DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Troy Piggins, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    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

    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).
    Alan Browne, Apr 24, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Apr 24, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Troy Piggins

    Savageduck Guest

    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.
    Savageduck, Apr 24, 2011
  4. 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.
    John McWilliams, Apr 24, 2011
  5. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Apr 24, 2011
  6. 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.
    John McWilliams, Apr 24, 2011
  7. Gosh, here we have two discussing good work flows, where one has
    thousands of unreviewed images and another is a self confessed rat packer.
    John McWilliams, Apr 24, 2011
  8. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 24, 2011
  9. Troy Piggins

    Alfred Molon Guest

    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.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 24, 2011
  10. Troy Piggins

    Alfred Molon Guest

    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
    Alfred Molon, Apr 24, 2011
  11. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Apr 24, 2011
  12. Cool method! But for the tech savvy only.
    John McWilliams, Apr 24, 2011
  13. Troy Piggins

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Well, I prefer it.


    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Apr 24, 2011
  14. Troy Piggins

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Apr 25, 2011
  15. Troy Piggins

    Alfred Molon Guest

    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.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 25, 2011
  16. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    Alan Browne, Apr 25, 2011
  17. Troy Piggins

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Apr 25, 2011
  18. 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.
    John McWilliams, Apr 25, 2011
  19. Troy Piggins

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 25, 2011
  20. Troy Piggins

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But lighting does change if you walk around in a city. It all depends on
    what you are shooting.
    Alfred Molon, Apr 26, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.