Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
(Not just at you Ironheart) but the phrase "cards are cheap, as is storage" is such a load of crap. So many say this, but I find it so terribly incorrect it isn't funny and wonder if anyone ever actually buys storage or forgot file sizes have grown exponentially. 32gb SanDisk 90mb/s = $130 and storage is about $70/TB. Cheaper than what it used to be, but 5 CF cards = $650 + 2x 3tb USB3 (main/backup)= $250 = $900. $900 ain't cheap. I'm having to move to a NAS raid soon + need a back-up solution and I'm looking at $3,000+. The actually cost (the money you spend) that keeps up with file sizes has not changed much in the last 6 years. I'm still spending $100 per card, and $150 per external HD to store approximately the same number of files that I shoot.
What someone was referring to is how windows and other programs will "re-save" the jpegs each time you open them. Over time it does "destroy" (over compress) the images and they become "ugly." As long as you use a good editor you won't have an issue.
Any time you save a jpg, it is recompressed, since its compression is 'lossy' each 'save' degrades the image, it does not matter which editor you use. If you have displayed without changes, I recommend that you quit or close without saving, thereby preserving the original image, os 'save as' with a new name thereby creating a copy and preserving the original.
That is one of the reasons for using raw if you intend to edit.
When caught with jpg's that must be edited, I will then save as a TIFF which is uncompressed and avoids fiurther loss, but the TIFF is usually twice as large as a RAW would be.
Regards ... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Storage cost (dollar/mb) have come down significantly over the years, across the board. With more MP in modern DSLR, the need for more space is very much expected. Buyers need to be aware of this...be it their storage device (memory cards, Hard Drives...etc) as well as, the CPU power needed on their computer(s) in processing and/or editing them. Getting the latest high-tech goodies does not end by getting the goody itself...there is more to it than that.
Any time you save a jpg, it is recompressed, since its compression is 'lossy' each 'save' degrades the image, it does not matter which editor you use. If you have displayed without changes, I recommend that you quit or close without saving, thereby preserving the original image, os 'save as' with a new name thereby creating a copy and preserving the original.
That is one of the reasons for using raw if you intend to edit.
This is not a sound argument and no reason not to work JPEG. Of course one saves a JPEG it with a different name to keep the original untouched - just like one keeps both the RAW and the converted JPEG . Would anyone be that stupid to work on the JPEG and then save it with the last touches ( with same name ) losing the original forever ? Why is it assumed that one will work on the same JPEG so many times - over and over again - saving it every time on top of each edit ?
On storage/filesize: I think we all have files we could/should have deleted. I think I could gain a TB if I got rid of all the 'nearly good' shots I have. My next rainy day is going to be spent installing a larger SSD and deleting files.
RAW vs RAW+JPEG:
Personally, I have switched between RAW and RAW+JPEG several times over the years.
When the D200 came out, RAW processors weren't that great yet, especially at higher ISO settings. Often, the D200's "out-of-camera" JPEGs were much cleaner in terms of noise vs. what could be accomplished by manually processing the RAW images, even using 3rd-party plugins like Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc. The smart thing to do at the time was to keep both RAW & JPEG files when shooting anything over the base ISO.
When the D700 came out, noise became less of an issue for me so I switched to RAW only.
That didn't last long, however. Since I traveled a lot, I bought a mini portable printer. I use it to print pictures of random people I meet on the road (as a gift to them). However these printers work in PictBridge mode which requires JPEG. So once again I switched to RAW+JPEG.
With the D800, Nikon added the ability to do "ad hoc" RAW to JPEG processing in camera (from the retouch menu). I no longer needed to have RAW+JPEG for every single picture, since I could always ask the camera to generate a JPEG image from a particular RAW file at any time. I switched back to RAW only. [This in-camera conversion was somewhat possible with the D700 by using the D-Lighting feature, but is much more convenient with the D800].
Last week, though, I bought an Eye-Fi Pro X2 wireless SD card. Now I'm experimenting again with the idea of shooting RAW+JPEG (with the JPEG going to the Eye-Fi) for easy transfer to the iPad / iPhone.
@Ade: How big is a jpeg fine from a D800? I used that exact card for my D7K raws and found it painfully slow.
As I wrote, I went from a D700 (which did NOT have this capability) to the D800 (which does have this capability). That the feature is in a D80 didn't help me at all.
As I mentioned, on the D700 one can process JPEGs but it is by using D-Lighting (with its own set of problems).
In my workflow I delete first - all garbage/marker (hand over lens to indicate a good shot) and keep working backwards until I get down to the photos I want to edit. That way it is cleaned up from the get go. I find it works a bit faster overall as well. The personal stuff though just gets loaded - that is a mess of garbage on my HDs.
If one preserves the original jpg, renaming edited versions, and then wants to tweak one of several changes made on an 'edited' renamed version, one would have to first re enter all of the prior changes to the 'original' jpg and then the incremental change.
Raw processors such as NX2 or ACR do not touch the raw image, but keep a 'sidecar' file with the changes which can then be incremented.
Remember also that Nikon Raw is 12 or 14 bit where jpg is 8 bit color. This can have a profound effect if one is editing heavily.
I always save to jpg as a final form for print or display after all editing is done (in 16b mode), when all that the jpg will do is be printed or displayed.
If the subtle differences in final IQ do not matter, than why are we discussing other, far finer IQ nuances endlessly in these forums.
I shoot exclusively jpg on my iphone.
Regards ... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
I shoot RAW, primarily because I am so sloppy and screw up the exposures, etc., I have to be able to fix them in post processing....or at least some of the time this happens.
It is interesting to note the original topic of "I hate Editing", suggest what we used to say with film, "I hate printing" or "I hate developing", or I hate.....
It is my opinion and only that, the process of being a photographer may mean a lot of different things to different people. I would suggest all professionals who are of any merit understand the difference between shooting JPEG and RAW, Advantages, limitations, etc. Also, some photographers...like in the 1960's early 70'swhen I was shooting professionally, shot the film and never saw the final product until proofs were made by the lab. Then our professional print folks did miracles from the negatives or the dye transfer prints from the transparencies were stunning. So we did not do any real editing ourselves.
Today, this may occur, but for me personally, I find I like to take the digital data, then from this create a photograph with the sublet nuances I desire. in many cases these are unknown to another person thus only I can do this work.
From a JPEG data set, one has already given themselves great limitations as to what can be accomplished in final production. RAW is simply having a lot more to pick and choose from in making the technical decisions regarding the final product.
I personally dislike editing myself. While I like tuning up personal photos. I dont like going through 1000 pics and picking the 100 ones my client wants... I love darkroom editing. Back when I did film and had a local photo-processer I would sometimes go back into his darkroom and "edit" my prints myself...
If it was possible to make mostly keeper without editing back then why is it not possible today? I am shooting RAW and do edit - sometimes a lot but most of the time very little.
Not long ago I shot RAW+JPEG. And by mistake I loaded the JPEGs - they looked much better than the RAW files coming out of my D800. I have to work to make them look as good as the JPEGs.
I don´t find editing my photos a total waste of time. I will have to face my mistakes - sadly I tend to make the same mistakes again and again - I can always do something about it in post - just being lazy.
Maybe it is time to shoot JPEGs only for a while - to force me to think before shooting?
you can do it automatically on import but at the moment, I cant remember the settings
WHEN I was scanning a lot of sharp 35mm transparencies I became very alarmed at compression of file sizes. So when I import I keep all imports in the event file and put that on Lacie external hard drive. I also keep the same files on Apple iPhoto and have noticed that without editing the Apple iPhoto file is always the same size as the original JPEG Fine, Large. As soon as I start cropping or editing, (which I do when it is called for) the file size begins to alter. I also do the same on Apple Aperture 3 which gives me more control than Apple iPhoto. I have stopped using Photoshop at all as the file size reduces with each saving. That will change your original to putty.
Same comments though as I always make about JPEG Fine, Large. You'd better be close to the proper exposure. I have shot for so long with medium and large format that a quick checklist of camera setups are made with each new condition. Then my JPEGS are very close to what I want. Recently I shot a batch of RAW images and was very disgusted with the effort, even results. Personally I prefer JPEG and always will. Another thought though must be added. ONCE you get that amazing shot I suggest saving the image to TIFF also if you are not completely certain how your images get saved, stored, etc. And I am not for a minute advocating that you ALL switch to JPEG. But when it takes quite a long time to make RAW look as good as JPEG Fine, Large I suggest you may investigate very seriously how shooting in JPEG may be done and done right.
Lastly the edit capability of JPEG is quite amazing to me. So I do use editing every time I think it is needed, justified, etc. However the latitude of RAW editing is GREATER. If you shoot in JPEG get very comfortable with fast camera setup in various lighting conditions so you can make the most of jPEG. If you do use this the way I do and others before and after me have and will, I think you will be amazed at JPEG quality and speed. Besides the final product you need for printing, emailing, publishing, etc. will be JPEG.