On my upcoming trip, between my wife and I we intend to carry 3 cameras. I know some of you may say I'm pushing it. One is my DSLR, one is her favorite P&S and one is a pocket camera just for backup (or it will be the camera we hand out to others to take our pic).

For storage backup, I will be taking 2 x 40GB PSD's for redundancy. Now for some math:

a) 40GB unformatted = 36GB formatted capacity.
b) Each RAW picture (approx) = 10MB
c) RAW pics in 36GB = 3600
d) Duration = 22 + 4 = 26 days
e) Pics per day = 138.

Since I have 2 cameras to back up (one RAW the other JPG), does it make sense for me to use RAW? Can I get away with JPG at highest quality?

With your DSLR you'll still be able to get very high quality pics in JPEG. RAW almost always requires post processing. Do you really want to spend hours, days really, after your trip post processing nearly every picture? I say go for the JPEG and save RAW for a time when you won't be taking thousands of pictures at once. I know I have the same camera as you and have taken beautiful pictures in JPEG. I also have a friend who has a better Canon body than us and she does wedding photography and shoots in JPEG. Her pictures are GORGEOUS. Anyway, my two cents

Thanks Kwintesenc,

Till date I have almost always shot JPG, the RAW phenomenon is relatively new to me.

I have been thinking of using the Medium size high quality mode. I really don't think I will get any advantage in using the large size mode since I don't intend to print any of the pictures.

Xponent,

It's a shame you aren't here in the states as Calumet photo is having a sale on 2gb Ultra II CF cards, buy one get one free at $35.99. I'm buying 2 sets so I will have 4 x 2gb, plus a 1gb that I already had, for my trip. By shooting JPEG instead of RAW you should be able to fit about 250 pictures per gig of CF card. With RAW it would be about 160 pictures.

All is not lost. I have a friend who will be returning mid-August from Atlanta who has graciously offered to carry the items for me.

Thanks for the tip, Kwin.

Thanks to you Kwin, I have just ordered a 2GB BOGO set for myself.

Glad to be of help! Right now I'm still deciding if being able to take 2250 pictures is enough or if I should get the PSD. Insane to think that 2250 pictures might not be enough!!

quote:

Originally posted by Xponent:

Since I have 2 cameras to back up (one RAW the other JPG), does it make sense for me to use RAW? Can I get away with JPG at highest quality?

How are you? I had to reply to your query.

You are asking if it makes sense for you to shoot RAW. If I remember correctly, in an earlier post, you said you were not too keen on spending time working in Photoshop (yes, I know , there are other RAW processors). This makes me ask what it is you would be seeking from the photos that you would shoot in RAW?

RAW gives you the greatest flexibility for post processing and putting your own touch on images you take. However, this flexibility requires time in post processing, and having said that, there is a big jump downwards (in capture information) from RAW to JPEG medium. Thus, my question as to what you would be wanting from a RAW image.

Personally, if this is a sort of "once in a lifetime" trip, if you shoot JPEG, I would strongly recommend you consider shooting the JPEGS at the highest quality setting your camera allows. This will give you the best quality you can get out of a JPEG and, if you choose to do any Photohsop work on it (now, or in the far-future), you will have better (and more) information to work with.

Just a bit more...this is very important...if you do shoot JPEG, and then do any work in Photoshop, once the JPEG is imported into Photoshop, do a "SAVE AS" save and save the JPEG as a PSD (Photoshop Document file). The reason you should do this "SAVE AS" is if you work in Photoshop with a JPEG file and save it as a JPEG file throughout your work session, each time you save the JPEG (i.e. during a work session), the JPEG looses information/data with each save. JPEG files are a "loosy compression method" and PSD files are "lossless compression method". Thus, a PSD file does not loose any information in the file as you work and save your work. (There is more to this, but I'm distilling it down so the info you need is clearly stated.)

To finish off the Photoshop session with the image you did the "Save As" with, once you are happy with your PSD-file photo (which started life as a JPEG), you can then save it as a JPEG and you will have the benefit of having a smaller file to email etc. Once you are happy with the image, it is fine to do a final "Save As" JPEG for output.

I know you didn't specifically ask about working in Photoshop, but given that you might shoot JPEGs and you "might" do a bit of touching up in Photoshop on the JPEGs, this file info is what I would consider critical to creating the best possible image.

Best wishes,
travellor

Travellor,

Was wondering when you would make an appearance

What I want from RAW: I am still trying to outgrow my habits of my P&S days when I didn't have to mess around with exposure, shutter or WB; the time when "everything just worked". Now with the DSLR, I may not have that much luxury. Hence my reasoning is, if I shoot RAW, then PP'ing images may be a minor hassle, but the end quality of the images may be much higher than doing PP to JPG.

There was a time (about 15 years back) when I used to write my own image viewers and converters, back in the good-ol' DOS days when TIF, BMP and GIF ruled and JPG was not mainstream.

I have been trying to get a hang of PS CS3 and Lightroom. But to my horror, I'm so behind the curve of modern day filters and techniques, its not even funny. I got me 50 days and 8 hours to get decent with those apps. Else, I may end up upgrading the HDD's from 40 to about 80GB and end my misery right then and there

I use a small application called FastStone Image Viewer. Its small fast and FREE. It does a good job reading CR2, RAW, NEF files and its conversion to JPG is quite good. So I'm not too concerned about the time required to convert the pictures to JPG.

quote:

Originally posted by Kwintesenc:
Glad to be of help! Right now I'm still deciding if being able to take 2250 pictures is enough or if I should get the PSD. Insane to think that 2250 pictures might not be enough!!

Get yourself a HyperDrive. Its quite good and one which you should keep on yourself for those "in case S**T happens" times.

Now that I think of it, I (soon will) have 4 x 2GB + 4 x 1GB cards.

Incidently, a few evenings back I found something from my past. It was a top-of-the-line Lexar 32MB CF card that I purchased with my first DC, a Kodak DC210.

Hi Xponent,

I was away...just goes to illustrate one can not even miss a single day on the TTBB

I totally hear what you are saying about RAW. Yes, if you shoot RAW you will get better results ~if~ and this is the biggie, if you pp them (post process for the non-techies ). However, JPEG fine (highest quality) is a reasonable choice if you don't want to spend a lot of time in post. Not everything needs to be RAW. For me, the travel stuff is now all RAW. Fun evenings with friends, family, local activities shot for the joy of it, now are practically always in "JPEG fine" (highest quality for my camera). The trick is to look at what you are using the images for; why you are taking them; and how dedicated you are to spending time working with them in post. This can help guide you in making the RAW/JPEG decision. Personally, I've learned that there are some events that would benefit (photographically) by my shooting them in RAW, but, frankly, I'm just not dedicated enough to the final images to spend my time working on them in post. This decision, as with so much in photography, is totally subjective.

Another option on tour would be to shoot JPEG some of the time, and RAW + JPEG some of the time, or a combination of only RAW or only JPEG. For instance, the nights when your tour has everyone gathering for dinner or drinks are absolutely, perfectly fine shot in JPEG with no need of post. Times such as...well...it would be Venice for me...where you want to have the possibility of doing something special with the images would be the time for RAW or JPEG + RAW. It would take a bit of an effort to remember to change your settings, but hey, you have proven yourself to have a technical mind

Since you are talking CS3...there is good news here. CS3 has the capability to work with JPEG images (and TIFFs) in CAMERA RAW. Thus, you have more flexibility in post with JPEGs because CAMERA RAW in CS2 did not allow you to work with JPEG files. The caveat is that working on a JPEG in CS3 CAMERA RAW does not allow everything a RAW file in CS3 CAMERA RAW allows for, but the ability to pp JPEGs in CAMERA RAW is brilliant. In my opinion, JPEG ability in CAMERA RAW is worth the cost of the CS3 upgrade. So, we come to cost, which is often ~the~ deciding factor. RAW requires more storage space; at capture and on your computer. RAW could mean the purchasing of CS3...I'm sure we could come up with a number of other cost factors that might sway your decision.

But to end on a positive note; you don't really need to fully learn CS3 or Lightroom or other apps before you leave, you may just need to learn enough about current post procedures to decide if you ~want~ to go this route.

I have a book recommendation for you, this book is, in my opinion, the "Best" all around book for CS3. I have a number of CS2 & CS3 books and this is the one I wish I had bought from the start...I would have definitely skipped purchasing a few of the others had I known about this one.

Title: Photoshop CS3 Workflow The Digital Photographer's Guide
Author: Tim Grey

The learning curve you feel you are behind on is beautifully explained and taught in this book. The author is a genius. I just returned from a workshop of his and what I would have given to have found his work and teachings the first day I began working in Photoshop. Tim Grey also has a PS2 book of the same title so you may find a copy on eBay or elsewhere. If you lived closer to me, I would give you mine, as the CS2 book was given to us in the workshop but I bought the CS3 version...just because

See...so many decisions are based on weighing the pros and cons and then looking at the practical reality of cost.

Please let me know if I can do more to assist.

best wishes
travellor

P.S. in my earlier post, I made a typo with the word "loose". It should have read "lose"

quote:

Another option on tour would be to shoot JPEG some of the time, and RAW + JPEG some of the time...

...and worsen my storage troubles

The only reason why I was torturing myself over RAW/JPEG was the space required on the PSD to store my 26 days worth of RAW. I think I will be going in for a 120GB HDD upgrade for both my PSDs. I can do PP in a flash with scripts and batching the operations.

I will try and check that book out in the local bookstore. Thanks for the tip.

KC

ahhhh...

a 120GB HDD x 2PSDs ...scripts...batching...sounds like you are very serious... ...about RAW

good luck and best wishes!
travellor

Serious ? Try "paranoid"

join the club...it has a rather exclusive membership