Prev: OpenOffice Writer 3.2.1 on openSUSE 11.3 startup delay
Next: SOLVED ... Re: 11.3 boot-to-desktop performance
From: mjt on 23 Jul 2010 21:20
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:29:23 +0100
David Bolt <blacklist-me(a)davjam.org> wrote:

> Totally unrelated to the OPs problem...
>
> My preference is to save in RAW+JPG, and with a 16GB card space isn't
> much of an issue. If I need to do any post processing[0], I'll use the
> RAW. If not, I'll pass on the JPG from the camera to whoever I'm
> sharing it with and keep a hold of the RAW file. That way, they can
> crop to the sizes they want. And if I need to, I can prove pretty well
> that I have the copyright on the image because I'm the one with the
> RAW. Also, while JPG is a lossy format, it compresses files a lot more
> than PNG.

I can appreciate the RAW+JPG scenario. 95% of my photo work is
portfolio work (for hire work). When I'm in PPing[1], I touch
every photo in my editor - there's always something that can be
tweaked. And I have my workflow down to a science and can work
a series of photos very quickly. Handling two sets of images is
just too time consuming (for me).


[1] The time that it takes to analyze a photo as to whether
it's adequate as a JPG, takes away from the time that's
required to adjust the image - that is why I shoot RAW
only, because I can PP the image just as quickly as it
takes to analyze it. And I have good gear, so they're
not to blame :) D3x, D3s, D700, S5-Pro.

--
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky
<<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>

From: Will Honea on 23 Jul 2010 21:43
David Bolt wrote:

> On Friday 23 Jul 2010 22:24, while playing with a tin of spray paint,
> mjt painted this mural:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:27:06 -0600
>> Will Honea <whonea(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> if there are any .jpg
>>> files they are stored in another format.
>>
>> Another thought ... if she does as I do, I strictly
>> shoot in RAW format, download those, do post-processing,
>> then, if required, I export to PNG (not JPG).
>
> Totally unrelated to the OPs problem...
>
> My preference is to save in RAW+JPG, and with a 16GB card space isn't
> much of an issue. If I need to do any post processing[0], I'll use the
> RAW. If not, I'll pass on the JPG from the camera to whoever I'm
> sharing it with and keep a hold of the RAW file. That way, they can
> crop to the sizes they want. And if I need to, I can prove pretty well
> that I have the copyright on the image because I'm the one with the
> RAW. Also, while JPG is a lossy format, it compresses files a lot more
> than PNG.
>
>
> [0] Most of the time, I don't do post processing. The only time I do is
> when I'm wanting to print out some pictures, and then I try to make
> them look good on paper. I don't bother for those that are only likely
> to be displayed on screen.

From what I've seen to date, this gal's artistic component makes me look
like van Gogh. I'm not really concerned with the quality issue. For my own
stuff, I also stick to the RAW for storage. Many years ago I made spending
money doing portrait work and as a sports stringer for the local paper but I
was doing the math a while back and my 16GB card should last me well past
the funeral ;-)

--
Will Honea

From: David Bolt on 24 Jul 2010 06:08
On Saturday 24 Jul 2010 02:20, while playing with a tin of spray paint,
mjt painted this mural:

<snip>

> I can appreciate the RAW+JPG scenario. 95% of my photo work is
> portfolio work (for hire work).

There's a major difference. I'm an amateur and don't need to make money
from them.

> When I'm in PPing[1], I touch
> every photo in my editor - there's always something that can be
> tweaked.

That I can agree with. It's just that, for me at least, I can leave the
tweaking until I need to display on paper. It's not really worth it
before then because most of my images are displayed on screen and,
since I don't know anyone who has a properly calibrated screen, the
images wouldn't match what I saw after tweaking.

> [1] The time that it takes to analyze a photo as to whether
> it's adequate as a JPG, takes away from the time that's
> required to adjust the image - that is why I shoot RAW
> only, because I can PP the image just as quickly as it
> takes to analyze it. And I have good gear, so they're
> not to blame :) D3x, D3s, D700, S5-Pro.

A Nikon guy :-) I'd say I have fairly good gear, a 40D and an old 300D.
I'm now looking at a 50D, although I'm also considering waiting to see
what specs the next model is going to have as I'm not sure the
additional 2MP is really going to be worth it. The video capabilities
aren't much of an incentive as I already have a video camera.


Regards,
David Bolt

--
Team Acorn: www.distributed.net
| | openSUSE 11.3RC2 32b |
openSUSE 11.1 64b | openSUSE 11.2 64b | |
openSUSE 11.1 PPC | TOS 4.02 | RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11

From: Paul J Gans on 24 Jul 2010 11:58
David Bolt <blacklist-me(a)davjam.org> wrote:
>On Saturday 24 Jul 2010 02:20, while playing with a tin of spray paint,
>mjt painted this mural:

><snip>

>> I can appreciate the RAW+JPG scenario. 95% of my photo work is
>> portfolio work (for hire work).

>There's a major difference. I'm an amateur and don't need to make money
>from them.

>> When I'm in PPing[1], I touch
>> every photo in my editor - there's always something that can be
>> tweaked.

>That I can agree with. It's just that, for me at least, I can leave the
>tweaking until I need to display on paper. It's not really worth it
>before then because most of my images are displayed on screen and,
>since I don't know anyone who has a properly calibrated screen, the
>images wouldn't match what I saw after tweaking.

>> [1] The time that it takes to analyze a photo as to whether
>> it's adequate as a JPG, takes away from the time that's
>> required to adjust the image - that is why I shoot RAW
>> only, because I can PP the image just as quickly as it
>> takes to analyze it. And I have good gear, so they're
>> not to blame :) D3x, D3s, D700, S5-Pro.

>A Nikon guy :-) I'd say I have fairly good gear, a 40D and an old 300D.
>I'm now looking at a 50D, although I'm also considering waiting to see
>what specs the next model is going to have as I'm not sure the
>additional 2MP is really going to be worth it. The video capabilities
>aren't much of an incentive as I already have a video camera.

Yeah. I'm still using my old 300D, but I'm looking at the 7D.

As for the tweaking, I'm of the opinion that every time one
actually tweeks an image (starting from the last tweek, of
course) one *looses* information that can't be recovered.

Thus my strategy is also to archive the orignal images and
play with copies. Then, when the dog's hair turns purple
and the contrast gets to be extreme, I can junk that image
and go back and get another copy.


--
--- Paul J. Gans
From: mjt on 24 Jul 2010 14:54
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:58:32 +0000 (UTC)
Paul J Gans <gansno(a)panix.com> wrote:

> As for the tweaking, I'm of the opinion that every time one
> actually tweeks an image (starting from the last tweek, of
> course) one *looses* information that can't be recovered.

Most editors are non-destructive to the orig RAW
file (changes are recorded elsewhere) ... of course,
hard disks are so inexpensive these days, if behooves
one to have extra for use as backups

--
Any time things appear to be going better,
you have overlooked something.
<<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: OpenOffice Writer 3.2.1 on openSUSE 11.3 startup delay
Next: SOLVED ... Re: 11.3 boot-to-desktop performance