I think I'm going to stop shooting RAW
Discussion
I just got back from a roadtrip to Monaco and have started working on 23GB of pictures.
What a PITA it is! My PC is relatively fast, but it still takes AGES to do anything with them.
I used to shoot RAW all the time, I always edit my pictures, but in 99.9% I do it only once, then I export full time 100% JPG and delete the RAW files.
Do I understand correctly that RAW is better than compressed files because you can edit it over and over again without quality loss, but with a single edit I have a feeling I will never tell the difference between JPG and RAW?
What a PITA it is! My PC is relatively fast, but it still takes AGES to do anything with them.
I used to shoot RAW all the time, I always edit my pictures, but in 99.9% I do it only once, then I export full time 100% JPG and delete the RAW files.
Do I understand correctly that RAW is better than compressed files because you can edit it over and over again without quality loss, but with a single edit I have a feeling I will never tell the difference between JPG and RAW?
rottie102 said:
Do I understand correctly that RAW is better than compressed files because you can edit it over and over again without quality loss, but with a single edit I have a feeling I will never tell the difference between JPG and RAW?
Kinda, but go back a bit further. If making adjustments you never actually touch the RAW file itself, only versions of it through non destructive means. You can sort of say the same with a jpeg if using layers but it starts its life off as an 8 bit image, so where some SLR's shoot 12 or 14 bit, you've automatically thrown away a s
t load of camera info.Plus you've also gone with sharpening, colour balances, contrast etc from a pre determined formula. And that might be exactly what you want - camera manufacturers invest money into making their systems render colours better, sharper etc....there's many a pro who dont bother with RAW, they shoot in camera jpeg and it's hoofed out to pic desks and editors soon as possible,
If your issue is one of storage, external hard drives are cheap. They're not reliable so often you need more than one.I personally keep everything I shoot, there's not a good enough reason to bin things to me as they're all specific shots. I think if I was a jobbing pro I'd question that, I'm currently sat on 6TB of images and I'm sure I'm nowhere near what some people have kicking around.
If it's a time constraint for you on editing then fair call. I think if you're going to be editing your favourites then it'd make sense to have the best quality to start with
theboyfold said:
I always shoot raw + small jpeg. It means I can preview the shots over the wireless network at home and mark the ones I want to work on and then use the raw for edits etc.
Granted it does help having 8tbs of storage though!
I shoot in RAW and then do a batch conversion to Jpeg when I get home, this allows me to sort through them quickly without needeing to fill memory cards with RAW and Jpeg.Granted it does help having 8tbs of storage though!
I use RAW because I'm happier when the image is as good as it can be, I don't like the idea of chucking away a lot of info for no reason.
Of course I work offshore so have two weeks out here to sort through pictures without too many interuptions.
Why not shoot both?
Jpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
Jpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
mcflurry said:
Why not shoot both?
Jpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
Well, then I would need to edit both Jpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
I wouldn't post or give anyone unedited JPGs anyway.Storage is not a problem. It's the hassle and speed of converting.
I think what I may do is to shoot RAW + smallest possible JPG, Then go through the JPGs to see which RAW files I don't need. After deleting unnecessary RAW files I should be left with much less to play with/convert.
Is there any way to automatically delete corresponding RAW files when I delete the JPG?
rottie102 said:
Well, then I would need to edit both I wouldn't post or give anyone unedited JPGs anyway.
Storage is not a problem. It's the hassle and speed of converting.
I think what I may do is to shoot RAW + smallest possible JPG, Then go through the JPGs to see which RAW files I don't need. After deleting unnecessary RAW files I should be left with much less to play with/convert.
Is there any way to automatically delete corresponding RAW files when I delete the JPG?
Since your RAW file will have a small size jpg embedded in it all you really need is a program to extract that as a jpg into the same folder. View the jpg, don't want it, delete both files. There are excellent and fast free programs available. ("Instant JPG from RAW" for example ... if I recalled the ame correctly.) I wouldn't post or give anyone unedited JPGs anyway.Storage is not a problem. It's the hassle and speed of converting.
I think what I may do is to shoot RAW + smallest possible JPG, Then go through the JPGs to see which RAW files I don't need. After deleting unnecessary RAW files I should be left with much less to play with/convert.
Is there any way to automatically delete corresponding RAW files when I delete the JPG?
Alternatively find a different editor/viewer that is quicker for assessing stuff than your current software. For example Faststone Viewer (free) will display a RAW file quickly ('cos it initially just shows the embedded jpg), allows you to tweak things if you are unsure about keeping or rejecting (adds a little time) and also allows you to move or copy to another folder (so maybe a 'delete' folder ?) with a keyboard command or two. Pretty good for first level assessment and can do more than that if you want it to.
If you are prepared to spend money it might be worth looking at Capture One Pro. 30 day free fully functional trial. Fast with RAW files although of course if you have huge files (Canon 7D, 1Ds3, and similar) the memory available becomes a factor. Very powerful photo editor (not a graphics editing package) which is mainly intuitive to use but has some interesting features requiring a little more learning just below the surface. Powerful batch functions if your photography is the sort that can make use of them.
I've just been doing some side by side comparisons between edited RAW files and jpgs more or less straight from the camera. Sometimes the differences, processed independently, are so small that the jpg would be good enough. Other times the potential detail from the RAW has been lost in the in camera processing when the JPG was created. This is especially true when dealing with a very wide dynamic range and shot by shot variability.
All of that said people's practical needs are not always the same but hopefully this will offer a few flexible alternatives to consider.
surely it's just easy enough to import all the RAW files into aperture or lightroom - delete the crap images and tweek the gooduns.
then just export to a jpeg size resolution that you want and distribute as required - simples.
i do this with my macbook - all RAW pics and aperture library stored on USB drive (so aperture is a bit slow - but only have a small drive in an oldish macbook) but then export 1024 on longest side images and import into iphoto for general viewing and sharing.
if i need a high res jpeg, i can go back to aperture and export one from the RAW file. Easy
then just export to a jpeg size resolution that you want and distribute as required - simples.
i do this with my macbook - all RAW pics and aperture library stored on USB drive (so aperture is a bit slow - but only have a small drive in an oldish macbook) but then export 1024 on longest side images and import into iphoto for general viewing and sharing.
if i need a high res jpeg, i can go back to aperture and export one from the RAW file. Easy
Well, as it happens, Lightroom was the problem. I have a 3.2 64-bit version on a decent spec laptop but still exporting JPGs from 23gb of raw files is still too much for its power.
The Jpeg-to-raw utility recommended earlier (thank you!!) makes it soooo much faster to extract the JPGs
The Jpeg-to-raw utility recommended earlier (thank you!!) makes it soooo much faster to extract the JPGs
Bear in mind that the jpg extraction will only give you the relatively low resolution stored in the RAW file. That's probably fine for a lot of first level selection stuff but don't forget that it's ability to assist with selection based on, say, pin sharpness or colour subtlety will have been compromised by the compression.
FastStone viewer (for example) is pretty quick for jpg display (using the intern jpg for first view and a quick raw translation for a next level view. I see it as the next step up (it has much more functionality for not too much speed loss) and a better presentation than most included 'viewers' really offer.
As ever, once you ask the application to do some real work in the form of some processing things will slow down. I think the problem with LR and most other programs is that when people grab the 'pre-processing' opportunities (like 'Apply this style when you open the file', or 'Add a watermark so I don't have to do it later', etc., etc.) they are employing something that will sometimes be a huge assistance and time saver over the term of the whole process - but not always during an initial selection review.
If you seem to end up with huge numbers of files - a couple of thousand a day and about 36Gb is quite typical some days in my case - it may well be that the whole set is not ideally processed by a single workflow approach. Nor, indeed, a single assess and edit application.
I guess I reall want something that tells me - "Use the jpg this time, it's as good as you will need." or "Forget the jpg, go to the RAW it will be a better approach for you."
One day .... maybe.
FastStone viewer (for example) is pretty quick for jpg display (using the intern jpg for first view and a quick raw translation for a next level view. I see it as the next step up (it has much more functionality for not too much speed loss) and a better presentation than most included 'viewers' really offer.
As ever, once you ask the application to do some real work in the form of some processing things will slow down. I think the problem with LR and most other programs is that when people grab the 'pre-processing' opportunities (like 'Apply this style when you open the file', or 'Add a watermark so I don't have to do it later', etc., etc.) they are employing something that will sometimes be a huge assistance and time saver over the term of the whole process - but not always during an initial selection review.
If you seem to end up with huge numbers of files - a couple of thousand a day and about 36Gb is quite typical some days in my case - it may well be that the whole set is not ideally processed by a single workflow approach. Nor, indeed, a single assess and edit application.
I guess I reall want something that tells me - "Use the jpg this time, it's as good as you will need." or "Forget the jpg, go to the RAW it will be a better approach for you."
One day .... maybe.
If it's being paid for, I shoot RAW, no question. If I'm shooting for pleasure, which isn't often these days, then it goes one of two ways. If it's some amazing scene that I may want wring the nuts out of later, I'll shoot RAW, bracket yadayada. But if it is simply 'This is my cat' or 'This is wot my garden looks like today' I shoot JPG (with a compact).
mcflurry said:
Why not shoot both?
Jpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
I like your thinking but have you seen how expensive 64Gb memory cards are? I've seen Compact Flash III ones at £300 eachJpgs for facebook, webstuff and emails to friends, leaving the "good" ones to be lightroom'd and played with
Storage is fairly cheap - a 1tb drive is around £50, allowing for a 16gb card to be filled over 50 times. Many ISPs offer huge online storage for additional backup
corozin said:
I like your thinking but have you seen how expensive 64Gb memory cards are? I've seen Compact Flash III ones at £300 each
Yes but most people probably don't need 64Gb cards for what they do. If I have a busy with finger on the button at 5 fps I can fill 2, maybe 3, 16Gb cards and perhaps a 4Gb in a second body and, if I choose to do anything with them, up to 16Gb of 'backup' jpgs files.Of course if I was using a Canon 7D or higher spec the files would twice the size but I would still probably not exceed 64Gb.
If you go with something like a Phase One back or shoot a lot of HD video the rules change and large cards with high read/write speeds become a necessity. By that time the budgets for most of the kit required would make large fast card costs look like chicken feed. And of course in studio type use, even out on location, there is the possibility to tether the camera to a notebook or even just a hard drive.
Downloading the stuff can be a chore unless you find a good reader/computer combination and that may be one reason why very large cards are so expensive still, retail prices for all card sizes having stayed rather stable, as far as I can tell, for the last year or so. They are still rather exclusive to economyh of scale and the demand for the next size and faster performance have been lacking.
An economic uplift, if there is one, and the spread of USB3 over the next year or so may move the game, and the pricing, to new levels. Whether the editor programs can keep up is yet to be seen.
External 1Tb hard drives are now available for under £40. So even if you shoot 64 Gb and keep 50Gb of those for posterity you could get about 18 shoots on a drive - about £2 per back up - £4 if you keep 2 copies.
Of course you may need a larger living space to store the drives ....
Simpo Two said:
If it's being paid for, I shoot RAW, no question. If I'm shooting for pleasure, which isn't often these days, then it goes one of two ways. If it's some amazing scene that I may want wring the nuts out of later, I'll shoot RAW, bracket yadayada. But if it is simply 'This is my cat' or 'This is wot my garden looks like today' I shoot JPG (with a compact).
PH's Captain Sensible!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff