Ive been shooting raw for years, last year I bought myself a 5D mark 3, and after a year of shooting I'm convinced that the Iso noise on Jpeg is lower than that of the Raw setting so what i usually do is use raw when there is light and, jpeg when im shooting at darker conditions.
also with the new megapixel count, I found that I needed about 64 gigs in memory space for every single time i had a big shoot, which is incredible for both the memory card and my archives at home.
as for the compression, it is true that when you convert from raw to things like tiff it looses a bit of detail, but that only when your printing billboard size shots otherwise it makes no difference when it comes to printing smaller pictures, also in most cases when post processing is involved you don't stick to raw after you edit things.
As long as you don't need to turn in pictures quickly, I would say shooting Jpeg is to limit you self to shooting the digital version of polaroid/slide film. So I shoot just RAW as this gives me the greatest starting point to make the images I envision when I'm out there shooting.
Huh? You do realize that cameras only takes raw photos, only in case of jpeg they decide how to convert them, not you? What if the decision is wrong? Does the camera know if it encounters blown highlights if you intended them or if it was a mistake? In raw you are in control.
Comparing Raw to Jpeg is like comparing regular 35mm film to a Polaroid. Both have their place, but I would hardly say that if you know what you're doing a Polaroid is fine. And yes - RAW adjustment is not limitless - I don't think anyone claimed that - however it is considerably more than Jpeg, given it actually recorded MORE data.
Since I have fallen way behind on processing I am going to change my approach I think. That would be to shoot RAW + jpeg. Uninteresting images get deleted, of course, but now I reserve the full Lightroom-Photoshop treatment using RAW for the images that stand to benefit the most. Others can just get quick processing with a minor touch-up of the jpeg. Having the jpag may help me decide whether the RAW is worth spending time on for a full-scale edit.
These differences lead implicitly to situations that require choosing one over the other. For instance, if you do not have much capacity to store images in camera (because you spent all your money on the camera body) then shooting in JPEG will allow to capture 2 or 3 times the number you could shooting in Raw. This is also a good idea if you are at a party or some other event after which you want to share your photos quickly and easily.
I started off in JPEG and then found out about RAW and found that you get SO much more control and better quality of picture because you can edit much more easily if you need to. So I'm going to stick with RAW from now on!
Depends on what you want to do with pics. When i have not intention to correct them in any way and if its just insignificunt things then jpeg. But it occures seldom. But if i need to correct pics or its important event, then RAW. It gives an opportunity to save really bad pics.
Within 30 minutes of having bought my DSLR, it was set to RAW, and has never gone back. I always cringe when I hear someone who owns any camera that can shoot raw still using JPEG or any other compression method for shooting. Just the fact that I can shoot in B&W on camera, and switch to color when I get home is worth it, thats without even getting into the quality, and other freedoms you get with raw.
The only times I've ever shot in JPEG was for events where I had to take hundreds of shots and the photos needed to be uploaded ASAP so I had absolutely no time for editing. I changed my camera settings to boost up the contrast/colours and shot straight in JPEG so the photos could be quickly uploaded to Facebook ASAP.
So far I've always taken my photographs using JPEG as I simply don't have the space I need on my laptop etc for RAW... Right now I have 14gb left on my C drive with a 32gb card full of JPEG images. I'd like to start using raw after getting an external hard drive so maybe my laptop will be able to handle it
Internal hard drives aren’t terribly expensive these days either, if you wanted to consider upgrading your laptop. I took out the optical drive in mine and replaced it with a second hard drive for a total of 1.2TB of onboard storage. Wasn’t terribly hard, either, considering I’m using a Macbook Pro.
hmmm I might have to think about doing that. how expensive do you think it'd be ? :/ I'm getting a 1tb external hard drive soon but I already have a 2tb hard-drive sitting downstairs broken after the FIRST time I used it because I left the wire in it when travelling and it bent and broke something. now when you move it you can hear something rattling around inside so not putting TOO much hope in the longevity of an external hard drive. If I were at all tech-y I'm sure there's a way to fix it without having to spend as much as it took to buy it in the first place but- I'm not all that tech-y :/
I paid about $80 for a 750GB internal hard drive, another $40 or so for the custom drive bay, and did the swap myself, so I didn’t pay anyone for labour. I’m not terribly techy myself, but there were dozens of Youtube videos describing the process, and it really wasn’t hard to follow along.
I still have an external 3TB drive as well, which I use to do semi-regular backups just in case I inadvertently drop my laptop or something, and I burn older files to DVDs as well (although I’m probably going to switch over to Blu-rays soon, since my backups are getting into the dozens of discs).
oh that doesn't sound too bad at all actually - I was imaging something more along the lines of like 150 or something for the hard drive itself.
I think i'd be able to follow along with a video too... or atleast- lets hope
I have toyed with the idea of starting to use DVD's as well - especially as towards september time I'm opening a home photographic studio and that would be an easy way to file clients and their work in a way that everything won't get lost into the depths on my laptop like everything currently
I don't think my laptop supports blu-ray although I'm being given a laptop next week to use as a spare that is quite new so it may be supportable towards blu-ray .. what is the spacial difference between DVD's and Blu-ray then in terms of photo storage?
If your laptop has two USB 2.0 ports, it will support an external blu-ray drive. As for storage, a dual-layer DVD can hold about 8GB of data, while a single-layer blu-ray can hold 25GB, and a dual-layer blu-ray can hold 50GB. Mind you, the cost-per-gigabyte goes up pretty quickly when you buy the media.
Here’s a typical price for a 750GB internal drive. You may be able to do better; I just tossed “laptop hard drives” into google and that was one of the first results. Also, here is a typical price for an external blu-ray writer that uses USB 2.0.
Two other things to keep in mind: 1. if you use a session model to run your business, it’s not a bad idea to use software that thinks the same way. I and a good many other pros use a program called Capture One, but Lightroom should allow you to set up sessions as well (it’s just not quite as intuitive). The great thing about C1 in this regard is that it keeps all of your files together – RAW files, processing data files and exported versions – so that if you want to back that session up, all you have to do is drag the entire job folder onto your backup software and you can be sure that everything you need to work on those files at any future time is there. And 2. when you back stuff up, regardless of how you organize it (chronologically is the most logical, but you may have other ways of doing it), you should register your discs with a cataloguing program, preferably something that will make thumbnails, so that years later, when you have to go back to something, it’ll be easy to locate it on the discs.