I have been shooting in raw and jpeg because i didn't want to trust raw to start with lol. Well the raw shots seem to have more noise in them than the jpegs - is it just me?
yep that's almost certainly trueOriginally Posted by britchick, post: 90572
The in camera JPG has been extensively processed by the camera before you see it to have things like sharpening, some noise reduction and so on.
Your RAW file has just the data from the sensor there with nothing done to it. Hence you're seeing basically a digital negative and it can be quite surprising when you see how much work the camera must have been doing behind the scenes to get your jpgs looking like they do.
It basically comes down to workflow. With jpg you ought to be able to take the photo and use it, with RAW you absolutely HAVE to come up with a set of steps to "develop" your photo and the first of those should when needed be noise reduction
Whoooooooooooooooooosh! Gets colouring book out......
yep its very good! have a look at http://www.bibblelabs.com/Originally Posted by britchick, post: 90604
bibble is a fast raw converter with noise ninja built in!
It's really a question of what you're doing with the end product. The reason people are suggesting saving to a TIFF is this.i've just read to save the photos as 16bit tiffs instead of jpegs- will i be able to upload these to blogs/websites or will i have to then convert them to jpegs?
A JPG is so small because it uses a form of compression called Lossy compression. That is, certain information is thrown away and lost forever during the conversion. So when you get that jpg out of your camera, you've already thrown away an amount of detail.
A compressed TIFF uses a compression technique known as Lossless, meaning it's usually smaller than a RAW file although not as small as a JPG and still has all the detail in the file.
So, when you do your conversion from RAW, if you're still going to work on the file to sharpen it, change colours, levels and so on, it would be better to convert the file to a TIFF so that you're working on the full range of the photo if that makes sense?
Of course, eventually if you're going to output the photo to the web or whatever, you'll probably have to convert it again into a jpg but the point is that it's better to work on the full detail rather than throw it away early on