DSLRUsers.com

<rant>

I AM!!!!!

I am starting to hate it.

The workflow involved is a pain in the A$$. Trying to get things "right in the camera" is a waste of time and now I am finding that even using the histogram is useless (it appears much different on the LCD than once the RAW image is imported into Lightroom. The histogram on the LCD shows a nicely exposed image, then the image in Lightroom is very underexposed!!!

</rant>

That's not a problem with raw but a problem with Lightroom. Lightroom's default conversion of raw is appalling. Load the NEFs into CaptureNX and you'll see what they look like with the camera defaults applied. To make Lightroom work for you, you'll have to create one or more presets that do a better job of the default raw conversion.

Note that this has been discussed a number of times in this forum (and elsewhere if you do a Google search.

Eeeek, I know what you mean about RAW.. Might the change in exposure have something to do with the ACR settings that automatically get applied to any images when you import to LR? Just a thought.

-Rob.

Pardon?
I think you just need to get to know your camera?

I always shoot raw... if it is under exposed in RAW but properly exposed for the exact same settings in jpeg then some where along the way you are throwing out dynamic range!

ATJ wrote:That's not a problem with raw but a problem with Lightroom. Lightroom's default conversion of raw is appalling. Load the NEFs into CaptureNX and you'll see what they look like with the camera defaults applied. To make Lightroom work for you, you'll have to create one or more presets that do a better job of the default raw conversion.

Note that this has been discussed a number of times in this forum (and elsewhere if you do a Google search.

Yeah I know that...

But CaptureNX just does not fit into my (or a lot I imagine) workflow... Lightroom is so much better for what I need it to do. Just sucks that it does not read Nikon NEF's correctly.

It is still a downside of shooting RAW though.

MHD wrote:Pardon?
I think you just need to get to know your camera?

I always shoot raw... if it is under exposed in RAW but properly exposed for the exact same settings in jpeg then some where along the way you are throwing out dynamic range!

Ok.

But how can you tell that by using the histogram on the LCD when it shows the histogram of the JPEG not the RAW image (I could be wrong here but it does seem that way).

I wasn't suggesting you use CaptureNX in your workflow but rather to demonstrate the problems you are seeing are not with raw, <i>per se</i>. It is the tool you are using that is broken, or at least you are not using it as effectively as you could.

hehe... with great difficulty and yes this is an issue (well kind of)

And the answer would be dependent on what you are shooting... breaking it down:
The must have shot: Under expose it.. shoot using matrix metering and trust it (prob on +0eV or, like me, +3eV: d200)
If you have time: Bracket it..... take a few different stops... and pick the best at home.

W00DY wrote:

MHD wrote:Pardon?
I think you just need to get to know your camera?

I always shoot raw... if it is under exposed in RAW but properly exposed for the exact same settings in jpeg then some where along the way you are throwing out dynamic range!

Ok.

But how can you tell that by using the histogram on the LCD when it shows the histogram of the JPEG not the RAW image (I could be wrong here but it does seem that way).

oh and as time has gone by you get to know a kind of "transformation" between what you see for the sample histogram and what you know you can get out in raw

MHD wrote:oh and as time has gone by you get to know a kind of "transformation" between what you see for the sample histogram and what you know you can get out in raw

And this to me is something you should not have to "get to know".

I know what you are saying, but I still think shooting RAW is a pain in the A$$

Oh, and don't get me started on HDD Space

(after I just went out and bought 3TB of HDD

I'm with you W00dy. I used to shoot raw and jpeg, now I just shoot Jpeg. Yes I know I'm probably ripping off myself and shooting images that are not the best they could be but from a convenience and storage point of view that'll do just fine for me. Maybe one day when I can sort out a workflow that does not involve hours of tedious work I might change back but not ATM. A small edit - when I'm deliberately shooting with HDR in mind I shoot raw. That's the only time.

wheels wrote:I'm with you W00dy. I used to shoot raw and jpeg, now I just shoot Jpeg. Yes I know I'm probably ripping off myself and shooting images that are not the best they could be but from a convenience and storage point of view that'll do just fine for me. Maybe one day when I can sort out a workflow that does not involve hours of tedious work I might change back but not ATM. A small edit - when I'm deliberately shooting with HDR in mind I shoot raw. That's the only time.

If you take this reasoning to the Nth degree, you may as well shoot with a 2 megapixel camera. Sacrifice some quality for space.
To me it makes more sense to shoot less photos at the highest quality level possible. If I need to take 100 photos to get 1 that I'm happy with, I'm probably doing something wrong.

W00DY wrote:And this to me is something you should not have to "get to know".

Sorry Woody but that statement has to be most ridiculous I have ever read. Everything, and I mean everything in life is a learning curve, or put more simply, “getting to know”. Effort in provides results but from your philosophical statement you expect results without effort

sirhc55 wrote:

W00DY wrote:And this to me is something you should not have to "get to know".

Sorry Woody but that statement has to be most ridiculous I have ever read. Everything, and I mean everything in life is a learning curve, or put more simply, “getting to know”. Effort in provides results but from your philosophical statement you expect results without effort

Have to agree with Chris with this one. A good photographer should get to know his tools well so it becomes second nature to use. This includes the high tech computer driven camera as well the computer which helps in making the final product. Then he can concentrate on the composition and other more important elements of his picture making.

surenj wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:

W00DY wrote:And this to me is something you should not have to "get to know".

Sorry Woody but that statement has to be most ridiculous I have ever read. Everything, and I mean everything in life is a learning curve, or put more simply, “getting to know”. Effort in provides results but from your philosophical statement you expect results without effort

Have to agree with Chris with this one. A good photographer should get to know his tools well so it becomes second nature to use. This includes the high tech computer driven camera as well the computer which helps in making the final product. Then he can concentrate on the composition and other more important elements of his picture making.

I agree you need to know your camera, I was not saying otherwise.

But MHD was basically saying that the histogram was a "sample" of what the RAW file is going to be because the Histogram is taking a reading from the JPEG thumbnail (again, if I am incorrect here please let me know, happy to be worng on this one but it is just my observation). If I am shooting RAW then the histogram should display a correct reading from the RAW file.

I certainly don't expect results without effort...

Maybe the rant should have been directed towards Nikon rather than RAW files (and to Canon for that matter) since I believe the reason why Lightroom can not read the files is because of the companies holding the info.

Anyway... bottom line is RAW is giving me a headache and shooting Jpeg is proving to be a better option.

RAW all the way. Much prefer the adjustability, and love the way Lightroom speeds workflow. (Canon user, though.)

Agree that Nikon isn't helping itself regards "company secrets".

mickeyjuice wrote:Agree that Nikon isn't helping itself regards "company secrets".

That's a furphy which has been put to bed long ago. I think it's more a case of Adobe pushing their own barrow, and trying to make a point (possibly for DNG? Who knows...)

But anyway, definitely RAW is the way to go! Yes, it is a bit of a learning curve, but is there anything worthwhile that isn't?

Cheers

digitor wrote:

mickeyjuice wrote:Agree that Nikon isn't helping itself regards "company secrets".

That's a furphy which has been put to bed long ago. I think it's more a case of Adobe pushing their own barrow, and trying to make a point (possibly for DNG? Who knows...

Have you got a link for that? I see it said, but never see it backed up in any way. I'm confused as to why Adobe have decided to make Nikon their target, and work happily with everyone else.

I too used to shoot RAW a lot but with my work flow i dont bother with it it anymore as in if i am only taking a few images is ok but i can take upto 300+ on a big race day so jpg for me.

I shoot JPG mostly, I dont post process much so RAW is pretty wasted. I do use RAW (14-bit uncompressed) when I know I am doing something important, but that is the only time.

I use Lightroom to catalogue my stuff, but switch to CaptureNX when I have to deal with raw.

This won't make much sense to those to came ot cameras after the the digiral revolution, but I see jpg as the print and RAW as the negative.

If you shoot jpg, you are essentially using your camera as a polaroid SX70, or possibly taking slides. with RAW you are using a negative roll in the camera. RAW+JPG gives you both.

If you are always happy with the results ex camera or want to train yourself to the point where this happens, then by all means shoot JPG only. If you want to be able to return to the original, or recover a shot that is poor for technical reasons (WB/Exposure etc) or want to plaY with the results after you have taken the shot, then use RAW. (Yes I know you can get away with some fiddling with JPG but you are limited & if you accidentally "Save" instead of "SaveAs" you have lost the original forever)

For myself, I shoot RAW+JPG. Most of the time the RAW gets filed to disk (not the bin); & I just use the JPG. Occasionally I will play. Then I dust off the RAW and use that. Also I keep the RAW for long term storage. I will use JPG only if I need a lot of shots & can't change the card for some reason. I never use RAW only.

Mr Darcy wrote:I see jpg as the print and RAW as the negative.

Yes, exactly.

But wait, there's more.

JPG is a lossy medium. By definition, when you store an image as jpg, you have lost some elements of that image. Gone forever. RIP gone.

Start working on a jpg in post, make a save or four, and your IQ starts to degrade. Perhaps not noticeably at first, but degrade it will. Forget about using acid-free paper for your prints; save your image enough times and the internal data will have degraded beyond the point of viewability anyway.

As an IT professional, there's one thing that I learned a very bloody long time ago, and that is that you do not throw out data. Sure as eggs, at some point in the future, your customer is going to want to that data that you threw out ... yesterday!

So ... shoot raw plus jpg. Store them somewhere safe. Two copies, at least, one of those off site. Then, work with your jpg; if you have it right,in the camera, then your workflow can be simplified, and that is always my goal.

But if you've screwed up in a minor, or a not so minor, way, then you always have your raw as a starting point, a place from which your rescue of that once-in-a-lifetime image may begin. Oh, you didn't shoot that one in raw? Then yes, you are screwed, aren't you?

aim54x wrote:I do use RAW (14-bit uncompressed) when I know I am doing something important

What benefits do you see when shooting 14 bit over the default? What benefits do you really see?

mickeyjuice wrote:Have you got a link for that? I see it said, but never see it backed up in any way. I'm confused as to why Adobe have decided to make Nikon their target, and work happily with everyone else.

No links per se, but a search here or at DPR should find something on this. I cannot recall for certain, but it goes back to when Nikon brought out either the D2x or the D200. As they do for each new camera, they changed the formating of the raw files, but for this time, they also changed the licensing terms, which made it slightly more difficult for others to legally use the API.

Adobe got their pants wet over that, as did a lot of other people. Nikon learned something through that exercise as they relented, but they do seem to be slow learners in some regards.

Good day Everyone,

For sure I shoot raw when it's more important.

As Gstark mention!
What will be the difference with the 12 and 14 bit! I'am not to sure. size probably,
If anyone know a bit more on that one!

Cheers

ozboyerp wrote:What will be the difference with the 12 and 14 bit! I'am not to sure. size probably,

That's an artefact of shooting 14 bit, but it's not why one might do it.

If anyone know a bit more on that one!

We do, but that's not the point of my question.

Hi Gary,

It's not your point for sure, I think that,a an interesting one now.

Peoples and myself can learn from the answers.

gstark wrote:What benefits do you see when shooting 14 bit over the default? What benefits do you really see?

gstark wrote:As an IT professional, there's one thing that I learned a very bloody long time ago, and that is that you do not throw out data. Sure as eggs, at some point in the future, your customer is going to want to that data that you threw out ... yesterday!

I think you answered your own question Gary.
I know they claim it is "effectively" lossless, but then what is in those extra two bits? Why have the option of a 14 bit save as well as a 12 bit save if there is no lost information from 14bit. That's a lot of data they are throwing away. Yes I know LZR compression is lossless. In my younger days, I followed the logic through. I really can't be bothered to do that again. I'll just use 14bit and not trust them.

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:What benefits do you see when shooting 14 bit over the default? What benefits do you really see?

gstark wrote:As an IT professional, there's one thing that I learned a very bloody long time ago, and that is that you do not throw out data. Sure as eggs, at some point in the future, your customer is going to want to that data that you threw out ... yesterday!

I think you answered your own question Gary.
I know they claim it is "effectively" lossless, but then what is in those extra two bits? Why have the option of a 14 bit save as well as a 12 bit save if there is no lost information from 14bit. That's a lot of data they are throwing away. Yes I know LZR compression is lossless. In my younger days, I followed the logic through. I really can't be bothered to do that again. I'll just use 14bit and not trust them.

Greg,

No, not really. While the question was largely rhetorical, it was not framed around the "lossless" compression - which was not mentioned at all within the context of 14 bit vs 12 bit.

I was frisking around the point of the 14 bit vs 12 bit in the first instance, and why aim54x was using 14 bit in preference to 12 bit, and whether or not he was able to actually see any differences in his images.

The point here has nothing to do with compression, and everything to do with 14 bit as against 12 bit. And yes there is a lot of data that may be lost; just have a look at the differences in the saved file sizes.

I cannot believe anyone who has gone to the trouble and expense of buyiong a DSLR would voluntarily give up the reason for buying one.

I would never shoot jpeg, the compromise in quality is too great. I shoot RAW and if I want to load the photos to the web (my only use of jpeg) batch them using Fast Stone Image Viewer. This lets me resize, make adjustments, resize, add a frame and watermark all in one operation.

The only advantage you are getting with jpeg is fit more on a card and speed in post processing. Well storage is cheap and every image is precious to me. Would I have printed from my begs and then thrown away the negs? To me that's the using jpeg analogy that fits best.

I am a committed proponent of RAW, for the reasons outlined below.

Cameras all start with raw data and convert this data to JPG images with hardware in the camera. They then throw away the raw data since it's no longer needed. This is why JPEG is called a 'lossy' format. Remember, it THROWS THE DATA AWAY. FOREVER.

If you're shooting in RAW mode, that file immediately gets sent to your memory card without alteration. To actually do anything with it later, though, you'll need special processing software on your computer. But in JPEG mode, the camera does the processing itself, immediately, based on the image settings you chose from its on-screen menus or external controls. Despite specifying the size of the final image, you don't have much control over the compression that gets applied. The camera is in control, not you the photographer.

JPEGs take up less space on a memory card and are ready to use straight from your camera, but they sacrifice image quality and processing flexibility to achieve these advantages. RAW files contain significantly more picture information than JPEGs but demand much greater storage capacity, special processing software, and extra work on the computer. While some of the advantages of your camera's RAW format seem obvious, others are less so.

Reasons to shoot RAW:

• Lossless file format doesn't sacrifice image data;
• non[destructive image processing protects original file;
• total flexibility in editing image characteristics on the computer;
• significantly more brightness levels to work with, for smoother, more full-toned images;
• larger bit size - 12 in RAW, 8 in JPEG;
• more shades so better highlights and shadows

.

Distribution of Shades for a Five Stop Dynamic Range (from Ron Bigelow's article (see below)

Prior to Application of Tonal Curves (i.e., Gamma or Transfer Function)

LIGHT LEVEL JPEG RAW NOTES
5 Stops 128 2,048 Highlights (ever wondered why those highlights were burnt out?)
4 Stops 64 1,024 Three quarter tones
3 Stops 32 512 Mid tones
2 Stops 16 256 Quarter tones
1 Stops 16 256 Shadows

For jpeg that is just 6.25% of the range available in the RAW file. Ponder on it, 6.25% of what is possible - your camera has the capability and YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT!?

Check out the article here: http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

My take is that jpegs are snapshots, RAW have the possibility to be great photos.

For your workflow blues, try FastStone Image viewer, Download from http://www.faststone.org/

Works on all Windows incl Vista. Yo can view RAW at full screen or thumbnails. You can batch convert to jpg or most other formats, and in the one process resize, add a watermark, a fream etc. You can edit individual shots but it is basic. It's now super speedy but not too slow either.

It is a small program and freeware. I use it all the time because I can't afford the expensive programs and time is one thing I do have.

Dang, I wish they'd pay me a $1 for every time I recommend this thing!

Analog6 wrote:[*]larger bit size - 12 in RAW, 8 in JPEG;

Which pedant amongst us will cast the first stone?

If you shoot jpg, you are drastically limiting the potential for post processing - whether corrective or creative or both. RAW gives
you a powerful and flexible base from which to work. The ability to tweak the colour balance is almost sufficient reason all be itself
to shoot RAW, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

At the same time, you can surely get great results shooting jpg, so go for it.

(Shooting jpg for a photographer is like a band recording direct to cassette tape.)

gstark wrote: And yes there is a lot of data that may be lost; just have a look at the differences in the saved file sizes.

And that could be taken as a reason to shoot JPG. After all its just a little further down the slippery slope

I'll just throw my little bit into this discussion i think.

I shoot a LOT of jpegs. But i do a LOT of sport, and to be honest RAW is a complete waste of time for that sort of thing. It may be different for others, but i would shoot over 1000 shots a day with some of my stuff, and there is basically zero PP after I'm done with sports stuff. I just go through and chuck out the bad ones. Is there any reason at all i would consider RAW for this? My shots get into newspapers, websites etc and no one has worried one bit about the quality.

When i do portraits etc, i usually shoot RAW but to be honest my workflow sucks and i have no idea if I'm using it correctly.

Would anyone care to post their workflow using RAW on a mac for the rest of us to see?

This is me as well i dont want to spend lots of time on photo's that may not sell so i just get rid of duds and adjust images suitable for web, resize and thats it untill i get an order, then i will play with the file and have no problems printing them at 20x30 inch. When i shot RAW i founf myself spending way too much time converting them etc... But saying this if i am doing anything for myself where i am not take 100's of pics i will use RAW.

phoenix wrote:I'll just throw my little bit into this discussion i think.

I shoot a LOT of jpegs. But i do a LOT of sport, and to be honest RAW is a complete waste of time for that sort of thing. It may be different for others, but i would shoot over 1000 shots a day with some of my stuff, and there is basically zero PP after I'm done with sports stuff. I just go through and chuck out the bad ones. Is there any reason at all i would consider RAW for this? My shots get into newspapers, websites etc and no one has worried one bit about the quality.

When i do portraits etc, i usually shoot RAW but to be honest my workflow sucks and i have no idea if I'm using it correctly.

Would anyone care to post their workflow using RAW on a mac for the rest of us to see?

I don't do a lot of post processing, so jpg is my preferred format for my personal stuff. When I said i shoot raw I use 14bit, in the vain hope that if I need to salvage an image I have used the best medium for it, I just figure that those 2 extra bits are something that I can get out of the camera, so why sacrifice it? (Gary - the answer is no, I cant see a difference)

I know all that sounds contradictory, but even I dont understand my thought processes.

if you use CNX, there isnt another step in workflow is there ? well, none that i notice anyway.
open...adjust...save...

never really understood why people so passionately shoot jpeg. almost like a badge of honor.

i should be shooting 14bit aswell but file sizes are big enuf as is so unless its crazy light where i may need the recovery option i dont bother.

Phoenix, i think i apply your attitude to all most of my photos in the past - just cull, resize and submit. I did this for bands, motorsport, everything. im too lazy...
These days i pretty much shoot 80% or more RAW. the remainder is JPEG for things which i cbb to PP, again, this is mostly the sports stuff.

i guess if i had to put myself under a category of "RAW shooter" then i'd be one of the many that shoot RAW just because i can & for the times when i need to salvage an image. My RAW processing sux though..
-j

phoenix wrote:But i do a LOT of sport, and to be honest RAW is a complete waste of time for that sort of thing.

I'll bet you won't be saying that when, one day, you go out and shoot, but with a camera full of the wrong settings. It does happen, and yes, it will happen to you.

Good luck recovering those screw-ups from your jpgs.

It may be different for others, but i would shoot over 1000 shots a day with some of my stuff, and there is basically zero PP after I'm done with sports stuff. I just go through and chuck out the bad ones. Is there any reason at all i would consider RAW for this?

As you're earning money with these shots, my answer has to be yes. See above for reasons wy this can affect your income.

My shots get into newspapers, websites etc and no one has worried one bit about the quality.

And to that I do have to say bullshit.

Does every single one of your shots get published? Unless the answer is yes, then somebody, somewhere is looking at the images and caring very much about the content - which must equate to quality - and eliminating (probably) 95% or more of what you've shot to just publish a couple of them.

When i do portraits etc, i usually shoot RAW but to be honest my workflow sucks and i have no idea if I'm using it correctly.

While workflow is important, it's not the reason you shoot raw, and the lack of a good workflow is hardly a good reason to not shoot raw: I don't own a plane, yet I can still fly to LA, right?

aim54x wrote:When I said i shoot raw I use 14bit, in the vain hope that if I need to salvage an image I have used the best medium for it, I just figure that those 2 extra bits are something that I can get out of the camera, so why sacrifice it? (Gary - the answer is no, I cant see a difference)

That was pretty much what I expected to hear.

Basically, (and as I understand it - others may correct me if they believe I'm wrong) it's a way to extend your dynamic range at the ends of your exposure range. You can use it to capture some otherwise blown highlights, that sort of thing. Not the sort of thing you will be able to observe in your normal, day to day, meanderings around your D300.

I always shoot raw and have done since I got my D70 as I view every image I take as potentially saleable (until proven otherwise).

I actually shoot raw and JPEG now because of the previous mentioned problems with Lightroom's default raw conversion. I see disk space as cheap so I don't care about how much storage it requires. My workflow is very quick because I have taken the time to understand the tools I have, their limitations and I streamlined the process with automation. Despite the problems with Lightroom, my workflow is now 3 to 4 times faster than it was with CaptureNX/PaintShopPro 9.

phoenix wrote:Would anyone care to post their workflow using RAW on a mac for the rest of us to see?

This is my PC workflow but I can't see that it would be very different on the Mac.

• Load the images from CF card to disk and backup using Nikon Transfer* (which is available for the Mac)
• Import the images into Lightroom using a preset which adds my copyright information as well as location details to the metadata. Images are imported using Zeroed defaults. JPEG images look exactly as they should and raw images are flat.
• "Auto-stack by Capture Time..." using an interval of 1 second. I rarely shoot more than one image per second so this will stack the JPG with the NEF.
• "Collapse All Stacks" puts the JPG file on top.
• Browse through the JPG files selecting the ones I want to process
• For each image I want:
  • I unstack
  • with both images selected, update any metadata, including keywords, the Copy Name (which I use as the export filename) and the Caption (to include the base filename)
  • I select the NEF file and go into the develop module
  • Choose the Nikon D300 MLK preset I downloaded which in most cases converts the NEF to something almost identical to the JPG.
  • Make any other adjustments and/or crop
  • Export the image using any one of a number of presets depending on the target. The export actions include reszing, sharpening and adding watermarks

* Lightroom can actually transfer the files, too, but the backup option is screwed so I use transfer. Once Adobe fix the backup option I could actually do it all in Lightroom

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote: And yes there is a lot of data that may be lost; just have a look at the differences in the saved file sizes.

And that could be taken as a reason to shoot JPG. After all its just a little further down the slippery slope

Actually I look at this other way - with storage being as cheap as it is these days, I do not accept that file size - or a lack of storage - is a valid reason to not shoot raw.

Let me put it this way - I can actually put a value on the cost of storage, and it's very inexpensive. Per image, you'd measure it in cents.

But what's the value of that shot that you just missed?

Or the one that you just irretrievably screwed up?

For those who earn money with their cameras, not shooting raw is a game of financial Russian Roulette.

I shoot RAW and only use small jpgs for preview. My full workflow is:

1. Transfer images from CF to HDD, using Bridge download, and applying additional metadata. Images of one "event" are transferred to a specific folder, for example: Family & Friends/Alexander/20080707 - Alex.
2. Marvet at my images for a few hours.
3. Apply keywords.
4. Go through each image via Bridge Filmstrip or Lightbox workspace and rank images I want to work on.
5. Sort based on ranking and transfer 4 & 5 star images to new folder within current folader called PP Images or some such thing.
6. Identify images with similar lighting and composition.
7. Open in ACR and correct white point, exposure, apply some vignetting, apply some sharpening, etc. (all where applicable)
8. If necessary, apply any specific image PP in PS.
9. Apply Image Processor (or whatever it is called) to bulk convert these images to resized jpg for web posting and save in a specific folder for uploading to Smugmug.

So, point 7, for me, replaces what my camera does. The reason I do this is because, for example, I don't really trust my camera's WB, particularly as seen on the 2.whatever inch LCD on the back.

Bear in mind I don't make any money from my images - this may or may not be relevant.

Also bear in mind I am a control freak, and don't want to leave it to Nikon engineers.

To each their own but I have never seen any one make a comment yet about how every photo we view here is a jpeg!. Shoot however it makes you fel comfortable and suits your style and situation. Most of the photographers here do check their settings colour balance etc and that is part of being a photographer. Do any of you turn the camera to the green box and go? No. There are valid reasons for both but there is not a definative answer for every body as each has their own circumstances. I do know what the technical differences are but I also know that nearly allsports pros shoot jpeg and most wedding pros shoot raw, although there is at least one world class wedding tog who shoots jpeg.

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:When I said i shoot raw I use 14bit, in the vain hope that if I need to salvage an image I have used the best medium for it, I just figure that those 2 extra bits are something that I can get out of the camera, so why sacrifice it? (Gary - the answer is no, I cant see a difference)

That was pretty much what I expected to hear.

Basically, (and as I understand it - others may correct me if they believe I'm wrong) it's a way to extend your dynamic range at the ends of your exposure range. You can use it to capture some otherwise blown highlights, that sort of thing. Not the sort of thing you will be able to observe in your normal, day to day, meanderings around your D300.

I'd agree with you on that part, those 2 extra bits are not something that I will utilise most of the time, but ti does make me feel better to have them if i am shootimg raw. This thread has really made me rethink, maybe i should make it a practice to shoot RAW + JPG and then only archive the RAW (being able to rextract the JPGs from the RAW if necessary) it wont really mess with my workflow that much.

The last portrait shoot that I did for a friend I actually had to use the RAW to correct some overexposed images. I have always shot RAW + Large Fine JPG for paid work (and other important stuff) and then shot Large Fine JPG for personal stuff. Maybe I am ripping myself off!

Now if only my D300 could shoot 14-bit uncompressed RAW at full speed, 2.5fps seems really slow sometimes.

Big V wrote:...but I have never seen any one make a comment yet about how every photo we view here is a jpeg!.

I'm not sure what sort of comment you would expect. JPEG is the universal format for displaying images on the web and one of the few that is actually supported by all browsers. GIF is pretty poor for photographs and so I would be very surprised to see anyone use it as a format on a photography site. About the only other format somewhat supported by browsers is PNG but it can be a pain. No raw formats are supported natively by browsers and even TIFF isn't supported by most browsers.

Also note that the limit for images on this site is 800 pixels on the longest side but I don't think that means people configure their cameras to shoot JPEG at 800x600.

Big V wrote:To each their own but I have never seen any one make a comment yet about how every photo we view here is a jpeg!.

Possibly because of any combination of any and/or all of the following reasons ...

• no web browser supports any form of raw image
• jpg permits relatively small file sizes which allow posters to comply with the rules we have on this forum.
• few photographers would want to post a raw image file in the public realm, due to IP concerns.

to mention just a few.

ATJ wrote:Also note that the limit for images on this site is 800 pixels on the longest side but I don't think that means people configure their cameras to shoot JPEG at 800x600.

Now that would be HUGE waste. I just checked and you cant actually get a D300 to shoot in that resolution.

ATJ wrote: I actually shoot raw and JPEG now because of the previous mentioned problems with Lightroom's default raw conversion.
[*]Import the images into Lightroom using a preset which adds my copyright information as well as location details to the metadata. Images are imported using Zeroed defaults. JPEG images look exactly as they should and raw images are flat.

ATJ, thanks for going to all that trouble to describe your workflow. I agree with everyone here who has said that shooting in JPG alone is really limiting one's options.

Perhaps this is drifting off-topic, but I've found that Lightroom has really improved my RAW workflow as well, and it's invaluable for keywording and batch exporting to whatever output format one needs. The best thing about it is the Develop module: all spot/blemish/redeye removal can be done to the RAW/DNG file and is infinitely undoable. Priceless! Now all I need is for InDesign to be able to read and print DNG files and I won't have to save off to any other format (well, not quite...)

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned converting NEF images to lossless DNG files on importing to LR: this is a vital first stage to my workflow. Or is it just that everybody does this without even thinking about it?

ATJ wrote: * Lightroom can actually transfer the files, too, but the backup option is screwed so I use transfer. Once Adobe fix the backup option I could actually do it all in Lightroom

Can't wait till they fix the backup option as well. Should be a simple one-step process!

Tim

Tim,

You might find this useful, too: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=31538

Thanks Andrew-n and Stubbsy - that is indeed helpful. I haven't logged on for a while and have been missing out on quite a few killer tips!