RAW images

[Sideburns]

Well that's the problem with what you're doing. RAW files are all proprietary, the files all change format, the software all changes, and you might find that a year from now none of the RAW software out there will work with your D1 files anymore at worst, or just doesn't seem to handle them well. This is especially true since the D1 is a pretty old camera that not a whole lot of people shoot with anymore. There's little reason for software developers to keep supporting old D1 files considering that so few are still used. You might have to dig up some extremely old software to use the files, which then might not even run if it wasn't designed for the newer operating systems out there which all change too. This is why RAW is a horrible format for archival or if you're not going to immediately process them into JPGs. That's why I'd strongly recommend shooting JPG for now, which is universal. You can still do a ton of processing on JPGs too, if that's what you're interested in.

In the rare cases I shoot RAW, I shoot RAW+JPG, and then when I'm working through my photos doing post-processing I still usually stick with the JPGs. Once in awhile I'll find a good keeper photo that I've managed to screw up badly enough to process from the RAW file instead. Once I have all of my post processing done and have my final images, I DELETE all of the RAW files since they just eat up a ton of disk space.

You read too much Ken Rockwell. That guy loves to blab bad about anything he doesn't do and say it's stupid.

.DNG was created just for this reason...so even if you don't trust RAW format...just convert to .DNG (digital negative)...

I say if you are used to shooting with film...and are fine with the results...then just shoot with jpeg for now.

 

[Mav]

You read too much Ken Rockwell. That guy loves to blab bad about anything he doesn't do and say it's stupid.

I just said that if I shot Canon I'd be far more likely to shoot RAW, so relax. I take less than half the advice that he gives mainly due to completely different shooting styles, but happen to agree with him on the JPG vs RAW issue. But that's just me. And then again I'm also a Nikon shooter. They do make it easier for you. :mrgreen:

 

[Rabieshund]

Well if you really trust your camera on that then go ahead and shoot JPG. But if you wanted to shoot high end fashion in JPG for that reason then I think you could be laughed at. I mean seriously, RAW has so many advantages over JPG. JPG takes up less disk space but what the hell, I've never had a problem with my hard drive getting full of photos. With RAW you get higher image quality and much more control over the image. JPG is so 2005... ;P

 

[jwkwd]

How can anyone not believe all that Ken Rockwell says? Anyhow, back to me. I have no software for digital media. Now that I know that it is proprietary, I downloaded Capture NX, which supports the camera. Ann, it's free for 30 days which does not surprise me. I am interested in primarily shooting RAW for two reasons. One, the camera is 2.7 mp. Two, RAW just makes more sense to me. If I knew that I was going to shoot a thousand pictures a day, I would already have a digital with all the bells and whistles. Not to sound arrogant or anything, but I have been shooting film for a long long time and really could care less about digital. It is a great thing, it has certainly given photography a kick in the rear to open doors and open minds as well. Don't get me wrong, it's just not me. This camera is only a toy, not a tool. It kind of sucks that I will have to pay for software (maybe), but I will just have to get a bigger paper route if I do. Thanks for all the great info!

 

[Mav]

Well if you really trust your camera on that then go ahead and shoot JPG. But if you wanted to shoot high end fashion in JPG for that reason then I think you could be laughed at. I mean seriously, RAW has so many advantages over JPG. JPG takes up less disk space but what the hell, I've never had a problem with my hard drive getting full of photos. With RAW you get higher image quality and much more control over the image. JPG is so 2005... ;P

I don't think a lot of Canon shooters realize just how good and consistent and workable the JPG outputs are off of the Nikons. Not trying to start a brand war here because I have plenty of respect for the different systems out there, but I don't think it's a coincidence that a buddy of mine who shoots Canon and had a 300D and now a 40D seems to like RAW a lot better than I do, and I also don't think it's a coincidence that some other friends of mine who also shoot Nikon seem to think RAW is a waste of time.

Sure if you're shooting high end fashion professionally where 20x30" prints might be considered "small", by all means shoot RAW. Then again a lot of the real pros doing fashion don't screw around with piddly little amateur DSLRs like D80's or Rebels either. They use medium format systems from Hassleblad, Mamiya, PhaseOne, and other companies with digital backs costing 5-digits, and usually have one or several assistants sorting and processing the RAW images almost in real time.

Forget what anybody else says. Shoot both and stick with whatever you can get better results with. The JPGs are good enough off of my Nikon that for the most part I don't need to bother, even with relatively large prints. YMMV.