Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-27-2013, 07:04 AM   #121
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,333
Quick question, do most here shoot in the RAW ?
__________________

__________________
Normal is an illusion...what is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-27-2013, 07:05 AM   #122
Recycles dryer sheets
timeasterday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
Quick question, do most here shoot in the RAW ?
I only shoot in RAW.
__________________

__________________
timeasterday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 07:37 AM   #123
Recycles dryer sheets
TOOLMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
Quick question, do most here shoot in the RAW ?
RAW most of the time.
__________________
TOOLMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 07:52 AM   #124
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,242
RAW for my personal work but if I'm shooting off hundreds of pictures of my niece I'd rather use jpeg.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 09:33 AM   #125
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between Chicago and Phoenix
Posts: 7,409
Raw for my photo class work - teacher says to always shoot in raw.
__________________
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years" - Abraham Lincoln
Ronstar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:06 AM   #126
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 16,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronstar View Post
Raw for my photo class work - teacher says to always shoot in raw.
I'd love to see some justification for this.

Now I can understand it for truly high end work, where every tiny degree of quality is important to preserve, and 'compromise' just isn't part of the vocabulary. And I know you don't want to do multiple conversions if you are doing adjustments, as each compression step will have a multiplier effect on the artifacts. But it seems to me that for most work, shooting jpg would be fine, just convert to a non-compressed format if/when you are ready to do some adjustments.

Now for audio, I'm big on keeping at least my masters/backups in non-compressed format (FLAC). But the 'cost' is small, a FLAC file is only ~ 5x as big as 128kbps mp3. So a 600MB CD is 300MB in FLAC (roughly 2x loss-less compression) versus maybe 60MB in mp3 128kbps, or 120mbps if you go higher in quality. So if I buy a 500GB drive for $65, that's just 4.3 cents per CD in FLAC, and I might save 3 cents per CD with mp3. Multiply a few times for backups. That is still very cheap to me, for the extra quality, and ability to easily re-rip to another format (which I do, to play on various players if I can live with compressed sound for that application).

I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x. A few years back, I scanned some pen/ink drawings I had that were vacation memories and had faded and yellowed. I scanned them at high rez, worked on them, and saved in jpeg. I recall playing with them some more, and even after a few generations, I could blow them up to something like 1600x on screen, and not detect any differences. I guess I'm not sure it makes much difference for anything other than the highest end work, if used properly.

I just skimmed this, but one guy's opinion:

RAW vs JPG

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:27 AM   #127
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between Chicago and Phoenix
Posts: 7,409
Tough to catch these little suckers in flight - could use more light to crank the ISO down

__________________
Ronstar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:30 AM   #128
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
steelyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Triangle
Posts: 3,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Almost every photography book I've ever read has had some variation of the phrase "The best camera is the one you have in your hand". That high-end DSLR isn't worth much in a closet if what you have with you is a $100 point 'n shoot or cell phone camera. It's more about understanding light than spending money on gear. More gear gives more options but that's all it buys - not better photography.
That's an interesting quote and I'll keep that in mind.

I post some about stuff that tends to be aural, this thread is visual. Hopefully, either is just someone noticing "wow, what about that?" and passing along.

You're right, using what you have at hand is key. In the meantime. I'll enjoy everyone's photo work here.
__________________

steelyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:32 AM   #129
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 16,538
Just found another discussion on raw versus JPEG - in this example, he makes the case for extra detail in over/under-exposed portions of the photo -

Raw vs JPEG For Photo Editing

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:33 AM   #130
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between Chicago and Phoenix
Posts: 7,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I'd love to see some justification for this.

Now I can understand it for truly high end work, where every tiny degree of quality is important to preserve, and 'compromise' just isn't part of the vocabulary. And I know you don't want to do multiple conversions if you are doing adjustments, as each compression step will have a multiplier effect on the artifacts. But it seems to me that for most work, shooting jpg would be fine, just convert to a non-compressed format if/when you are ready to do some adjustments.

Now for audio, I'm big on keeping at least my masters/backups in non-compressed format (FLAC). But the 'cost' is small, a FLAC file is only ~ 5x as big as 128kbps mp3. So a 600MB CD is 300MB in FLAC (roughly 2x loss-less compression) versus maybe 60MB in mp3 128kbps, or 120mbps if you go higher in quality. So if I buy a 500GB drive for $65, that's just 4.3 cents per CD in FLAC, and I might save 3 cents per CD with mp3. Multiply a few times for backups. That is still very cheap to me, for the extra quality, and ability to easily re-rip to another format (which I do, to play on various players if I can live with compressed sound for that application).

I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x. A few years back, I scanned some pen/ink drawings I had that were vacation memories and had faded and yellowed. I scanned them at high rez, worked on them, and saved in jpeg. I recall playing with them some more, and even after a few generations, I could blow them up to something like 1600x on screen, and not detect any differences. I guess I'm not sure it makes much difference for anything other than the highest end work, if used properly.

I just skimmed this, but one guy's opinion:

RAW vs JPG

-ERD50
I think our teacher wants us to shoot in raw so that he can edit and tweak our work in front of the class. And maybe he needs it in raw to do that. We haven't got into editing yet.

I'm getting a raw and jpeg of each shot and the raws are around 27 mb and jpegs 10 mb
__________________
Ronstar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:39 AM   #131
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x.
On my 5dii, the difference is only about 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the raw for the highest quality jpeg. So a 30MB raw would be about 10MB jpeg. I think one reason the jpegs aren't smaller is that the camera applies sharpening which is harder to compress. Of course, you could always use smaller jpegs / lower quality which would increase the ratio.

I don't disagree that for many applications, there's really no need to go to RAW. And there are substantial workflow benefits for jpeg.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:51 AM   #132
Recycles dryer sheets
TOOLMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 209
Pond critters, shot as JPEG so no exposure info
Nikon D7000. Nikon - Zoom 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR
Attached Images
File Type: jpg image-3779063460.jpg (547.7 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg image-2079263968.jpg (426.7 KB, 12 views)
File Type: jpg image-952039876.jpg (365.4 KB, 13 views)
__________________
TOOLMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 10:55 AM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
ERD50 - I'd be careful quoting Ken Rockwell. He generalizes a lot and paints in very broad brush strokes. He's not exactly the most credible guy on the internet when it comes to photography (thought he does get a LOT of traffic to his site.)

I think of RAW files as my negatives. I never know when, in the future, I may want to go back and "reprocess" that file in a different way. I may want to try and pull a bit more detail out of the shadows, or hope to see a bit more detail in what I had thought was a completely blown-out highlight. Maybe I won't, but as it is no more trouble to shoot in RAW than jpeg, there is no downside. For anyone who wants jpegs straight out of the camera, they can shoot RAW + jpeg at the same time.

Another area where RAW files can be particularly useful is with color balance. You can easily change the color balance of an image shot in RAW. If you make more than small adjustments to color balance with a jpeg, the results don't look too good.

I always shoot in RAW. If I were a photojournalist or similar, for whom very speedy workflow was important, I'd shoot either in jpeg or RAW + jpeg.
__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 11:04 AM   #134
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 16,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
... I may want to try and pull a bit more detail out of the shadows, or hope to see a bit more detail in what I had thought was completely blown-out highlight. ...
Thanks for this and the other comments. Once I saw that second link I posted, I was more aware of the advantages of getting detail out of highlights/shadows. And I thought that raw file size was a bigger delta than what you guys are reporting - 3x or so isn't that high of a 'price' to pay.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 11:05 AM   #135
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,700
I shoot in RAW+jpeg mode using point-and-shoot cameras.
__________________
FIREd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 11:15 AM   #136
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,700
Cleared for take-off. Does anyone knows what kind of bird this is?
__________________
FIREd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 11:39 AM   #137
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,242
Looks like a cormorant.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 02:42 PM   #138
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Nemo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Belleville, ONT
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
Looks like a cormorant.
It is, I believe.
__________________
"Exit, pursued by a bear."

The Winter's Tale, William Shakespeare
Nemo2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 02:48 PM   #139
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,700
Thanks guys!
__________________
FIREd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 04:23 PM   #140
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
There are good perspectives on RAW vs. jpg and each has good reasons. (Sort of like "should I pay off the mortgage?") As noted RAW gives a lot more latitude with post processing simply because you have more data to work with. And that "more data" is the downside because it takes more space on the drive.

My understanding is that most pro sports shooters shoot jpg because it's faster to clear the camera's buffer and get written to the card and speed is everything in that environment. An architectural or landscape photographer doesn't care about that. But the sports shooter is going to make sure he/she has the white balance and exposure nailed because they are not going to have the wiggle room that a RAW shooter does.

So like so many other things the "correct" answer lies in where you're going with it and why. And sometimes, like paying off the mortgage, it is merely personal preference.

I shoot in RAW and my mortgage is paid off. YMMV.
__________________

__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.