Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Are there any non-obvious advantages/disadvantages of setting my 7D to use small or medium RAW instead of large?

I seldom print pictures, and the way I take photos the sensor is almost never the limiting factor when it comes to resolution. Hence I tend to use small RAW size, as that gives me more shots from the same CF and limits disk-guzzling.

Apart from the risk of missing out on some great shot that could've been even greater cropped or printed in large sizes, are there any technical considerations doing this?

Theoretically, less pixels in the final image than in the sensor should leave room for noise-reduction through interpolation, but I guess that's not happening?

share|improve this question
1  
See also photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3419 for details about sraw and mraw. I'm not sure this is quite a duplicate since that just summarizes the technical differences not the pros/cons. (Which may not necessarily be obvious from the technical details.) –  mattdm Mar 19 '11 at 14:19
    
Thanks, just the kind of thing I was looking for! –  Erika Mar 19 '11 at 20:09

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

You may be able to sacrifice a bunch of pixels before your final rendering of the image, especially if you're just going to display the image on the web. However, by choosing a smaller filesize in camera, you lose control over how those pixels are lost. There are many different ways to downscale an image (this question shows several); each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages; some are sharper for certain image types than others, etc.

Probably the most useful way to throw away pixels is by cropping. You won't be able to crop as tightly and still have a sharp image if you're only storing half-size RAWs.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree that cropping is probably the best use for spare pixels. Regarding control over the downsizing, I understand but can't help but think this is quite a bit above my level. And reading the info mattdm linked to, sRAW doesn't seem to be that bad. –  Erika Mar 19 '11 at 20:40

You say 'I just want to know if I've overlooked something'.

It is possible you have overlooked the fact that your needs and goals will change over time. As time passes your photos will acquire an additional emotional and nostalgic value. And this value increases with the years. You will then see your photographic imagery in a whole new way that will suggest new ways of using them.

By capturing the highest quality images you retain the ability in later years to process them, re-interpret or print them in accordance with your changed needs and goals.

share|improve this answer
    
Good point, easy to overlook when you're young and at it. However I'm not sure it convinces me to go with the extra storage need. –  Erika Mar 19 '11 at 20:12

It sounds like you are already aware of the trade offs.

You can't create the data later. Hard drives are cheap.

share|improve this answer
    
Everything's relative, this is the way I like it. :) I just want to know if I've overlooked something. –  Erika Mar 19 '11 at 7:12
2  
Hard drives are cheap but our time gets more and more expensive. Processing smaller RAW files takes less time, and that's not a bad thing. –  Jędrek Kostecki Mar 19 '11 at 12:31
    
@Jędrek Kostecki, but computers get faster and faster, allowing the RAW files to be processed ever more quickly. –  labnut Mar 19 '11 at 20:41

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.