugstore for developing and the resulting 8x10 will have all that raw work and more done for you.
here's what I would do:
take the tiff to your local drug store and enlarge to 8x10.
put your M3 on a tripod, and take a picture of the 8x10.
Take the film out of your M3 and go back to the drugstore for developing and the resulting 8x10 will have all that raw work and more done for you.
John said:OK I'll bite. I have a Canon Power Shot S 50 5 megapixel p+s. It is capable of shooting raw. After I run the raw files through the Canon utility and save as tiffs - what workflow should I try? I have Elements 4 and Gimp, (and others). Levels adjust? auto adjust? Should I apply unsharp mask second last and noise ninja last? (if required). Point me in the right direction so I can read up on it.
ghost
Well-known
IGMeanwell said:
at high iso, none.
ghost
Well-known
dcsang said:
uh...exactly? we usually don't put framed 4x6 prints on the wall and look at them from a distance. we usually put them in albums and look at them intimately.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Thx Ampguy, Francesco
Thx Ampguy, Francesco
Hey, thanks for the quick and understandable replies !
I already noticed that the .tiff files are much larger than the high resolution .jpg files. I thought that the .tiff files must therefore be uncompressed, RAW equivalents. My mistake.
Does anyone else here have this digital p&s? I bought it new/old-stock - a model from 2004 (Casio Exilim EX-P700).
It is the only small digital p&s I could find with an external flash terminal !
Thx Ampguy, Francesco
Hey, thanks for the quick and understandable replies !
I already noticed that the .tiff files are much larger than the high resolution .jpg files. I thought that the .tiff files must therefore be uncompressed, RAW equivalents. My mistake.
Does anyone else here have this digital p&s? I bought it new/old-stock - a model from 2004 (Casio Exilim EX-P700).
It is the only small digital p&s I could find with an external flash terminal !
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Kevin,
Have you actually used an external flash with the Casio?
Have you actually used an external flash with the Casio?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
ghost said:
Sure we do.
Everyone all around the world does this.....
Dave
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
IGMeanwell said:
That is why I bought the thing in the first place
In daylight I can set the camera to ISO 80 and fire away.
When the light gets low I put the Casio and my standard Metz swivel/tilt flash on a bracket. I set the camera to Manual, allowing me to quickly and easily change the aperature and shutter speed.
The image results can be very good indeed, and the whole digital with flash setup is relatively small, light and unobtrusive.
People sometimes laugh when they see this tiny p&s attached to a flash almost twice as large !!!
I would recommend this setup to every rf-user here. The camera might not be the most modern camera on the market, but having an external flash terminal on such a small digicam makes up for all shortcomings, whatever they may be.
Will post some flash rabbit pics here soon.
Kevin
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Kevin,
I will be looking forward to those for sure ... I like the odd and innovative (really the first I have heard the use of a flash mount on a Digital P&S)
I will be looking forward to those for sure ... I like the odd and innovative (really the first I have heard the use of a flash mount on a Digital P&S)
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
No prob!
I will post something as soon as I have replaced my pc's graphics card !
In the meantime you can read the review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioexp700/
I bought two of them because the price of old-stock inventory has almost halved. This camera is a winner for me and has quenched my desire for anything better, probably because of its small size, manual controls, flash terminal !!! and of course the 7.1 MP sensor !!!
Personally I wouldn't even consider the newer EX-Z700:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06072601casioexz700.asp
I will post something as soon as I have replaced my pc's graphics card !
In the meantime you can read the review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioexp700/
I bought two of them because the price of old-stock inventory has almost halved. This camera is a winner for me and has quenched my desire for anything better, probably because of its small size, manual controls, flash terminal !!! and of course the 7.1 MP sensor !!!
Personally I wouldn't even consider the newer EX-Z700:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06072601casioexz700.asp
ghost
Well-known
dcsang said:
ok, i'll take that as a "no".
i printed out some 4x6s. iso 400 is fine, the others aren't. if you like it, i'll bet it only lasts until aps-c sensors make it to small cameras!
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Kevin said:
Is that the only Digital P&S that has an external flash connection?
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
In that size the answer could be yes, however I haven't completely researched the market, past and present.
I do believe that Casio introduced a p&s with a feature that the mainstream market did not consider valuable enough to warrant paying extra for.
When the EX-P700 came out in late 2004 it cost retail almost $700 !!!
I got each of mine new for less than half that price. I might even pick up a third if the price drops below $200 (you know how easily these things can break, especially during a job!).
I cannot tell you how powerful and liberating it is to have such a small, light digital p&s attached to a big flash. Everyone wants to have their picture taken with this rig. I mean everyone.
For events in which a customer will not afford film-based photography or even pro digital photography (which I have no gear for anyways), this is the only solution I could come up with.
Perhaps my bunny pics will convince you that this is the right solution for you?
Will be back soon!
Kevin
I do believe that Casio introduced a p&s with a feature that the mainstream market did not consider valuable enough to warrant paying extra for.
When the EX-P700 came out in late 2004 it cost retail almost $700 !!!
I got each of mine new for less than half that price. I might even pick up a third if the price drops below $200 (you know how easily these things can break, especially during a job!).
I cannot tell you how powerful and liberating it is to have such a small, light digital p&s attached to a big flash. Everyone wants to have their picture taken with this rig. I mean everyone.
For events in which a customer will not afford film-based photography or even pro digital photography (which I have no gear for anyways), this is the only solution I could come up with.
Perhaps my bunny pics will convince you that this is the right solution for you?
Will be back soon!
Kevin
ampguy
Veteran
cool, i like bunny pics.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
dcsang said:
I agree with you there as far as using NN etc. on jpeg files. For most people, P&S are just for jpeg capture for getting the image "now". I find RAW invaluable, even with my little LX1. It was my camera of choice in getting a small pocketable P&S. It's a great little street shooter - small and silent. The "noise" has never been a problem. I think people tend to dwell on this issue far too much. I am looking forward to the LX2 this September.
Cheers.
Last edited: