Yes this is an over worked question. I have a EOS30d Ive been shooting jpeg L,I want to know without using photoshop but using DPP is there a benefit if all I want is to shoot in RAW and just convert with DPP with little changes,sharpness,WB ect. When I shoot jpeg the files are 3 to 5 megs if i shoot raw they are approx 2x,now when in DPP after conversion are they jpeg or tiff, if tif can this be printed easy and if I convert them to a jpeg would it be a lossless conversion? So I could take that jpeg file of 6 to 10 megs would that image printed be better than that of using Jpeg L in camera?
I dont print my own.
Looks like there's about 10 questions worked into this little diddy. You might have better luck getting responses to all of them if you listed each, individually.
As to the question of whether the converted file would print better than an L jpg, I'd say it depends on the shot and how you go about the conversion. If you absolutely nail the shot in every respect at the time of exposure, there shouldn't be much difference. Otherwise, I'd contend the converted RAW file will have the potential for giving you a better print.
Bottom line is that every JPG image is a lossy conversion, whether it's done in the camera or in post processing. When you shoot JPG images, the camera essentially takes the raw data captured and automatically converts it to JPG, tossing aside data and compressing the image to whatever setting you chose. When you shoot RAW, the camera skips the step of conversion and you take the raw data into a program where you decide how to process it. If you convert it to JPG upon completion, you will have some degree of compression, again depending on the settings you choose.
Now, whether or not it will print better depends on what size you're going to print. With more pixels available, you can print larger prints at greater resolution and without having to resort to resampling (making up pixels to account for size). If you're printing 8X10 or smaller, you likely won't see any differences at all.
I basically agree with what Russ says...RAW gives you more potential in many ways beyond the obvious. RAW has greater color depth, more pixels to work with, greater dynamic range, the ability to easily alter the mood of the light by controlling white balance afterwards, and more options in processing. One thing that I have enjoyed about shooting RAW over the last 4 years is that as my skill levels in the digital darkroom have increased or my software improved, I've been able to reprocess older files from their original state.
When you shoot RAW, the camera skips the step of conversion and you take the raw data into a program where you decide how to process it. If you convert it to JPG upon completion, you will have some degree of compression, again depending on the settings you choose.
In addition to the above, the processing code itself matters a lot. The firmware code in the camera that processes the RAW to JPEG is optimized for extreme speed, low power use, and small size. The computer has a luxury of time, disc space, and power, so the DPP code is optimized for image quality. In my tests, shooting RAW+JPEG and using DPP to make a straight conversion to JPEG still resulted in a clearly visible increase in dynamic range--even with all other factors being equal.
Ohenry and RDkirk thanks for the info you 2 are the first to answer my silly question,so I take it If I shoot RAW and just run it through DPP do a striaght conversion to Jpeg how much does DPP compress it as opposed to the camera?
I am trying to convince myself to start shooting RAW
I don't use DPP, but I'm guessing that you can control the quality level of the conversion. The higher quality you choose, the less compression occurs.
For me, unless you're on a deadline or just don't want to spend the time in the digital darkroom, I can't think of any advantages of shooting JPG over RAW.
