What format do you save pictures in and why?

zx7dave

Senior Member
So here is my thought...back in 1998 I was intruduced to my first digital camera a Olympus C2020Z 2.1mp. It was not a bad camera for its era. Then I moved to the Olympus E10 4.1mp in early 2001 which was fairly cutting edge for its time. It had the ability to save in a uncompressed TIFF file which gave you a 12MB file. I rarely used this option except the few occasions I really, really wanted a "perfect" picture.
I did not realize at the time that the 4.1mp jpg I took back then is to a certain extent frozen to its era as far as photoshop opportunities since when it is initially converted certain characterics are locked in forever, on the other hand the TIFF 12MP picture I can open up with the most recent Photoshop and really manulipate the raw picture to a much greater extent than the 4.1mp JPG. The reason for this is because the TIFF like the NEF files nowdays capture every bit of data, color and detail the camera's sensor can pick up.
So what I'm left with now 9 years later is a ton of 4.1mp good pictures shot between 2001-2007, when I could of had a ton of uncompressed TIFF that could be made into great pictures.
So moving forward I find myself using NEF a lot as I can always make a NEF into a JPG to share with friends, but can't turn a JPG back into the raw formats. So 10-50 years from now the 15MB NEF files might be able to be manulipated into pictures with special effects or clarity we can't even fathom at this point in the digital age.
So in the interest of what I can do now, but more so in the future I am trying to save as much as I can to NEF files...
Does this make me smart? A dork? somewhere inbetween? What do you all use and why?
 

DaveKoontz

Senior Member
Thanks Dave,

My first experience with a digital camera was a very small 3 mp Fuji 5000. I shot only jpegs for use on eBay. That was it as serious photography was for film cameras! My wife had told me that the Fuji was "Cute"! - Again it wasn't for serious photography. When I finally purchased my D200 a few years ago I made the mistake of continuing to shoot small jpeg images so I could get more onto the Card. Again serious photography was for my F100 and my other film cameras. Within six months I had made the full transition to Digital, bought larger capacity cards, and started shooting RAW. Now, when the shoot is over I download immediately to my desktop, and then import the images at the NEF quality into Aperture. Once the upload is complete I then move the 'original' files from the desktop to one of my other drives that I use for storage. The files that were transferred to Aperture are working files, stored in the Aperture Libraries (on a totally different drive), where the Master image is still NEF and serves as the negative for jpeg, TIFF, etc. versions. I also use the same workflow for my D700, but with the FX platform, the files are larger and are take up a lot of space. I have been told by some folks that I should save at TIFF quality to insure color over the years. I'm not totally sold on this as the file space requirement would tremendous and I can only populate my Mac with two more drives before another I have to make major investment in peripherals.
 
Last edited:

fotojack

Senior Member
Interesting. I shoot in jpeg and save all as jpeg. RAW just takes up a lot of card space for me. But after reading what you guys are doing, and the reasons, I may just change over to RAW to see how it would suit my style of photography,
DaveKoontz........what do you mean by storing to Aperture? I don't get that.
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
Hi Dave - You hit on another area I do...I file the original even back in the JPG days I did this so I would have a untouched negative in a folder that was under the camera name. I forgot to mention that part. As I am using a windows based PC I have a couple 2TB externals so storage is not a issue...one is a working drive, the other a mirror backup. Thanks for the input...I also early on made the mistake of taking smaller pictures at times to save storage on the memory card...I really regret that now...some of the best pictures of my wife and I in the early years are in a 250kb JPG..that pretty much stinks...
Fotojack - Aperture is a Apple based program..not sure if it is available for Windows or now..if that didn't answer your question I'm sure Dave will chime in...
 

KennethHamlett

New member
RAW all the time. The work I do requires RAW images and sometimes clients want to purchase the RAW images as well for later manipulation by their own digital artists. Yes, RAW takes up more space but it's mandatory for serious work. JPEG compression automatically eliminates image data. When exposures are very delicate, JPEG compression can eliminate vital pieces of data that undo the original intentions of the photographer. Shoot in RAW, import. backup, redundant backup and then you can start manipulating the images. Aperture is only for Macs. I am a Mac user but prefer using Lightroom over Aperture. It just fits my workflow better. Not that the product is better, I just like the combined way it works with Photoshop.
 

DaveKoontz

Senior Member
Apple has really improved Aperture in the latest release (Aperture 3) but it still doesn't have all the features that Lightroom and PhotoShop may offer. I correct "shooter error" and crop my images in Aperture 3, but any involved image manipulation/layering is completed in PhotoShop Elements. Storing in Aperture simply meant that I store NEF there and use them as my working negatives. I also back-up my files is what I call "cold storage". Also, while it's on my mind, I can not open NEF in PhotoShop Elements 6 so I have to convert to Jpeg/TIFF before I export ... does anyone know if there is a plug-in that would help?

Is anyone using any of the "Off-Site" file storage that is being advertised on TV? For my 5* photos I download onto DVDs and store them some distance from my current location. A hold over from the past, but just being cautious.
 

KennethHamlett

New member
Sounds like a good workflow Dave. Not using any offsite storage, but I probably should. It's all about what works best for you, there is no magic pill - thank God!
 

CL Extreme

New member
I always shoot in Raw, unless it's fast action then I switch to JPG. Raw pile up writting to the memory cards and slow down my shutter, then I sometimes miss the shot. I been working witha off site storage company and been a pretty slick deal for me. I also have dual backups at home. The biggest problem i have is keeping everything organized. I hate digging thru a ton of picture to fine what I wanted. The system i started with worked for a few photos but after a couple of years it's not working now so I'm in my spare time going back thru and redoing alot of it.
 

DaveKoontz

Senior Member
I have never heard of anyone switching to jpeg to take fast action shots .... I use the full 'burst' capabilities of the D200 and D700 at the races, and have never had this type of a problem. What Cards do you use? I'm using Luxor Professional Flash Cards as well as the fast SanDisk equivalent cards.

You think storage is a problem with digital, I have drawers of 'film negatives' and not a clue what's on them ... I couldn't come up with a decent 'find and retrieve' system then, and have to admit that I don't have the problem resolved with storing my digital files. What are you implementing that will help me?
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
Hi Dave - I am also interested in off site storage, but the best I have found is a 2TB hdd in teh safety deposit box at the local bank that I bring home and update 4 times a year...not the best..but safe..


Apple has really improved Aperture in the latest release (Aperture 3) but it still doesn't have all the features that Lightroom and PhotoShop may offer. I correct "shooter error" and crop my images in Aperture 3, but any involved image manipulation/layering is completed in PhotoShop Elements. Storing in Aperture simply meant that I store NEF there and use them as my working negatives. I also back-up my files is what I call "cold storage". Also, while it's on my mind, I can not open NEF in PhotoShop Elements 6 so I have to convert to Jpeg/TIFF before I export ... does anyone know if there is a plug-in that would help?

Is anyone using any of the "Off-Site" file storage that is being advertised on TV? For my 5* photos I download onto DVDs and store them some distance from my current location. A hold over from the past, but just being cautious.
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
So a lot of my pictures are hard to put in a category..so they become misc...so based on this I file using two different methods...If I am shooting a actual event or simething with enough substance to justify then I make a folder under the name of the event. But I also keep every picture I ahve ever taken in a large file under the camera name such as D1X or D300S. I find that as my collection grows larger I actualy have a easier time finding a picture by remembering what camera I took the picture with. Not sure if that would work for everyone...Also the folder with the camera name is also where the untouched NEF files are kept.and in teh case of my P&S then JPG's...
I think CL is right on the money..either the buffer setting on your camera is too low and is filling up to quickly, or you may want to look at getting a faster card. I believe most modern cameras can read/write at 48MB/sec so I try to have the 60MB/sec cards as much as possible and ensure I never go below the 30MB/sec cards...


I always shoot in Raw, unless it's fast action then I switch to JPG. Raw pile up writting to the memory cards and slow down my shutter, then I sometimes miss the shot. I been working witha off site storage company and been a pretty slick deal for me. I also have dual backups at home. The biggest problem i have is keeping everything organized. I hate digging thru a ton of picture to fine what I wanted. The system i started with worked for a few photos but after a couple of years it's not working now so I'm in my spare time going back thru and redoing alot of it.
 

DaveKoontz

Senior Member
Great idea ! Thanks! The idea of storing in a Safety Deposit box has never come to mind -I'll have to look deeper into this. Now the question is; Do I want the 85mm lens, or do I want to invest in the stand alone drive? I have 4.5TBs worth of internal memory, but only a small external drive that is dedicated to storing personal and legal documents. This is going to be a tough decision, I can always get a lens, but cannot recover images if something catastrophic should happen .... almost a no brainer, but will require a little more thought and budget analysis.
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
Office Depot had $169 2TB externals in the Sunday paper...So far my external's have not been affected by the fact that the bank used a magnetic time lock...however my master plan could one day backfire because of that...the bank has promised it will be safe...not a lot of data on it when I tried to Google...
The 85mm...however..drool.... :)
 

blueiron

New member
I store my external drive with all my 'keeper' photos in a large fire resistant gun safe. The safe is humidity controlled and stores all my critical documents, old photographs, and camera gear when not being used. I found it used and it cost me $750 to the estate, when the original owner died. I paid a local safe company $75 to move it to my house and it installed it myself. The safe also has a heat activated seal to keep out any water used to fight a fire.

For average work, I shoot in jpeg. For serious stuff, I do raw and jpeg. I rarely use PS [I haven't updated since PS3] and keep it as I shot it. It keeps me a better film shooter to avoid "post production workflow" and other digitalspeak.
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
Good comment...while I did mention Photoshop I certainly make every attempt to make the picture "right" as I take it. I would say less than 10% of my pictures get any post work with Photoshop...
 

KennethHamlett

New member
Post production isn't a sin. Half of Ansel's work was achieved in camera, the other half in the darkroom with specific development times for film plus dodging, burning, cropping etc. I'm sure any of us that have ever worked in a darkroom or lab recall over-processing under-exposed b&w negs to pull out more detail and under-processing over-exposed negs to reduce density ranges. Photoshop does the same thing with digital files. A crappy image is a crappy image regardless of how much or how little post-processing is performed, but just like a darkroom, Photoshop can help a photographer translate his vision into something tangible for all to enjoy.
 

zx7dave

Senior Member
Hi Kenneth - I should clarify...I love Photoshop and Lightroom..but I just try to avoid using them as much as I can by using the right white balance, filters, etc as I shoot. This of course saves me time in the end too.
 

KennethHamlett

New member
Hi Kenneth - I should clarify...I love Photoshop and Lightroom..but I just try to avoid using them as much as I can by using the right white balance, filters, etc as I shoot. This of course saves me time in the end too.

I totally agree. Every effort should be made on the part of the photographer to shoot the best in-camera image as possible. It kills me when "photographers" just shoot anything and say, "I'll fix it in post". Commercially, everything is repaired in Photoshop to meet the client's needs. Personally, Photoshop is just another tool to help me realize my vision...nothing more, nothing less. Let me know about your F3.
 

blueiron

New member
Post production is necessary, yes.

However, when one spends more time altering, color spotting, brushing and any other digital enhancing on one photograph than it takes to hand wash a car, I'd say something is amiss. I know a few people with cameras [notice my choice of words there] who will shoot about ten photos and then spend all weekend at their computer joyfully re-editting those images to make reality into something far different than originally visualized. It is far more than cropping, altering saturation for skin tone, or changing chemistry.

In my mind, they aren't photographers. Their "vision" is seen through the LCD screen of their Mac or PC and not through a viewfinder.
 

KennethHamlett

New member
Post production is necessary, yes.

However, when one spends more time altering, color spotting, brushing and any other digital enhancing on one photograph than it takes to hand wash a car, I'd say something is amiss. I know a few people with cameras [notice my choice of words there] who will shoot about ten photos and then spend all weekend at their computer joyfully re-editting those images to make reality into something far different than originally visualized. It is far more than cropping, altering saturation for skin tone, or changing chemistry.

In my mind, they aren't photographers. Their "vision" is seen through the LCD screen of their Mac or PC and not through a viewfinder.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment. I'm old school--been shooting since I was 15, went to NYU and majored in photography and now I shoot architectural photography for a living. What I've seen over the past 32 years is evolution. When I started shooting, if you weren't a photojournalist, travel photographer or sports photographer than you shot medium format - the format for snobs (just kidding)! The artists shot large format - 4x5 and bigger. The rest of us shot 35mm SLRs, unless you were a different kind of artist and shot 35mm rangefinders like Leica. Every medium and large format photographer (or their assistant) spent HOURS in the darkroom creating the perfect shot. It was a matter of getting the very best image possible.

Today, everyone has a digital camera and calls him/herself a "photographer". The problem is most people think because they spend $2500 on the D700 or Canon 5d MKII that they deserve to get good pictures...after all they have this great camera. Well it just ain't so. So what happens? They spend more time worrying about what lens to buy or what camera body they need for "outside" pictures (WTF?) instead of learning the craft. So then since they can't get the picture they want because they have failed to learn how to shoot they say, "Oh, I can make it look good in Photoshop". Again, IT AIN'T SO!! In the wrong hands a digital camera and Photoshop are EVIL!!

I use Photoshop extensively on my commercial work, clients demand certain things and sometimes you CANNOT get it when you shoot (all the lights on in the building at the right time for example).

OK, I'm going to wrap it up. To anyone reading this my mantra is...Shoot your butt off, Learn the craft, Shoot your butt off some more and THEN you'll be ready for a new lens and Photoshop and all that digital photography offers!

Hope I didn't scare anyone off.
 
Top