Shooting Survey - What Quality/Size

Venomator · 24-01-2006, 00:07

As there are a number of 'surveys' around at the mo, and following on from a query raised in another thread I started wondering what do others use as their 'normal' modus operandii for shooting quality/size ?

I wonder primarily because I still have to determine for my own purposes exactly what and why the various preferences are there in the first place - although I do understand the fundamental differences between RAW & JPEG !

As seems to be custom & practice interrogator goes first -

Was using RAW & JPEG Fine with large size with the D70s - until I realised how extraordinarily large the file size was now the change to D200 ... like mega huge ! Heaven knows how will the PC cope in a few months time ?

So, now it is either RAW only or JPEG Fine only with large size format ! But still incredibly large files in RAW ...

What do you guys use as your normal picture gathering method ?

Warspite · 24-01-2006, 00:36

RAW & Fine Large JPEG
Basically Im an obvious beginner and find that in some cases when I screw up the exposure I can salvage something.

Also space isnt really a concern, I try not to take the Japanese tourist approach and instead trying to look for features and compositions - one to slow me down, and also to give me more control over what I find, opposed to just trying to shoot lucky.

Space isnt an issue as my main rig has approx 1.5Tb, DVD writers, external HDDs, etc.

Another factor is that obviously higher res files allow more opportunity to crop smaller details that may not be possible with lower res files.

If I shot alot of fast moving stuff I might go for JPEG only to increase the burst capacity - and if stilll necessary may drop the resolution for further gain in speed, but Im fairly slow and clumsy in my photography so big files dont pose many problems for me

**stepheno** · 24-01-2006, 07:14

Pretty much the same as Warspite. RAW plus large JPG always. JPGs for immediate viewing on Picassa or TV and RAW for working on. Space isn't a problem for me either.

regards

24-01-2006, 09:32

RAW Only.

I very very occasionally shoot in JPEG, but only when it's in throwaway mode, ie I'm not really depending on keeping the shot (things like showing someone on the net a photo of outside my window etc).

Anything where I may require to edit the photo, print it, or do anything with it, (ie most other times) I shoot in RAW.

I use Rawshooter to browse through and convert them, and also Adobe Bridge to browse through (although still try and keep the conversions to Rawshooter).

I tried RAW + Jpeg for a while, but couldn't think of the benefit of the extra JPEG.

barrymoir · 24-01-2006, 09:42

Raw for me too, like Marcel, i did try raw + jpeg but couldnt understand the need for the jpeg image.

RobertP · 24-01-2006, 09:45

Large fine jpg most of the time. Switch to RAW if I think I need it.

Search for last time we discussed RAW v jpg for my reasons if you want to go into the whys.

minimeeze · 24-01-2006, 10:44

Have just converted to RAW only. As Warspite said, I also try to to stop myself just shooting away, and take time over composing and thinking about the shot. Now I have discovered the benefits of RAW, I won't go back to JPEG

Space isn't an issue at the mo as my pc has more memory than I know what to do with, and I only hang on to the good shots.

Steep · 24-01-2006, 10:47

If you are shooting RAW then you don't need jpg (if you have a RAW file you can make as many jpgs as you like) the 300d doesn't allow you to turn them off altogether so I choose the smallest most compressed jpg and shoot RAW all the time.

Catdaddy · 24-01-2006, 10:49

RAW all the time, unless it's a simple throw-away shot

GfK · 24-01-2006, 11:29

JPEG currently for me. I simply don't have the storage space to be able to shoot in RAW. Only got 640mb of memory cards at the moment which works out at about 80 shots on my 4mpx S5100.

***Dave*** · 24-01-2006, 12:03

RAW only.....saved me god knows how many times from wrong intial exposure. With storage being so cheap these days in terms of Camera memory, or PC Hard Disks it's a no brainer for me, if you are after the ultimate quality shot......which is why we got DSLR's isn't it ?

GfK · 24-01-2006, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJW

which is why we got DSLR's isn't it ?

Well, not everybody here has a DSLR. Sure most do, but a few of us are still muddling along with the best we can afford and making the best of a situation that isn't ideal.

The shots I take just don't compare to most of the other stuff I see here. A lot of that is to do with hardware limitation. I've outgrown my S5100 but I can't afford to move on yet.

Anyway, let's not take it OT...

Mr THX · 24-01-2006, 13:05

RAW here too, for pretty much all the reasons mentioned above. I know people have the argument about being able to make many of the usual changes to Jpegs in Photoshop etc......... but for me the diffrence in quality you can acheive by doing most (nay all) of your adjustments on the 12bit RAW negative before conversion is a huge bonus.

Arkady · 24-01-2006, 13:12

RAW only here - unless I get spammed to do a Passport photo of the colonel's dog.

For those of us with high-end DSLR's (point well-made, GfK) it seem absurd to throw almost 1/3 of the information contained in an image away before you've even started.
Why spend £1k plus on a camera and lenses and then skimp on the peripherals, such as a decent PC and additional memory space?

I used to have the same beef with people buying Mountain Bikes (another life, another analogy) - why spend £900+ on an all-singing, all-dancing bike and then only pay £20 for a cheap, uncomfortable helmet?

dod · 24-01-2006, 13:18

It depends, RAW if I'm in a tricky exposure situation, or I know I'll be taking a limited number of shots.

Anything where I know I'll be limited by space goes JPEG.

To be honest though, I can't tell from a print or image on screen whether or not it was originally taken in RAW or JPEG.

Gary Bagshawe · 24-01-2006, 13:27

Mainly JPG, most of the stuff I do is not likeley to be enlarged more than A3 and a lot of stuff gets sent to newspapers via e-mail attachments. The quality from a high end jpg is superb and when time is of the essence I don't see the point in messing around with converting raw images. (if you get the exposure right in the 1st place)
If I am shooting landscape I have started to use the raw settings as I will have the time to mess around.

Warspite · 24-01-2006, 14:50

Thinking about this - I probably bleed a bit of space using RAW + FineJPEG unecessarily, afterall I only use JPEG with the intention that it gives me a file that I can access on anyone PC no matter where I am, also for snap shots of people its generally quicker to printer/send them the file and forget about it.

On the otherside though I struggle with getting into a regular workflow pattern with processing my RAW images - I guess that if I were to switch to shooting RAW only I'll get a few extra shots (think its 80 with JPEG, and 120 with just RAW - on a 1Gb CF), but more importantly it would force me into a disciplined workflow process that I desperately need, but keep setting back.

24-01-2006, 00:07	#1 (permalink)
Venomator Forum Regular Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 922	Shooting Survey - What Quality/Size As there are a number of 'surveys' around at the mo, and following on from a query raised in another thread I started wondering what do others use as their 'normal' modus operandii for shooting quality/size ? I wonder primarily because I still have to determine for my own purposes exactly what and why the various preferences are there in the first place - although I do understand the fundamental differences between RAW & JPEG ! As seems to be custom & practice interrogator goes first - Was using RAW & JPEG Fine with large size with the D70s - until I realised how extraordinarily large the file size was now the change to D200 ... like mega huge ! Heaven knows how will the PC cope in a few months time ? So, now it is either RAW only or JPEG Fine only with large size format ! But still incredibly large files in RAW ... What do you guys use as your normal picture gathering method ? __________________ V... Nikon Gear ... always

24-01-2006, 00:36	#2 (permalink)
Warspite Feet under the table Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Newcastle Sunderland Middlesbrough (UK) Posts: 1,736	RAW & Fine Large JPEG Basically Im an obvious beginner and find that in some cases when I screw up the exposure I can salvage something. Also space isnt really a concern, I try not to take the Japanese tourist approach and instead trying to look for features and compositions - one to slow me down, and also to give me more control over what I find, opposed to just trying to shoot lucky. Space isnt an issue as my main rig has approx 1.5Tb, DVD writers, external HDDs, etc. Another factor is that obviously higher res files allow more opportunity to crop smaller details that may not be possible with lower res files. If I shot alot of fast moving stuff I might go for JPEG only to increase the burst capacity - and if stilll necessary may drop the resolution for further gain in speed, but Im fairly slow and clumsy in my photography so big files dont pose many problems for me __________________ Canon EOS 350D + BG-E3 Battery Grip Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 EX\|EF 50mm 1.8 MKI\|EF 85mm 1.8 USM\|EFS 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 MKII\|EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 MKII\|EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS\|Canon 1.4x Extender II

24-01-2006, 13:12	#14 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	RAW only here - unless I get spammed to do a Passport photo of the colonel's dog. For those of us with high-end DSLR's (point well-made, GfK) it seem absurd to throw almost 1/3 of the information contained in an image away before you've even started. Why spend £1k plus on a camera and lenses and then skimp on the peripherals, such as a decent PC and additional memory space? I used to have the same beef with people buying Mountain Bikes (another life, another analogy) - why spend £900+ on an all-singing, all-dancing bike and then only pay £20 for a cheap, uncomfortable helmet? __________________ "When I hold a camera, I Know no fear..." Alfred Eisenstadt Nikon D2x Bodies x2 14mm f/2.8 Sigma; 17-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 28-80mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor; 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 600mm f/4 Nikkor SB-800 Flash x2

24-01-2006, 07:14	#3 (permalink)
stepheno Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,486	Pretty much the same as Warspite. RAW plus large JPG always. JPGs for immediate viewing on Picassa or TV and RAW for working on. Space isn't a problem for me either. regards

24-01-2006, 09:32	#4 (permalink)
Marcel Posts: n/a	RAW Only. I very very occasionally shoot in JPEG, but only when it's in throwaway mode, ie I'm not really depending on keeping the shot (things like showing someone on the net a photo of outside my window etc). Anything where I may require to edit the photo, print it, or do anything with it, (ie most other times) I shoot in RAW. I use Rawshooter to browse through and convert them, and also Adobe Bridge to browse through (although still try and keep the conversions to Rawshooter). I tried RAW + Jpeg for a while, but couldn't think of the benefit of the extra JPEG.

24-01-2006, 09:42	#5 (permalink)
barrymoir Been here a while Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 369	Raw for me too, like Marcel, i did try raw + jpeg but couldnt understand the need for the jpeg image.

24-01-2006, 09:45	#6 (permalink)
RobertP Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Woodford Essex Posts: 841	Large fine jpg most of the time. Switch to RAW if I think I need it. Search for last time we discussed RAW v jpg for my reasons if you want to go into the whys.

24-01-2006, 10:44	#7 (permalink)
minimeeze Forum Regular Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hants Posts: 567	Have just converted to RAW only. As Warspite said, I also try to to stop myself just shooting away, and take time over composing and thinking about the shot. Now I have discovered the benefits of RAW, I won't go back to JPEG Space isn't an issue at the mo as my pc has more memory than I know what to do with, and I only hang on to the good shots.

24-01-2006, 10:47	#8 (permalink)
Steep Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inverness Posts: 964	If you are shooting RAW then you don't need jpg (if you have a RAW file you can make as many jpgs as you like) the 300d doesn't allow you to turn them off altogether so I choose the smallest most compressed jpg and shoot RAW all the time.

24-01-2006, 10:49	#9 (permalink)
Catdaddy Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 508	RAW all the time, unless it's a simple throw-away shot

24-01-2006, 11:29	#10 (permalink)
GfK Forum Regular Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 861	JPEG currently for me. I simply don't have the storage space to be able to shoot in RAW. Only got 640mb of memory cards at the moment which works out at about 80 shots on my 4mpx S5100.

24-01-2006, 12:03	#11 (permalink)
*Dave* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 14,709	RAW only.....saved me god knows how many times from wrong intial exposure. With storage being so cheap these days in terms of Camera memory, or PC Hard Disks it's a no brainer for me, if you are after the ultimate quality shot......which is why we got DSLR's isn't it ?

24-01-2006, 13:05	#13 (permalink)
Mr THX Getting Comfy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Barnsley Posts: 177	RAW here too, for pretty much all the reasons mentioned above. I know people have the argument about being able to make many of the usual changes to Jpegs in Photoshop etc......... but for me the diffrence in quality you can acheive by doing most (nay all) of your adjustments on the 12bit RAW negative before conversion is a huge bonus.

24-01-2006, 13:18	#15 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	It depends, RAW if I'm in a tricky exposure situation, or I know I'll be taking a limited number of shots. Anything where I know I'll be limited by space goes JPEG. To be honest though, I can't tell from a print or image on screen whether or not it was originally taken in RAW or JPEG.

24-01-2006, 13:27	#16 (permalink)
Gary Bagshawe Rep Point Winner 07 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sheffield UK Posts: 2,231	Mainly JPG, most of the stuff I do is not likeley to be enlarged more than A3 and a lot of stuff gets sent to newspapers via e-mail attachments. The quality from a high end jpg is superb and when time is of the essence I don't see the point in messing around with converting raw images. (if you get the exposure right in the 1st place) If I am shooting landscape I have started to use the raw settings as I will have the time to mess around.