RAW files... why didn't I do this sooner

[cpb145]

Thanks for some of the responses guys, but I think some of the larger points/questions have remained unanswered still. For instance -

1 - Regardless of what Google has done to my pics while loading, why can I clearly tell a difference between the different formats that I have converted the RAW image into while viewing via the Google photos, but yet I cannot tell the difference whatsoever when viewing the same images directly on my PC via Windows Photo viewer (or whatever it's called)? If I use my PC almost exclusively for viewing said images, the "what's the point?" question came about because of that. Why would I want to convert RAW into say BMP or TIFF and have it take up 4-8x the space on my hard drive when the smaller jpeg looks the same? I understand the benefits of shooting in RAW to be able to do the post work in a non-destructive manner, what I am asking about it converting that RAW into a viewable format and which one is preferable when it comes to a file size/image quality standpoint.

2 - Why, or more appropriately how, can a converted RAW image be larger than the RAW sensor data? I would understand if it was a hair larger for instance by tacking on EXIF tag information, but how can my RAW 14.2mb image become 45mb or 91mb after converting it into TIFF or BMP? I get the whole reduction of info that can happen when converting to jpeg etc, but can someone explain the massive addition of info to me? Again, what's the benefit to choosing such a large file extension to convert to? Especially when as mentioned above, I can't tell the difference when viewing on my PC whatsoever...

At the end of the day, I just wanted a more bit perfect 1 to 1 conversion of my RAW images into jpeg, and felt that the Olympus software I was using even set at the highest quality conversion was trimming too much fat. Now in a series of messages with Mtn Nut, who was gracious enough to convert some of my RAWs using Lightroom, it became apparent that Lightroom is superior in that area. His conversions to jpeg where about 30-40% larger than mine. Still not bit perfect, but enough so that I think I will begin using that program instead.

Thanks again!

[jdorje]

1 - Regardless of what Google has done to my pics while loading, why can I clearly tell a difference between the different formats that I have converted the RAW image into while viewing via the Google photos, but yet I cannot tell the difference whatsoever when viewing the same images directly on my PC via Windows Photo viewer (or whatever it's called)?

Most likely google is trying to be smart. Annoying.

2 - Why, or more appropriately how, can a converted RAW image be larger than the RAW sensor data?

Because it is saving in the wrong format. Maybe your RAW is an 8-bit channel but it's saving as a 16-bit channel. Or maybe it's bumping the resolution. This would depend on the conversion program and sounds like a bug.

Slightly less likely: the RAW is being compressed effectively and the TIFF is not.

His conversions to jpeg were about 30-40% larger than mine.

Jpeg size is going to be highly dependent on the quality you select (typically a 0-100% number chosen when you save the file). Raise the quality from 80% to 90% and you might get a file 40% larger.

Last thing: jpeg is superior when you are never going to be editing the file again. If you ever want to edit the file, you don't want it in jpeg.

[bubba911t]

I posted a rather long blog entry about this very topic. In short, if you care about pure image quality, RAW is the only way to go. More details in my blog post:

http://www.lifeilluminatedphotography.c ... nal-debate

[djkest]

I took all these great (to me) photos of my 14er journey. And now that I am done, I feel like I am just starting to grasp photography a little better. I guess I need to climb them again, to take more/better pics.

[12ersRule]

I guess I need to climb them again, to take more/better pics.

Or check out the neighbors for different aspects.

[djkest]

I guess I need to climb them again, to take more/better pics.

Or check out the neighbors for different aspects.

That's a great idea.

I've also realized that my trips to the mountains were focused on climbing the mountain quickly and safely, and not at all on getting the best pics.