DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?

Just less detritus to remove later. I'm a clutter collector once stuff
is on my system it tends to remain with me from system to system. So if
a photo makes it to the HD, it will make it to the TM and will make it
to the Drobo. So it's nice to clear the crap before it gets past the
gate.

That said, I do offload large single sets of photos to DVD - in turn,
unfortunately, setting off a requirement to dupe those sets every 5
years. I really need to order some "gold" archive DVD's. OTOH I
believe we'll be seeing true permanent storage by 2015.

Though I have over the last year begun deleting DMG's once the install
or data is proven.

Raw is an adjective. Each manufacturer has a TLA for their particular
raw container(s).

 

The merits of raw don't need to be discussed. So what are the
dis-merits of JPG? None, other than

- I don't need them to review what I have in camera,
- I don't need them to reject duds before uploading
to the computer,
- they take up space on my cards that is better
reserved for more raw shots.

As to your statement about how cheap they are, I agree to the point
where It's almost worthwhile to buy 4 or 5 32 GB cards and not worry
about bringing storage (PC) on a long trip. So JPG's would be eating
into my reserve space.

OTOH, I usually bring a laptop for other reasons in any case, but even
then the copy to the laptop is always a tedious thing.

In a long studio shoot with models I can easily exceed 32 GB, so
shooting the JPG's is a loss of space and time.

Product shots can be done in well under 8 GB. Much more cooperative.

 

True. However on initial examination, most JPEG's will appear good
enough, and for the great majority of shooters that is just fine. That
includes digital photographs for news print, where RAW processing is a
waste of time.

Both have their place RAW+JPEG for all eventualities, and RAW only for
those of us who like to tinker.

 

Some of us prefer RAW only because there's only one Master, so cleaning
up duplicates and second rate similars is much faster with RAW only.

 

Methinks you're putting too much emphasis on whatever effort (little) is
needed to "process the RAW".

In most cases the adjustments are trivial (assuming good exposure - and
even there the latitude is quite large with raw - well beyond that of JPG).

If it's a case of a card worth of photos, then it's easily batched from
raw to JPG. Or in applications like Lightroom or Aperture, settings can
be applied en-masse (and losslessly) to an entire photoshoot.

Some pros, such as PJ's, are another matter. Time and file size are
important so they don't shoot raw at all.

But that's not an issue for us amateurs.

 

Then it's more of an AB method of cluttering that's at fault, not that
my method isn't better (for me).

RAW is the preferred spelling.

 

Gosh, here we have two discussing good work flows, where one has
thousands of unreviewed images and another is a self confessed rat packer.

 

No.

 

I throw the RAW+JPEG files into one folder, delete the JPEGs which are
not good, then launch a script which automatically deletes RAWs for
which there is no corresponding JPEG.

 

Perhaps you are too concerned with the extra space needed to save JPEGs
;-)

Yep, but in my experience what you get out of a batch conversion with
automated settings is (on average) not as good camera JPEGs.

Perhaps image quality is not the most important aspect for a photo
journalist.

 

Not at all. I don't save in-camera JPG's. OTOH, the 'fruit' of
processing images can result in a bevy of JPG's. The last thing I need
are the in-camera ones.

That depends on the photo set. Since I shoot as sets, it's no issue.

It's a very important thing. But since the end use of the image is web
or print publishing and that PJ (at least for hard news) means no
manipulation, the JPG is much more than good enough. By the time it's
cropped and resized for end use it still has more quality than the end
medium can reflect.

 

Cool method! But for the tech savvy only.

 

Well, I prefer it.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

 

who said anything about automated?

if you take multiple photos in the same conditions with the same
settings, then there doesn't need to be individual adjustments. all you
need to do is adjust one photo and apply the adjustments to the rest.
you can still tweak individual images as needed.

 

In practice, even in a set, you can't blindly apply the same settings to
all shots. Or perhaps we have different views of what a "set" is.

 

In a studio setting, where lights are set per the aperture, and shutter
time is constant, just about every image is identical in exposure and
color (except when you shoot before the lights have completely re-cycled).

So if one needs a magenta cooling, higher blackpoint, less contrast,
etc., then the same applies to every image. Apply it to one then to all.

If it the case of more "random" field shooting, then it may not work out
that way of course - however, if one spends the day shooting at an event
in the same light outdoor, there is a good chance many of the same
changes will apply to all the images in that set.

Of course what's on the data card may be two or more sets of images.

 

of course you can. if the lighting does not change and the camera
settings do not change, exposure and colour balance will be consistent
for every shot. fix one and you've fixed all of them.

 

Well, you can, but it isn't "blind." What do you think the camera does
when it converts from plain pixels to finished JPEG?

I don't think any one is saying that it's one and done here, but as a
first step in processing, one might apply a color balance, tweak it,
apply + or - to exposure, contrast, etc. etc., then apply that to a
range of photos. Easy to do even before deletions. Then you go through,
mark for delete, rate, and rename if you wish.

 

Hooray.

 

But lighting does change if you walk around in a city. It all depends on
what you are shooting.