Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Folks, last night I made a big mistake ... showed up at a church to shoot a confirmation ceremony. Shortly before the start I realised I'd left my card reader for my laptop and one of my CF cards at home. DOH!
Dilemna - shooting RAW, I only had cards for 120 shots (and 36 families to cover). Do I delay the cermony by 30 minutes, dash home and get the missing kit, or shoot jpg?
Well, not wanting to look "unprofessional" I decided to carry on as if there was no problem and shoot jpg (as it turned out, I shot 250 frames).
This was the first time I'd really used jpg to any extent, so I was a bit worried. The good news for me is the shots are fine, however, comparing them to RAW shots in similar situations (mixed lighting, flash, ISO 100) there is no doubt that the .jpgs show more noise than processed RAW files, particuarly in shadows and detail areas like hair. Nothing to be alarmed about, but it certainly proved to me that there is a qualitative advantage in shooting RAW.
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
Interesting to hear.
One thing I have always wondered about RAW. If I shoot RAW and the either Zoombrowser messes up or I need to format my PC etc and I have copies of my RAW images on CD what do I do then? Can I add the images from a CD back to Zoombrowser later when I need to and then convert them that way?]
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
Yea - the RAWs are your negatives - you can re-processes then from any source as & when you need to. But do yourself a favour - ditch Zoombrowser and use something else ... anything else ... Breezebrowser probably best value for money.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Speed in what sense? As the files are larger, yes, they take longer to write to card, but there is no difference in speed up tothe point the buffer fills (ie. 9 shots RAW or jpg makes no difference, but writing the buffer takes longer when finished)
All other operations are identical, except of course with RAW you can change any camera settings later.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1163 times:
Lee - I do both, depending on what is required, how much time I have etc. I use an Epson 890, and am pleased with the results when everything works, but colour management is a complete nightmare. Without investing serious money in proper colour management tools, close approximations are about the best you can hope for. However, sometimes I need a print for a client like NOW, so I have no choice, but I don't think I've ever had a print where all the colours were absolutely spot on. I am considering going shares on some calibration equipment with some work colleagues.
Given the luxury of time, I'm using Photobox more and more, and of course for everything over 8x10. and have seldom been disappointed - though I still think I can get a sharper image from my printer.