[ale] going OT - Working with photos (was) Extreme Practical Data Recovery (Part 2)

[Robert Reese~]

>> Consider forgetting shooting JPG and go just RAW.
>>
> RAW?  That'll *multiply* your storage space & post-processing
> (computer & human time) requirements.

But not by much.  The advantages in most circumstances merit the additional storage and processing.

As for the temporary storage, just get larger cards and get a few of them.  They're cheap and you'll be glad you had them at some point.



>  I won't say "don't do it"
> but I would say "consider the features and costs of your shooting
> options."  For examples, raw is proprietary, jpeg is a published
> standard.  Raw requires special software to "decode" & camera
> makers keep the internal format(s) proprietary (& unless you spend
> some bux their software for such decoding is usually rather
> crummy). 

Actually, it's free as long as you're happy with what they provide.  Additionally, every DSLR creates each and every photo as a RAW photo, then does its own processing to create that Jpeg.  And if you aren't shooting RAW, once the photos is converted to Jpeg it had *better* be what you wanted without error, either yours or the camera's.  You're also maxed out at the largest size Jpeg the camera can produce, so if you got an excellent photo that you would love to touch up and blow up, too bad.  With RAW, no problem.  Plus with RAW you have a greater ability to use the power of High Dynamic Range.

If you are worried about storage (if a 500GB drive is out of your price range, you probably spent too much on the camera) then delete the RAW file after you are happy with the Jpeg version.



> There tends to be religious/flamewar discussion over such
> things as jpeg v raw but (as with computers & software) it more
> boils down to using the "right" tool for the job at hand.  I don't
> think I'd forego jpeg for raw in any case.  {shrug}

Except why bother with a DSLR at all?  A cheapo $99 7MP camera from Office Desk fits the bill nicely.  The vast majority of people that buy a good DSLR are interested in much better photography, if not professional-grade photography.  And as a result will benefit from RAW.



> Or better yet, an ExpoDisc.  :)  (But they're not cheap...)

I'd love to have one of those, but they aren't appropriate for every circumstance either and much more difficult to handle, particularly in the 'wild'.  Great for weddings and such, where the lighting doesn't change much or you don't need a particular dominant light source.  The card solution allows you to specify the important light source and is much easier to use in the field.

> I
> always used the Kodak card (18% grey on one side, 90% white on the
> other) but I don't think it's available anymore {sigh}. A grey (or
> white) card is nice but if you don't have one handy there are other
> almost-as-good options (e.g. a clean white sheet of paper).

You can still get grey cards, but the cost of the WhiBal is very low given its durability.  The problem with white paper is it gets you close, but not guaranteed, certified close.  Plus, most white paper actually have a blue tint to them which throws the rest of the photo off.  True, most people don't need the precision a WhiBal (or other certified neutral color card) but it sure is handy to have from time to time.  $30 to get the *right* color emerald clover while visiting Ireland or the right Cerulean blue while photographing the water to me is worth it.

Sure, there is free software and free white-balance solutions out there, but since the cost of the good stuff is so reasonable there seems little reason to use the free solutions any longer than necessary.  Memory and harddrives are inexpensive, too.

Sure, there'll be times when shooting just Jpeg is desirable, it just won't be very often once you get comfortable with RAW. :)
 
Cheers,
Robert~