DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?

* Alan Browne wrote :

Shit. I'm having a shocker of a week...

I'm a sponge.

 

No, that was television. And YouTube.

The barriers are rather high in Usenet.

Probably clear communication is more valuable than some style
guides --- computers are awfully literal.

-Wolfgang

 

i dont know why not it makes perfect sense to me i mean this makes
sense doesnt it in fact you could just use double space for a period
and it works fine no problem HECK YOU COULD EVEN LEAVE THE CAPSLOCK ON
TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ

 

After I shoot photos, I go through them and delete the bad or double
ones. Only the photos which pass this step get backed up.

 

I thought you had 10000 unprocessed images. Those'd be backed up, no?

 

Yes, the RAW files have been backed up.

 

A nice thing about using Bridge to import is you can de-select the
images that you don't want at all before they are imported. This really
means the accidental exposures, the way under/overs, the horrible
compositions, and so on.

From there backing up means at least the real garbage is gone.

 

I shoot RAW+JPEG, so can delete the garbage based on the JPEG image
without having to process the corresponding RAW file.

 

I normally shoot RAW only but, using a Nikon, I can examine them as
they come from the camera using Nikon Transfer or ViewNX. There is no
need for me to do any processing before I can assess their content. Of
course I can also load them into NX2.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

 

Are they punctual?

Do they puntificate?

Some say puntless points. Or is that Canadian

 

I do the same in many situations. Not always, but often.

It's sometimes easier to tell from a jpeg which RAW file will result
in the best image when multiple shots of the same scene are taken.

 

....and the same is true for Bridge or LR where you can examine each RAW
file. Then you are able to rate, and flag, or label each with tags such
as "Reject", "To be Processed", "Re-examine", etc. That allows you you
go back over the batch to recheck before committing to irretrievable
deletion and losing a file which might prove to be useful.

Naturally there is nothing stopping you from examining and rejecting,
accepting, then immediately deleting from each batch. However then
there are no second chances for recovery short of resorting to recovery
software.

All of that is true even if you shoot RAW + JPEG.

 

The point I was making is that the photo never makes it onto my machine
- only the thumbnail from the camera. So I de-select the duds, the raw
is never imported nor processed.

Further, I shoot raw only. But that does not prevent a preview in the
camera (embedded thumbnails) or at import time.

That also reduces memory lost in-camera to JPG's (about 15-20%).

 

Are you sure that's not a full size jpg? That is the case on all my
Nikon dslrs.

 

On a Nikon DSLR if you are shooting RAW only, all you are seeing in the
view finder is the embedded JPEG. There is no accompanying JPEG file,
unless you shoot RAW + JPEG.

 

No kidding?

 

Judging by the zoomability in-camera, no it is not full size. On the
a900 one has to select raw+jpg or jpg to get a jpg as a separate image.

1.5 bytes x 24 Mpix = 36 MB. And that's about the size of the .arw.
(Usually a little less). JPG's from this camera are typically around 6
- 8 MB.

 

You can do the same thing in LR.
And, what is the biggie about running an Import and deleting on a first
run through?
BTW, the preferred designation is RAW, not raw, unless you really do
shoot in the buff.

 

There is one more reason to shoot RAW+JPEG: sometimes the JPEG is so
good that there is no need to process the RAW.

 

True, but given that memory nowadays costs very little, this is not a
factor which I need to bother about. I'm using 16GB cards, and so far
haven't managed to fill one in one day of shooting.