RAW vs. JPEG - The battle begins.

[CaseyScofield]

Hi All,

I've been shooting RAW images with my 20D for about a month now, and I love the quality, and the fact that I can save and resave the files as many times as I want without loosing any of that quality...BUT THE SIZE! My gosh! The amount of memory each file uses is tremendous!

I've been burning them to CD's for now cause my computer is loaded to gills with no memory to spare. I've looked at separate hard drives...but just don't know.

Any thoughts? Do most Newspapers/Magazines/Clients really need a 20+ mb original to work from, or is a 3-4 mb JPEG sufficient?

Thanks much in advance! :D

-C

[cactusclay]

I don't know about the magazine or newpaper market, but I'm having a hard time shooting Raw all the time because of the very reasons you mentioned. I see the bennefits to it, but it does mean larger, or more cf cards and ongoing storage problems. I used to just shoot slides, so there really wasn't a lot I could do, if I didn't get a good exposure to start with and I'm starting to feel like maybe I just need to pay closer attention in the first place, so i don't have to do a lot of post porcessing. I may just start shooting raw for the things i just can't afford to get wrong and shoot jpeg for the rest.

[CaseyScofield]

Thanks Clay!

Glad to know that I'm not the only one in this boat. You read my mind on the "paying closer attention" thing. I may do like you say, and only shoot RAW for the things I need to get right.

[ssim]

For about 200.00 I put in a second 160GB hard drive. Even at that I would not trust the fact that they will always be safe. I also burn all my original RAW files to DVD. The whole investment was less than 400.00.

I've found over time that I end up loading some of my original RAW files as my photoshop skills improve and I can do better on them than I did say a year ago.

Newspapers are not very discerning about image size. However, if you happen to get picked up by a nice glossy magazine, I'm sure you'll want to have the original.

[etaf]

the requirements vary a lot depending on the image - if its something really special and newsworthy it wont matter.

I just prefer to shot in RAW as I then have the choice of what to do with the image afterwards.
I have a 1Gb card which gives me about a 100 images and a portable image-tank so I can copy CF cards anywhere

I burn to DVD (4.7G) and usually to two just in case - if they are special pictures.
in the UK at fares you can pick up a retail box DVD writer with software for £50 DVD-R's at about 30p each and a harddrive 120GB / 160GB for about £60

[Hellashot]

Hi All,
I've been burning them to CD's for now cause my computer is loaded to gills with no memory to spare. I've looked at separate hard drives...but just don't know.

Just get a DVD burner and you'll be burned discs less often.

[tim]

I don't trust optical media to keep valuable data safe, I always keep my photos on at least 2 hard drives, preferably ones in different buildings, and sometimes an optical media. Right now my photos are on my hard drive, my portable drive, and my work PC, as well as having a backup on DVD at my parents place. It may be overkill, but i'm unlikely to lose data :)

[Chris1le]

Any thoughts? Do most Newspapers/Magazines/Clients really need a 20+ mb original to work from, or is a 3-4 mb JPEG sufficient?


A not to recent cover of Outdoor Photographer was shot with a G3, Large Fine JPEG. So no. You do not need a 20+ mb original. RAW and JPEG both have their place.

Here is a quote from one of the write ups about the Rebel XT:

"With DIGIC II, Canon has created a processor so fast it can read, process, compress and write image data back to the buffer between exposures," explains Worley. "This allows continuous shooting with the Canon Rebel XT digital camera without the camera becoming clogged with data. Moreover, each image is subject to the complex and individual processing required in order to deliver superb image quality." The image quality delivered by DIGIC II is so good that leading photographic agency Getty Images chooses to shoot JPEG rather than RAW images."

http://************/3kezk

[chtgrubbs]

The raw file from the 20D is only a little over 8MB, so just archive the raw file and convert to TIFF as necessary. I only convert those files which I intend to print large or send to clients as fully processed images. Other files which I will print small in quantities, such as Xmas or birthday party pics I batch convert to Jpeg.

[Pelao]

Two issues here
1. Is RAW needed:
read this, it may help
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

2. Additional storage.
CDs and/or DVDs are perhaps best as part of a storage backup regime. Buy the best optical discs you can get, especially ones with a layer of gold.
External drives are incredibly cheap now. I store my Photos in a Firewire drive, and back that drive up to a second one. I also copy them to CDs.

[dijitul+philm]

Hey, Pelao, thanks for the referral to Ken Rockwell's very informative essay on this topic. I understand the plusses of RAW, but even some compacts like my Canon S70 (which enables RAW) has enough saved data in it's least-compressed JPEG setting that, with a few seconds to set parameters, results are very very good except in extremely tricky lighting conditions.;)