Saving room on your SD card while traveling

[All Sound Photography]

I just got back from a 2 week trip to Italy and I took an awful lot of pictures. I was shooting bracketed shots most of the time to avoid entirely washed out skies. I completely filled 2 32gb cards...all raw files.
I would have normally shot these RAW+fine so I can pick and choose the pictures I really love to edit and the rest just keep in some album for me, but I typically shoot raw and never thought to change that setting.

Anyway, long backstory to get you guys to my discovery/question.

When I transfer photos through the wireless on my D750, it converts them to JPGs...I saved a good bit of space by not having it save the JPGs, and it seems as if I can still have the camera "process" them in camera, after the fact.
Am I thinking of this wrong? Does the D750 process JPGs differently when it saves them directly, vs when it transfers them through wireless?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I just got back from a 2 week trip to Italy and I took an awful lot of pictures. I was shooting bracketed shots most of the time to avoid entirely washed out skies. I completely filled 2 32gb cards...all raw files.
I would have normally shot these RAW+fine so I can pick and choose the pictures I really love to edit and the rest just keep in some album for me, but I typically shoot raw and never thought to change that setting.

Anyway, long backstory to get you guys to my discovery/question.

When I transfer photos through the wireless on my D750, it converts them to JPGs...I saved a good bit of space by not having it save the JPGs, and it seems as if I can still have the camera "process" them in camera, after the fact.
Am I thinking of this wrong? Does the D750 process JPGs differently when it saves them directly, vs when it transfers them through wireless?

Either carry a small laptop or backup hard drive or buy a couple extra SD cards but never reduce a RAW to JPEG before you get it on the computer and look at it and edit it. One day you will look back at the JPEGs and wish you had the original RAW file to edit.

 

[480sparky]

Shooting raw to simply convert them to JPEGs and tossing out the raw files without saving them is like shooting film, having wallet-size prints made of the negatives, then tossing out the negatives.

 

[JH Foto]

hello and welcome....................I agree with whats already been said

 

[Danno_RIP]

Welcome to the forum.

You really do want to copy the RAW files to your computer directly rather then export them from your camera.

 

[nickt]

I think everyone is missing the OP's point/question. He shot and kept the raw safely on his cards. He forgot to shoot raw+jpg but found he could convert to jpg 'on the fly' during wireless export. He's wondering if those jpg are the same as he would have got if he had created raw + jpg in the camera. He saved card space by only shooting raw.

To his question, I don't know if they are the same jpg. The file size may be a clue. Many of us quickly create jpg with a preset in Lightroom or use Nikon software which will put out the camera jpg version as the initial raw starting point. I only shoot raw + jpg if I need to quickly hand the 2nd card to my wife when we get home so she can start emailing and face-booking and I can lay on the couch.:shame:

 

[All Sound Photography]

Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding here. Really I shouldn't have worded this as a way to "save space" but I'm more looking to find a quick way to process my raw files to JPG for the bulk of my shots which I don't intend to sit around and edit. I'm curious to know what presets people use for doing this in LR instead of shooting RAW+JPG (which I should have just done).

I figured if the wireless transfer is getting me basically the same file than I can still recover all of my pictures as they would have been, but I'm just as good using another method to do this. I typically only work in raw but I really don't want to edit 1000+ pictures of my vacation.

 

[480sparky]

I don't process anything until all my images are ingested into my primary computer back home and fully backed up.

Then I start thinking about making JPEGs.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding here. Really I shouldn't have worded this as a way to "save space" but I'm more looking to find a quick way to process my raw files to JPG for the bulk of my shots which I don't intend to sit around and edit. I'm curious to know what presets people use for doing this in LR instead of shooting RAW+JPG (which I should have just done).

I figured if the wireless transfer is getting me basically the same file than I can still recover all of my pictures as they would have been, but I'm just as good using another method to do this. I typically only work in raw but I really don't want to edit 1000+ pictures of my vacation.

Well, just because you *have* 1,000 shots doesn't mean you have to process 1,000 shots. I always keep my decent shots as raw files but I only take the time to process those raw files I intend to actually do something with. For instance I took hundreds of shots while hiking in the desert over the Memorial Day weekend but I didn't process all those shots; not even close. Out of roughly two-hundred fifty shots I selected about eight I was really, really happy with for processing.

The first I thing I do after a big shoot. such as a vacation, is use Adobe Bridge to review and rate my shots. I rate shots as "Rejected" or with 5-Stars; the mediocre shots get no rating at all (no 1's 3's etc). Then I filter for "Rejected" photos and delete them, en-masse. The 5-Star shots are the ones that get fully processed for posting online or printing. The mediocre shots I keep, but I don't process them.

I've been asked why I don't Rate every shot... And that's because when I go back and look at shots from a specific shoot, I've never found myself wishing I could find my 1 or 2-Star photos. I want to be able to quickly find the BEST shots of the shoot. So only the best shots get rated in the first place, the rest do not. This approach saves me a lot of time since I don't waste time waffling over how mediocre a particular shot is (e.g. "Is this a two-star or a three star?") Screw that. It's either outstanding, and deserving of 5-stars, or it's not.

 

[480sparky]

Well, just because you *have* 1,000 shots doesn't mean you have to process 1,000 shots. I always keep my decent shots as raw files but I only take the time to process those raw files I intend to actually do something with. For instance I took hundreds of shots while hiking in the desert over the Memorial Day weekend but I didn't process all those shots; not even close. Out of roughly two-hundred fifty shots I selected about eight I was really, really happy with for processing.

The first I thing I do after a big shoot. such as a vacation, is use Adobe Bridge to review and rate my shots. I rate shots as "Rejected" or with 5-Stars; the mediocre shots get no rating at all (no 1's 3's etc). Then I filter for "Rejected" photos and delete them, en-masse. The 5-Star shots are the ones that get fully processed for posting online or printing. The mediocre shots I keep, but I don't process them.

I've been asked why I don't Rate every shot... And that's because when I go back and look at shots from a specific shoot, I've never found myself wishing I could find my 1 or 2-Star photos. I want to be able to quickly find the BEST shots of the shoot. So only the best shots get rated in the first place, the rest do not. This approach saves me a lot of time since I don't waste time waffling over how mediocre a particular shot is (e.g. "Is this a two-star or a three star?") Screw that. It's either outstanding, and deserving of 5-stars, or it's not.

I take a different tact. I keep everything.

The reason being I sell more images that I never display or post because someone contacts me and asks, "Do you have a photo of.......?" I usually do, but I didn't personally care for it. But hey, if someone else likes it and is willing to give me money for it, what do I care?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I take a different tact. I keep everything.

The reason being I sell more images that I never display or post because someone contacts me and asks, "Do you have a photo of.......?" I usually do, but I didn't personally care for it. But hey, if someone else likes it and is willing to give me money for it, what do I care?

I guess it depends on what you're intending to do with your shots. I try to maintain a balance between what I keep and what I don't. Files I delete, typically, are those shots I don't want seen, period. Some are unsalvageable because they're out of focus, badly composed or the exposure is beyond recovery.

Then there are those times someone has liked a particular shot of mine but I won't release a photo I don't think accurately reflects what I'm about as a photographer; not even for money. But that's not hard because my shot's don't sell for that much anyway. LOL

 

[nickt]

I avoid presets on import because I am still learning. But in Lightroom, I automatically apply Camera Calibration as 'camera standard', so things should look sort of like they do in camera. You could try vivid or landscape as well. Just to see something less bland on import.

 

[All Sound Photography]

I definitely wouldn't be processing all my photos anyway. It's more that I'll inevitably want an album for me and my girlfriend to poke through, and maybe even print or put in a digital frame. This would contain a good majority of the pictures that mean something, but not necessarily ones I'd care to share with others. For the shots I really love and want to share with everyone, I'd take the time to process the RAW files fully to my liking. So I can rate the photos I want to edit, then rate the ones I want auto-JPG processed, and the rest are just RAW files backed up somewhere.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

What you're seeing is probably the small thumbnail jpg that's embedded in the RAW (NEF) file. If you shoot in RAW, and want to save space, then just shoot in RAW and don't choose the + JPG option. What you see rendered on the screens is either the small thumbnail image or the device is actually rendering a JPG from the RAW data. Always keep/preserve your RAW files.

 

[Whiskeyman]

All Sound, I've quickly searched some resources on the web, and didn't quickly find an answer to your question. This would be a great question to ask of Nikon technical people. If you have a Nikon account, you can log in and ask there. If you don't wish to do that, you could look up the Nikon regional contact information and telephone them to ask the question.

WM

 

[All Sound Photography]

This would be a great question to ask of Nikon technical people. If you have a Nikon account, you can log in and ask there.

Great idea. In case anyone is wondering, I did in fact ask this question to a Nikon tech rep and I was informed that transferring files wirelessly does in fact reduce the image size/quality. I will avoid doing this except for getting pictures quickly on the fly to my phone.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Great idea. In case anyone is wondering, I did in fact ask this question to a Nikon tech rep and I was informed that transferring files wirelessly does in fact reduce the image size/quality. I will avoid doing this except for getting pictures quickly on the fly to my phone.

Good to know information, this is!

WM