Just got hit with the realization that shooting uncompressed RAW
+ Fine JPG takes up a WHOLE LOT OF STORAGE SPACE on my hard drive!!!
An uncompressed raw file of a simple bird photo w/out much detail is
15.3 MB and a fine JPG is 3.2 mb. What a difference!!!
I'll try to turn my astonishment into a question for those of you in the know:
On my D200, if I shoot compressed raw with basic/normal JPG will the detail in the images be that noticeable?
I would like to continue to shoot raw + jpg if I could to try to eliminate some post processing work.
Any opinions or suggestions would be appreciated'
#1. "RE: WOW!!!!" | In response to Reply # 0purple6816 Registered since 21st Dec 2007Mon 17-Mar-08 11:56 PM
You could just shoot raw and then import them into lightroom then generate the jpegs from there. That would save you 3+ meg of storage.
The only reason you would want raw+jpg is if you want to send them quickly to someone and you don't have the import program available.
#3. "RE: WOW!!!!" | In response to Reply # 0Mack the Knife Registered since 16th Aug 2006Tue 18-Mar-08 09:39 AM
I follow a similar process, but i use lossless compressed RAW (like Ghostinz, I don't remember if my old D200 supported that) - after about a month or 2, I delete most of the JPGs. I also shoot medium JPGs, though the memory difference is minimal compared to the RAW. Definitely keep the RAW.
The best advice is to invest in an extra plug n play hard drive. You can get about 500 Gb for the price of a high speed CF card. They even have Terabyte (Tb) sized ones now.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: WOW!!!!" | In response to Reply # 3ahp Registered since 28th Nov 2006Fri 21-Mar-08 06:33 AM
I have been shooting uncompressed NEF on my D2X for some time but lately switched to compressed NEF and honestly did not seem to notice any drop in quality. Had tried comparing both compressed and uncompressed side by side but found no differences. Maybe I did not look hard enough but I definitely felt that it still produces much better quality than having shot on Jpeg.
#5. "RE: WOW!!!!" | In response to Reply # 0
There is some slight loss with the compressed RAW. The best explanation on RAW compressed vs. uncompressed is: http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html.
Comparing pictures will not help. An 8 bpp JPEG can be made of any RAW that will be almost identical in appearance - and there are other factors (the video card in our computers, the depth & format your browser uses, etc.). The beauty of RAW is in manipulation - how much latitude the photographer has in processing. A 2 stop underexposed RAW may very well be recoverable but a JPEG underexposed by 2 stops is probably worthless.
I never saw any need to create the +JPEG. Both my Adobe PS Elems. and Nikon Picture Proj. can create batch jpegs from NEFs before I can return from the kitchen with a fresh beer! I prefer making the JPEGs after a quick pass though the NEFs to make WB, Sharpening, and Exposure changes.