Last winter i upgraded my storage capacity by adding 1TB hard drive and 5 months later i have 400Gb free space left on that drive.This happens due to my paranoia of shooting always RAW.I want to mention that i shoot 24mp lossless RAW on Nikon.After every shoot i select the files to keep and process them but i find myself keeping always a RAW copy of the files besides the processed Jpeg's. I shoot RAW because of flexibility in processing but to be honest very rarely i get back to the RAW archive for old files.My biggest concern is that the weddings season is close and i might need to add another drive.
How do you guys deal with this? Do you always delete Raw files and keep jpeg's?
I make it easy, never shoot RAW. Ed.
I always shoot in RAW then store post processed image as an unsharpened 16 bits/channel TIFF. I then sharpen the image and store as a JPEG. If I require an image for the net or for printing I resize it and sharpen the resized image before converting to a JPEG. Once used, I delete this image from my system.
So every image I take is stored as RAW and every image I choose to proceed with is also stored as a TIFF and a JPEG.
Obviously I do not take as many images as you do!
Firstly, just a point of information for anyone who might be interested: many cameras can store raw files (not RAW) or JPEG files (not jpeg) or both; 'JPEG' is an acronym for the Joint Photographic Experts Group who created the file format, 'raw' is simply the word 'raw' to indicate that the data from the sensor has not been processed into a full-size image (although it does include a small JPEG image so we can view the capture on the camera's rear LCD screen).
Secondly, I usually make use of the technology in the camera and record only the camera's highest quality JPEG files. I hardly ever capture the raw data file, unless perhaps the scene has problematic lighting. When a Pentax camera records a JPEG file, after reviewing it on the LCD screen the user can then decide to save the raw data file for that same image, if he/she wishes. This is an excellent feature, but I have rarely needed to use it, as the JPEG files are usually close to what I want, i.e. the raw files are simply not needed, so for me they are literally a waste of space. The JPEGs can then be edited in imaging software, if necessary, to get to the final product with no discernible loss of quality at the viewing sizes that I produce. I always store and keep the original JPEG files as a backup in the same folders as the edited JPEG files, and all the folders and files are backed up again on external hard drives.
Apr 12, 2017, 13:05
(This post was last modified: Apr 12, 2017, 14:31 by EdMak.)
Robert, at 82 I shoot very little, full stop. If I was still working, would happily shoot JPEG, (When it was devised originally, J was for Japanese)! I do edit my pics in raw, via Bridge, does all I want, and much more. Since l retired 16 years ago, have done one paid job, only took it as the contractor was allowed money for pics, he was a friend. Got £500. Ed.
Using the Fuji camera I only shoot Jpeg as the quality is practically as good as the raw files, which Lightroom/PSCS5 and CR don't handle very well. But then I use it for mainly street work. When I use the Nikons, I shoot both and decide if I need the RAW file when I download the card. If the images are just snapshots, I discard the raw files, if they are serious work, I keep and use the raw files. The Jpeg engines in the latest crop of cameras is a far cry from the much cruder engines used in earlier cameras of five years ago.
I shoot RAW only. And I have noticed my laptop is getting quite full. But (a) I don't shoot that much and (b) after every shoot I delete all the shots I'm not happy with - usually about 90%. Of the remainder I will process the best few and save as JPGs, and usually put up on Flickr. I do keep the RAW files, but there's never many of them after I've scythed through them!
I will continue to use the designation RAW, as against raw, as it is becoming universal to use that form throughout the digital photography world. It also looks better in print and stands out easier when reading. I know it is "wrong", but it is read and understood throughout the world. RAW is international, raw is English.
I've shot raw since 2009 exclusively... my current rig has 4.5 TB of storage and I have another 8TB external. I have every image I have ever shot going back to 1998 stored.
I only cull out of focus or obvious duplicate images. Everything else I save "just in case".
I have a dual HDD dock, so can buy regular internal HDD's and use them as externals, makes for even cheaper storage. Then everything is also on the Cloud.
Again for anyone interested - it would seem difficult to find an authority more definitive and international than Photoshop, and the following is a screenshot extract from the Adobe.com web site:
Settle for sore, capitalized as desired. Ed.
Apr 13, 2017, 06:25
(This post was last modified: Apr 13, 2017, 06:29 by Jocko.)
And this from Canon!
A RAW file is the image data exactly as captured on the sensor. Any settings you apply in white balance, Picture Styles and some other areas are only appended to the image as a small header file. This means they can be changed later in RAW conversion software such as Canon’s Digital Photo Professional (supplied with the camera). A RAW file is often referred to as a ‘digital negative’ because the data can be processed and printed in different ways to produce different results – just like the negative from a film camera. Also, like a film negative, the RAW file never changes. When you open a RAW file in a software application, it is actually a copy of the data which opens. When you save this, it creates a new file on your computer. The original RAW file can then be opened again (as another copy) and worked on to produce a completely different result.
Neither is right or wrong. Personally I prefer RAW.
This one keeps raising it's head and as always like marmite it's very much a personal preference, you either love or hate raw, me I am raw to the core and always will be as are all of my professional photographer friends.
I'm lost... :-)
Is this thread about shooting in RAW or Raw or raw versus shooting in JPG, or is it about or preference for how we write Raw or raw or RAW?
Either way, I'm a RAW, raw, Raw shooter through and through.
Apr 15, 2017, 06:44
(This post was last modified: Apr 15, 2017, 06:46 by pixelmaker.)
Rah ... Rah ... Rah for Raw, raw, and RAW.
The important points have been made in the detailed replies above. I would only add: almost all manufacturers RAW formats are TIFF based. Most RAW formats include extras such as EXIF and Canon (and others?) include a low format JPG for in camera preview.
JPEG ALWAYS loses something not least because it is 8 bit in almost all cases, and it uses compression which can be as high as 10:1.
RAW is lossless. While there is some processing (de-mosaic the pixels, apply sensor pixel defect corrections), the image content is untouched for our purposes. This means no compression but most importantly 12- 14 bits of colour information.
So who cares? Mostly it doesn't matter for auto white balance snapshots in good light which are not going to be enlarged a great deal, or don't have a lot of dynamic range. But multiple processing and saving of a JPEG will degrade the image further unless you use high quality to save.
RAW can typically record 2 extra stops of dynamic range on a well exposed image. What this means is I have more latitude if I've not got it right OR I'm taking a high contrast -images such as a wedding photo in daylight with the bride in white and the groom in black, or a sunset or sunrise for example. In more than one case I have modified exposure in a RAW image in post processing and saved twice - once to get colorful sky and another for the foreground. More often I have changed exposure in RAW to get a better overall exposure.
I shoot RAW (with Canon), copy to disc, filter out junk, then use QuickjpegfromCR2 to extract embedded jpegs. Often I use the extracted JPEG with perhaps a little post-processing for many of my pictures. For those special images; those I really want to enlarge; that have a big dynamic range; that are not quite perfect exposure, then RAW processing has the greatest chance of getting a good result.
Finally shooting RAW+JPEG uses the most space on a memory card AND takes longer to record in camera. A 3TB Hard drive + another external of the same size for off line backup is relatively cheap. The biggest challenge is an indexing process that allows me to remember where things are and retrieve them!
Nowadays I always shoot RAW; mostly because I play with the colour temperature in all my pictures and that is just not as smooth just with JPG.
While I was studying I was doing an internship at a newspaper and they told me to shoot JPG for fast turnaround of the photos; which I did back then as most were to become black & white anyway.
I use CS4E, and JPEG, am able to adjust Temp etc in Camera Raw. Is that not the same. Thanks. Ed.