how did i let you guys talk me into pulling the raws

bribrius

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
1,311
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
unless you have to do serious editing I just don't see the point. And now after the last raw vs. jpeg debate I pulled mostly all raw figuring i will give it a shot. . in return for that, I have like 700 images to edit in which 670 or so would have been fine straight jpeg. Some probably better straight jpeg because since i don't really want to edit them all im not exactly doing a stellar job at it. plus I have to convert all the them, plus my back up just sucked up all these raw files wasting space. so i have to delete the raws from the backup and replace them with smaller jpegs. Tempted to do a batch edit and just toss out about half that don't make it.

damn it, i knew i shouldn't have listened wth was i thinking. Talk about a waste of time and energy...

i got to stop listening to people. i just got to.. this is just a waste of time and a total mess and more hours. And since i am converting them all to jpeg anyway just totally retarded and redundant. And the one photo i thought i would get the benefit from, a bw. Probably would have came out better straight highcontrast jpeg with no editing.
total, total, waste , of....... my............................................................time......................................
 
Raw files are not for everyone.

They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored. On a d7100 a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit.

It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?
 
You don't necessarily have to take less pictures as some people suggest. But you may need to adjust based on your habits and come to terms with dying before you even see many of your pictures processed.

Garry Winogrand was known to walk down the street and go through a whole roll of 36 frames. Someone once asked him if he regretted missing pictures when he changed the film. He responded: "there are no pictures when i change the film".

Check out this article about how much work they found when he died:

Camera Works: Photo Essay (washingtonpost.com)

If i recall correctly, which i don't always do, garry was very very efficient at discarding work he didn't feel was up to snuff. This included accepting or rejecting the frame as a whole without cropping. I get the impression he probably would have shot jpeg also :)
 
Raw files are not for everyone.

They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored. On a d7100 a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit.

It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?
it is a problem because i am sick of doing it and staring at a computer screen. view nx and capture. 99 percent nx.... i have some raws running 50mb and ful res jpegs running under 20 i was just flipping through 17, 18,19, there could be some 20's though.. lower jpegs 10mb and less.

mostly it is just unnecessary time. i was shooting primarily jpeg, or if i questioned the need for editing jpeg + raw. Then i could just pull the raw after if i needed it on something but primarily just pull all the jpegs. Also adjust the jpeg in camera i don't need a high res quality for jpeg for every shot. shooting straight raw, for me at least, is just causing more work and really a total waste of time and redundant. And a waste of space. Raws are useless anyway, so i have to go back and convert them. totally pointless. this laptop has i think 8 megabytes of ram. Just waiting for the computer to edit and convert one photo in capture i can sit here for a minute. that is a lot of minutes. Never mind my actual edit minutes and delete and get rid of raw file minutes.

total waste of time......raw only for the ones that need it for now on. From a work flow standpoint doing it this way don't even make sense.
 
Raw files are not for everyone.

They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored. On a d7100 a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit.

It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?
it is a problem because i am sick of doing it and staring at a computer screen. view nx and capture. 99 percent nx.... i have some raws running 50mb and ful res jpegs running under 20 i was just flipping through 17, 18,19, there could be some 20's though.. lower jpegs 10mb and less.

mostly it is just unnecessary time. i was shooting primarily jpeg, or if i questioned the need for editing jpeg + raw. Then i could just pull the raw after if i needed it on something but primarily just pull all the jpegs. Also adjust the jpeg in camera i don't need a high res quality for jpeg for every shot. shooting straight raw, for me at least, is just causing more work and really a total waste of time and redundant. And a waste of space. Raws are useless anyway, so i have to go back and convert them. totally pointless. this laptop has i think 8 megabytes of ram. Just waiting for the computer to edit and convert one photo in capture i can sit here for a minute. that is a lot of minutes. Never mind my actual edit minutes and delete and get rid of raw file minutes.

total waste of time......raw only for the ones that need it for now on. From a work flow standpoint doing it this way don't even make sense.

So you are using photoshop? Lightroom?

I use Linux only so i use gimp / darktable. I do an quick rating and rejection process each import and batch delete the rejects every week or so.

I try to keep the edits to things that can be changed quickly like curves, exposure and white balance. Typically get all are about the same for a given session then batch apply.

Are you batching your process? You can highly automate this process. I believe Lightroom is good for this.

Again I'm not saying you should shoot raw, jpeg is usually better for high volume shooters.

I agree raw+jpeg can be a big hassle if you have your program set up to recognize both.
 
You don't necessarily have to take less pictures as some people suggest. But you may need to adjust based on your habits and come to terms with dying before you even see many of your pictures processed.

Garry Winogrand was known to walk down the street and go through a whole roll of 36 frames. Someone once asked him if he regretted missing pictures when he changed the film. He responded: "there are no pictures when i change the film".

Check out this article about how much work they found when he died:

Camera Works: Photo Essay (washingtonpost.com)

If i recall correctly, which i don't always do, garry was very very efficient at discarding work he didn't feel was up to snuff. This included accepting or rejecting the frame as a whole without cropping. I get the impression he probably would have shot jpeg also :)
i don't really take that many photos i took about 15k this year. Probably 8k last year. Maybe 4-5k the year before. this year is my first year i have been over 10k. Out of my 15k this year i have about 8000 after culling right now, so far. it will go smaller. Interesting read.
 
There has always been a kind of RAW elitism out there that puts things out of balance. I prefer JPEG in many situations and setting my camera to shoot both at the same time is the ideal solution.

There are some contexts where the extra durability of RAW is crucial because I know that the JPEG would get damaged by the processing I need to do. But for me this is the exception to the rule. I can usually edit JPEGs (sometimes saved as TIFFs) without being destructive because the editing is subtle and suits the tones in the image.
 
Raw files are not for everyone.

They do however offer a very good value for the space being stored. On a d7100 a raw is somewhere around 33MB. If you interpolate this to a full RGB 16 bit png is around 100MB. This is mainly due to the nature of a Bayer array. A full resolution jpeg is over 20 MB. i don't recall the exact figure i just know I've had to compress a bit to do Internet ordered prints from my local shops cause 20 MB is the upper limit.

It sounds like you have work flow issues if covering 670 files is a problem. What program are you using?
it is a problem because i am sick of doing it and staring at a computer screen. view nx and capture. 99 percent nx.... i have some raws running 50mb and ful res jpegs running under 20 i was just flipping through 17, 18,19, there could be some 20's though.. lower jpegs 10mb and less.

mostly it is just unnecessary time. i was shooting primarily jpeg, or if i questioned the need for editing jpeg + raw. Then i could just pull the raw after if i needed it on something but primarily just pull all the jpegs. Also adjust the jpeg in camera i don't need a high res quality for jpeg for every shot. shooting straight raw, for me at least, is just causing more work and really a total waste of time and redundant. And a waste of space. Raws are useless anyway, so i have to go back and convert them. totally pointless. this laptop has i think 8 megabytes of ram. Just waiting for the computer to edit and convert one photo in capture i can sit here for a minute. that is a lot of minutes. Never mind my actual edit minutes and delete and get rid of raw file minutes.

total waste of time......raw only for the ones that need it for now on. From a work flow standpoint doing it this way don't even make sense.

So you are using photoshop? Lightroom?

I use Linux only so i use gimp / darktable. I do an quick rating and rejection process each import and batch delete the rejects every week or so.

I try to keep the edits to things that can be changed quickly like curves, exposure and white balance. Typically get all are about the same for a given session then batch apply.

Are you batching your process? You can highly automate this process. I believe Lightroom is good for this.

Again I'm not saying you should shoot raw, jpeg is usually better for high volume shooters.

I agree raw+jpeg can be a big hassle if you have your program set up to recognize both.
i don't use lightroom or photoshop. just nx and capture. i had gimp in my other laptop that died, but didn't use it. i am going to batch process i wont be able to do that with most of them though. Mostly always shot straight jpeg only. If i shoot raw + jpeg i shoot raw in slot 1 and jpeg in slot 2 and i only pull the card from slot 1 if i really have to. so basically the difference is lately i have been shooting raw AND pulling the card. i dunno. No more raw though unless there is a actual NEED for it..
 
There has always been a kind of RAW elitism out there that puts things out of balance. I prefer JPEG in many situations and setting my camera to shoot both at the same time is the ideal solution.

There are some contexts where the extra durability of RAW is crucial because I know that the JPEG would get damaged by the processing I need to do. But for me this is the exception to the rule. I can usually edit JPEGs (sometimes saved as TIFFs) without being destructive because the editing is subtle and suits the tones in the image.
EXACTLY. In 90 percent of my shots i just flat out don't need a RAW file. In a good portion of them i don't even need a high res jpeg a normal or low quality one would do.
 
i don't use lightroom or photoshop. just nx and capture.

That's probably a big part of your frustration with not liking raw. Use Lightroom and ether find or make a preset that gives you the pre educated JPEG look that your camera gives you. You can then have that preset automatically applied to any image you import into lightroom.

Your camera applies the exact same processing to every JPEG it makes so you applying the exact same preset to every image you import into lightroom is no different, except that you have the raw image and can make better adjustments to individual images as desired.

It also sounds like the number of images you shoot is doubling each year. 4k, then 8k and now 15k at this rate next year you will easily be 25-30k in images shot that year. Lightroom will definitely be helpful in organizing all your images.

As for your comments about raw files are "wasting space" hard drives are cheep these days.
 
If RAW is slowing you down and you're not benefiting from it then don't use it. Or use RAW+FPEG so that you can get the best of both worlds.

Note that every RAW had a JPEG embedded into it - I seem to recall there is software out there which can pull the JPEG out of the RAW for you (why this isn't a default feature of things like photoshop I'm unsure).

Also you can set up something like lightroom or photoshop with default actions/settings so that you can just open up the RAWs and batch process them very quickly. Giving you speed of JPEG with the bonus of RAW on shots if you need it

This is why digital is so boring

I'mma get the techs to build some kind of cage around you film nuts ;)
 
Only time i shots jpeg only was when i was shooting sports events and printing on site but exposures had to be spot on anyone helping me that didn't was down the road
 
Only time i shots jpeg only was when i was shooting sports events and printing on site but exposures had to be spot on anyone helping me that didn't was down the road

Aye that and journalists/sports shooters shooting for print are often done on JPEG because there isn't the time to fuss with sorting things out plus smaller file sizes make transfers quicker and easier.

Certainly RAW can be done fast, but it can slow things up - if you're shooting a bunch of shots - handing the card over and then going out to shoot more chances are the person you hand them over to has a tiny window of time to make a product from them. Better to have a "click print" jpeg than fiddle with the RAW.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top