Digital Picture Storage Devices

[Algoessailing]

The quality difference between RAW and low compression JPG isn't as great as some people make it out to be either. You can end up paying a high price for the relatively little quality gain that you might not even need.
.

I will agree the quality difference is slight between RAW and low compression: but so is the file size. I get 70 RAW images on 1GB card, but only 62 low compression TIff. I also experminted with seven different shots of the same thing on each setting of my camera. The higher five compression settings all showed grain much earlier under heavy contrast/saturation changes than the RAW and L Tiff, and I get more pics with the RAW. Why shoot RAW? The same reason you bought good film: better pictures. Otherwise, we might as well be using a point and shoot off the shelf at walmart for $39.

 

[Ant]

The quality difference between RAW and low compression JPG isn't as great as some people make it out to be either. You can end up paying a high price for the relatively little quality gain that you might not even need.
.

I will agree the quality difference is slight between RAW and low compression: but so is the file size. I get 70 RAW images on 1GB card, but only 62 low compression TIff. I also experminted with seven different shots of the same thing on each setting of my camera. The higher five compression settings all showed grain much earlier under heavy contrast/saturation changes than the RAW and L Tiff, and I get more pics with the RAW. Why shoot RAW? The same reason you bought good film: better pictures. Otherwise, we might as well be using a point and shoot off the shelf at walmart for $39.

I think you're getting confused with formats. I'm talking about JPG files not TIFF. TIFF files are totally uncompressed and are HUGE. I'd never use TIFF....my camera can't take them anyway so that's academic

JPG files are typically less than half of a RAW file, even low compression JPGs. So by using JPG I get twice as many photos as I would with RAW for little, if any, quality loss for what I do with my photos.

 

[Jovian]

oh...another RAW vs. JPG fight.... this might get exciting...

 

[Digital Matt]

You can't compare jpg vs raw as a blanket statement. It differs from shot to shot. If you want to have 2 stops of exposure compensation and ease of white balance control on every shot, then shoot RAW. It's not that raw makes every photo look better, but a raw photo that was underexposed with poor white balance will withstand processing more, because it has not been processed by the cameras chip. Hence there will be less noise, and it will look better. Granted we are talking subtle differences that are going to be far more noticeable in large prints vs 4x6s.

For me, I like to have that safety net, because camera meters are not always accurate, and sometimes the dynamic range you are trying to photograph is just too much, and you need expsoure compensation. The camera's white balance is rarely "perfect" either.

I like to print my photos big, or at least have the ability to print them big at any time.

FYI, I just bought 2 1gig CF cards for around $130, after rebates.

 

[Scott WRG Editor]

Personaly for my storage solution, I plan on buying an Ipod, Iriver, or one of the Dell Jukeboxes and buying one of the CF Readers / Transfer dongles for it. I know its slower than a dedicated unit, but I want the functionality of having the music plus being able to store my images, on the days I do fill up the cards (Curring I just have an 128mb and a 256MB CF cards) on my *istD they dont last long when shooting in RAW....

I personally have been looking at going with the smaller size (1* vs 3*) but keeping it RAW.

You should check out this http://archos.com/products/overview/gmini_400.html

It seems to be a pretty descent all around solution.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

If you have a slightest inclination of printing 13*19, then you're better off shooting raw all the fn time. It's not THAT expensive.

That's my point. Shooting RAW isn't for everybody all the time, yet most of the advice I see on the internet seems to suggest that there's no realistic alternative.

Shooting outside "green box" with your camera isn't for "everybody all the time". Lot's of people shoot in auto mode also and don't concern themselves with apertures and shutter speeds.

I'm not everybody and I shoot raw. And when you compare a JPEG out of camera and a RAW with adjusted white balance, manual sharpening and upsizing... the difference is HUGE.

But yeah... you can shoot JPEG and be happy with it.