[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're wasting the range of your sensor this way, and will be guaranted to have noisier images. Shadows have inherently more noise in digital, since less information is recorded there. 1/2 the range of the sensor is in the 1st f-stop. By deliberately underexposing, you are literally throwing away 1/2 the range of your sensor. The correct approach to shooting RAW is to expose to the right, but without blowing out the highlights. Read more here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml

Interesting. I'm already shooting handheld at ISO1600, apeture totally wide open, image stablization "on" and facing shutter speeds of 1/5th of a second, and you want me to expose to the right?

You must have arms of steel.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trippytiger /img/forum/go_quote.gif I shoot .jpeg because I don't have a DSLR and .jpeg is all my little Canon can do.

Ditto, though in my case it's a little Panasonic.

 

[P.J]

Depends, sometimes Jpeg sometimes Raw !

(I use Canon EOS D60 + UltraSonic 16-35mm F2.8 / Sony DSC-F828 / Photoshop CS2)

 

[Glod]

jpeg mostly nowadays. The reason is the ancient PC I got and a particular desastorous slide-show for the parents in law once.

For the occational portarait, landskape or distant object, RAW is still the norm IMO.

 

[rhythmicmoose]

RAW for me. If I were concerned about storage, I'd have to rethink my music collection. Like a lot of people have mentioned, the stuff you can do with exposure and white balance on RAW files is ridiculous, but another big thing for me is non-destructive editing. Sure, I could just save jpeg originals and edit copies, but it's much nicer to be able to go back and change anything you've edited without messing up more recent edits (crop, tune color and white balance, change mind about cropping two days later...).

 

[mateo05]

I shoot only RAW, which is odd since I work where JPG would be expected to be the norm- sports photojournalism. Maybe I'll switch if I routinely need to hit obscene wire deadlines, but I have my workflow down so that processing RAW is almost as fast as handling JPG, and its preferable for the newsprint stuff I do. The simple, quick, but powerful range of adjustments that RAW gives me are invaluable (and I just do a quick WB + curves), and the ability to copy and paste adjustments and background batch process within proper RAW software like Bibble removes a lot of the speed roadblocks. The only real limitation is upload from card to computer, but I now delete and pick out images on the fly in the field a lot now to help get around this. A Sandisk Extreme IV setup will someday fix this problem too

.

As for storage, I shoot a pair of Canon 1D Mark II's, taking advantage of their high frame rates (although typically only in bursts of 2-3), so I generate a lot of RAW files. All that you really need is to burn a bunch of DVDs- I used to keep a RAID 5 array of archives, but that's rather silly. I backed that up with DVDs anyway, and I so rarely needed to go back into archives after a given shoot that it was pointless IMHO. Sticking to optical media is much cheaper

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting. I'm already shooting handheld at ISO1600, apeture totally wide open, image stablization "on" and facing shutter speeds of 1/5th of a second, and you want me to expose to the right? You must have arms of steel. Best regards, -Jason

Arms of steel? Try legs of aluminum. I use a tripod for virtually all my landscape shooting. The only time I don't use a tripod is for stage photography. With fast lenses, I can typically get away with ISO 800 and handhold an 85mm lens, no IS. (I'm not an especially steady guy these days. 20 years ago, that wasn't an issue, but time takes its toll.)

You must be shooting in a cave. If your subject can tolerate 1/5 second, subject movement doesn't seem to be an issue. A tripod or monopod works wonders. Also, fast glass makes a real difference. I had to add a couple fast primes when I started doing the stage stuff.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

Interesting Poll! Congratulations.
I have only a minor complaint.
It's not about Super Bowl XLI.
Fortunately it's not Ultimate ....

Good luck with your Poll.

 

[Kipper]

I shoot JPEG cuz i have an old digital camera with a 256mb card, so might as well take as many pics as i can..

 

[MD1032]

Eh, I have my new Nikon D50 with the kit lens. I mainly use normal JPEG's. Gets you a lot of shots per gig, and still fine IQ compared to fine. Still, if I'm taking a shot that I know I'll want to process a lot or get a lot of detail out of, RAW is unbeatable.

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamCalifornia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting Poll! Congratulations. I have only a minor complaint. It's not about Super Bowl XLI. Fortunately it's not Ultimate .... Good luck with your Poll.

I tried as hard as I could to understand this post, but I failed.

 

[Zuerst]

I'm definitely a raw shooter without the rubber.

 

[Bob_Gates]

So do RAW format images really take that long to process on a modern computer? I've been into film SLR photography for a while and bought a Sony DSC-H1 just to see if I liked digital and I'm now addicted to the convinience.

The reason Im telling you all this is I am finally getting a DSLR that can shoot in RAW (Canon 400D) and was just curious.

The computer is one I built, specs below...

EVGA 680i mobo
C2D e6300@ 3ghz
2gb DDR800
7900GTO

Could anyone give me an estimate how long it would take just to say open 20 RAW format images in CS2?

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I wouldn't be too worried, Bob. I have a MUCH slower system (2.4GHz S754 A64, 1GB DDR1-400...) and editing RAW isn't much of a bother for my system, despite the insane size of my camera's RAW files (about 18Mb each). With all the horsepower in your computer, I'm sure it will hardly break a sweat.

 

[mateo05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_Gates /img/forum/go_quote.gif So do RAW format images really take that long to process on a modern computer? I've been into film SLR photography for a while and bought a Sony DSC-H1 just to see if I liked digital and I'm now addicted to the convinience.

No, they don't, but it all depends on your program. CS2 is NOT the ideal RAW workflow IMHO. I use and love Bibble, there's also Capture One, Aperture, Lightroom (beta), and some others I think.

The thing with CS2 isn't really conversion speed (I don't know, I haven't used it), but you can only open one image at a time. In a proper RAW workflow program, you can jump from image to image in a folder easily, copy and paste settings from one image to another, convert a bunch of images at once, convert images in the background while you're working on the next one, etc.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, I work mainly on a Core Duo 1.6 GHz/1 GB DDR2-533/60 GB 7200 rpm HDD laptop and the limiting factor is my speed in editing, not the computer- but with the huge exception of card-to-computer transfer time. That's where the larger file size of RAW really hits, so you have to work around that.