Download times, RAW versus JPEG.

[Balmoral Green]

I've taken the first few pics with a new camera, some I took in jpeg format (Fine, SuperHi, 4608x3072), whilst others I have taken in RAW. The jpeg pics downloaded more or less instantly, but the RAW images are taking ages, a few minutes each, I tried to download and save them all at once rather than individually, but my PC gave up.

Is this because I have a low spec computer?
Is there anything I can do about it?

4 year old budget level Dell
MS Windows XP SP2
Intel Pentium 4CPU 2.8GHz
256MB RAM

Camera is Sigma SD14, 14.06 million.

[anonymous-user]

It's because they are a lot larger files!!!

[Andy M]

Consider buying a card reader

I have this one: http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1145)-SDDR-89...

[Balmoral Green]

garyhun said:

It's because they are a lot larger files!!!

Well, at the risk of appearing as dumb as ****, I kind of thought that may be all there was too it, I was just surprised at how long it was taking, and wondered if it was my PC?

Thanks.

[DanH]

Balmoral Green said:

I've taken the first few pics with a new camera, some I took in jpeg format (Fine, SuperHi, 4608x3072), whilst others I have taken in RAW. The jpeg pics downloaded more or less instantly, but the RAW images are taking ages, a few minutes each, I tried to download and save them all at once rather than individually, but my PC gave up.

Is this because I have a low spec computer?
Is there anything I can do about it?

4 year old budget level Dell
MS Windows XP SP2
Intel Pentium 4CPU 2.8GHz
256MB RAM

Camera is Sigma SD14, 14.06 million.

Buy a card reader as suggested and accept they will take a lot longer as they are a lot bigger.

p.s. 256 meg ram is not going to cut it for photo editing. That's a ludicrously small amount even by 4 years ago standards! You need a gig for windows to even work acceptably!

[Balmoral Green]

DanH said:

Buy a card reader as suggested and accept they will take a lot longer as they are a lot bigger.

p.s. 256 meg ram is not going to cut it for photo editing. That's a ludicrously small amount even by 4 years ago standards! You need a gig for windows to even work acceptably!

Thanks, I think the lack of memory is now a big problem for me in so many applications.

Time to upgrade I reckon.

[DanH]

Balmoral Green said:

DanH said:

Buy a card reader as suggested and accept they will take a lot longer as they are a lot bigger.

p.s. 256 meg ram is not going to cut it for photo editing. That's a ludicrously small amount even by 4 years ago standards! You need a gig for windows to even work acceptably!

Thanks, I think the lack of memory is now a big problem for me in so many applications.

Time to upgrade I reckon.

If buying a new PC I'd go for 2 gigs RAM. I've got 4 gigs in mine and the machine flies (also thanks to the quad core chip), but I have to run vista64 for that much RAM which is annoyingly incompatible with half the nikon software for me. You'll be amazed how much quicker PCs have got even though the clock speeds are ostensibly the same.

[Balmoral Green]

I just ordered 2GB of new RAM (2 x 1GB for each slot) to upgrade my current PC, something I needed to do anyway.

Thanks.

[JimNotJon]

As said above. Ram is a vital factor, as is processor speed when you want to edit pictures. I recommend getting a new pc. Might be more cost effective to have it built specifically for your needs, a tower only job perhaps. Saves you buying your peripherals all over again.

Typically my .jpegs run between 3.4mb - 6.2mb (largest jpeg ive ever had). My RAW and RAW+ files tend to be at least 15mb each.

[toothlessjim]

id also suggest having dual core or even quad core if u can afford it. Recently upgraded mine, intel 6600 dual core and an extra gig of ram plus new mother board and heat sink fan as well as replacing a broken 7600gts hi-def gfx card, total £300

[Famous Graham]

Andy M said:

Consider buying a card reader

What he said. Camera transfers are notoriously slow.

[Ordinary Bloke]

Quite a few professionals use JPEG's, I was told by one wedding photographer & instructor. I agree with him, I think RAW is a lot of extra effort for perhaps only a small return.

A USB2.0 card reader is usually quicker than connecting the camera.

512MB is ok, I guess more would be nice. But the USB link is going to be slower than the hard-disk so it doesn't make too much difference to the download time, it's more a case of needing RAM to view/process a lot of pics after you've downloaded them.

[MonkeyHanger]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Quite a few professionals use JPEG's, I was told by one wedding photographer & instructor. I agree with him, I think RAW is a lot of extra effort for perhaps only a small return.

A USB2.0 card reader is usually quicker than connecting the camera.

512MB is ok, I guess more would be nice. But the USB link is going to be slower than the hard-disk so it doesn't make too much difference to the download time, it's more a case of needing RAM to view/process a lot of pics after you've downloaded them.

It's Horses for courses. Wedding 'togs want to get stuff off to the Printers and into Albums ASAP, and then there's News & Sports 'togs working to deadlines. They don't have time to process RAW files.

However, large prints from converted RAW files are a lot better than an in-camera JPEG ever will be...

[Ordinary Bloke]

Oh yes, I agree. If you're going for colour accuracy and larger than A4 prints then RAW could well be the way to go. I have been happy with JPEGs up to A3 but others may see it differently.

However I suspect that most photographers rarely go beyond 10x8" prints, and don't care about precise colour accuracy, so long as it looks good. So I was just suggesting that RAW is a bit of an overhead for many of us.

[DanH]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Quite a few professionals use JPEG's, I was told by one wedding photographer & instructor. I agree with him, I think RAW is a lot of extra effort for perhaps only a small return.

A USB2.0 card reader is usually quicker than connecting the camera.

512MB is ok, I guess more would be nice. But the USB link is going to be slower than the hard-disk so it doesn't make too much difference to the download time, it's more a case of needing RAM to view/process a lot of pics after you've downloaded them.

I know where you are coming from and if you get it right then the jpegs are fine. Its just I keep screwing up my white balance selections! At least its properly recoverable with RAW.

[Ordinary Bloke]

I have to say I have never had WB problems, either my Canon get's it right automatically, or PS cleans it up easily afterwards. Or maybe I'm not critical enough of my own photos?

My niece admitted that a photo I framed of her makes her look green, but that was taken on slide film and scanned, so I think I messed up in post processing.

[Simpo Two]

I shoot compressed RAW and the files are not much different in size from a large fine JPG with lots of detail.

Anyway, one thing that hasn't been touched on is USB vs USB2. Your PC is probably ordinary old USB whilst you really need USB 2.0 to make transfer speeds acceptable - it's about 8x faster. I think any new PC will have USB 2.0 as standard, and if you buy a card reader make sure it says USB 2.0 as well.

As for JPEG vs RAW, well, I could do a fast, shoddy job with JPG or a good job with RAW. Actually that's not true - tarting up a JPG that's wrong takes longer than processing a RAW and it still won't be right. Most honeymoons last 2 weeks - with the right software that's ample time to process 400-500 RAW files and have them waiting on the doormat for when the couple get back.

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 29th December 23:02

[DanH]

Ordinary Bloke said:

I have to say I have never had WB problems, either my Canon get's it right automatically, or PS cleans it up easily afterwards. Or maybe I'm not critical enough of my own photos?

My niece admitted that a photo I framed of her makes her look green, but that was taken on slide film and scanned, so I think I messed up in post processing.

I'm trying to take photos in poor light a lot, and I keep making mistakes. E.g. I select tungsten for flashless shots inside then pop the flash for some fill to see how it looks, and the lit subject ends up blue/green. I'm new to it all so I'll get better at remembering but there are so many settings to play with on these DSLRs that I keep forgetting something in the heat of trying to get a shot.

[Balmoral Green]

Andy M said:

Consider buying a card reader

I have this one: http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1145)-SDDR-89...

I bought one of those this afternoon, thanks for the heads up, it is so much faster than connecting to the camera. Once I get my 2G of memory installed, I should be flying.

Many thanks.

[andy_quantum]

I got a USB2 PCi card from PC World the other day. Mainly for speeding up the transfer rate for my ipod, but it works wonders with the memory card reader as well.

Also got a new secondary hard drive too, same as you I've just got a new camera and I wanted to have all the shots I've taken on this one so I can see where I'm getting better at taking pics / getting more used to the camera. 320 gig PATA for £60 odd I think it was, might be worth looking at.