On the disc we got from the photog we had ~3.x gb of digital media on .jpgs?  

Really I think it boils down to what one is confident with their ability of and wants to do with it later on down the line.  If you can shoot and get everything you need in .jpg, all a RAW image is going to do is eat into your profits by needing more memory cards, better computer, and more external storage and offsite backup capabilities.  

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.  

 

Yeah we have about 4TB of photos + another 4TB in backups, so we swap harddrives every year.

You can fix the jpg if you don't mind degrading it. At some point of print size any degradation is damaging.

I don't see why not shoot raw. It isn't like storage is a concern these days. I took ove 1300 pictures in Scandihoovia and never changed my memory card. Hell only charged my battery once

Is it really that it just degrades it? I don't know enough about the files and the info from the sensor to know why RAW is better. I do know that even with my shifty Canon application, if I adjust a jpeg it's horse shit. But in RAW I can make the image do what I want.

I also know with Lightroom, I can make a RAW image dance for me like a trained whore and do my biding without thinking at all. You can make a shit image that has color or balance issues beautiful.

RAW has no white balance applied meaning you can choose it

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right?

I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe.

There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.

Tiff?

It is jpeg or RAW. Only options.

As for no reason, I completely disagree. You and I don't have kids either, but if you have a shot that is over or under exposed, fixing a RAW file is easy peasy. Jpegs not so much.

 

That's a bit odd about only having jpg or raw. Raw maintains all the information from the picture where as jpeg throws some out in compression IIRC, so yeah you can do more adjustment with the raw before the picture starts looking like shit, but the tradeoff vs time/speed and converting everything back to jpg for the end person doesn't always seem worth it to me. I could see if someone took a bunch of pictures and had the exposure way off to begin with that raw would be awesome cause then they could fix it to a better extent in the computer. I'm curious have you ever used up the buffer on your camera from taking too many shots closely timed together with raw, and had to wait? I know that use to be an issue with shooting raw since the files were big and the write speeds couldn't keep up, but I don't know how the newer cameras are.

 

I guess that's my two biggest reasons for not using raw: write speed vs camera buffer (which matters for weddings, events, etc, but for the landscape photographer or taking pictures over vacation it doesn't come into play), and having to convert all the pictures afterwards into a traditional format.

 

But since your camera doesn't shoot in tiff then I could see using raw instead, if write speed isn't an issue.

Unless I am shooting rapid back to backs even my cheap ass microSD card keeps up with the Raw + JPG on my 5 year old camera. More than 8 shots in 2 seconds though and you wait, but that is a pretty rare occurence. I am sure my next camera will resolve that as potentially could faster memory or a setting where I could turn the jpg portion off so it doesn't save both.

Okay raw does give you a lot more flexibility on the computer than either jpg or tiff, so for a small number of shots I would use it, but for a wedding with tons of pictures it still seems like a pain in the ass to deal with and not worth it unless you plan on working on every single picture.

You can batch your changes even in shitty free Picasa so it could save your whole wedding shoot if you were off only a little bit.

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal.

I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage.

Really I think it boils down to what one is confident with their ability of and wants to do with it later on down the line.  If you can shoot and get everything you need in .jpg, all a RAW image is going to do is eat into your profits by needing more memory cards, better computer, and more external storage and offsite backup capabilities.

Yep, if you are a noob, raw ftw. It helps me.

In particular on those train shots. No time to dial everything in and reshoot. Plus my damn screen is so small I can't see shit. Saving in raw means I don't have to.

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal.

I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage.

 

That would fill my father's office up with over 2500 dvds rofl.

Six hours later, done with chem lab reports.

I should probably shower too--before class.

Almost everything cleared. Just pcking stuff and tossing things out.

J

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal.

I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage.

 

That would fill my father's office up with over 2500 dvds rofl.

He isn't a hack.

If it works this is going to be awesome and fucking hilarious.

 

 

When you are shooting well into 4 digits of pictures on weddings, RAW files get huge, and space to store them gets pretty huge too.  I'm guessing ~120 files/gb of storage starts to add up.

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal.

I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage.

 

 

That would fill my father's office up with over 2500 dvds rofl.

 

He isn't a hack.

Ironically my uncle in LA is a graphic designer in the movie industry and has a wall of backed up jobs on dvds--actually looks kinda cool when space isn't an issue.

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

Tucson has enough sloots to keep new content all the time?

J

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

Tucson has enough sloots to keep new content all the time?

J

It's not targeted toward Tucson. It grabs images off other blogs and tumblr accounts (avoiding copyright issues), posts to my site, then submits the images and my site url to other sites for traffic. They see the tits on tumblr, reddit, stumbleupon, sex.com, etc and they click the image/link back to my site. From there I get earnings off ads.

Best part is once each site is setup, I don't have to do anything.

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

Tucson has enough sloots to keep new content all the time?

J

It's not targeted toward Tucson. It grabs images off other blogs and tumblr accounts (avoiding copyright issues), posts to my site, then submits the images and my site url to other sites for traffic. They see the tits on tumblr, reddit, stumbleupon, sex.com, etc and they click the image/link back to my site. From there I get earnings off ads.

Rather genious. Respect that idea man.

J

 

 

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

Tucson has enough sloots to keep new content all the time?

J

It's not targeted toward Tucson. It grabs images off other blogs and tumblr accounts (avoiding copyright issues), posts to my site, then submits the images and my site url to other sites for traffic. They see the tits on tumblr, reddit, stumbleupon, sex.com, etc and they click the image/link back to my site. From there I get earnings off ads.

Rather genious. Respect that idea man.

J

The extra money is cool, but if I can actually make enough to pay for classes than I'll literally die laughing my ass off at the idea.

 

<- Going to try to pay for rest of college off porn websites. Setup one site and after a month it made 60 bucks, so now I'm making the entire process automated so I can scale it.

Tucson has enough sloots to keep new content all the time?

J

It's not targeted toward Tucson. It grabs images off other blogs and tumblr accounts (avoiding copyright issues), posts to my site, then submits the images and my site url to other sites for traffic. They see the tits on tumblr, reddit, stumbleupon, sex.com, etc and they click the image/link back to my site. From there I get earnings off ads.

 

 

If that works, hell even just monthly beer money...  

If only I was computer savvy like that.