RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   A Warning About Shooting RAW (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9902)

trainboysd40 06-03-2009 02:44 PM

Here's my story of misery and woe: I lost everything because I lost two hard drives in the space of a week. Or, almost everything. I had a third external backup that I forgot about because it's almost never on. Still lost everything from September to January though =(

John Craft 06-03-2009 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40 (Post 91192)
Here's my story of misery and woe: I lost everything because I lost two hard drives in the space of a week. Or, almost everything. I had a third external backup that I forgot about because it's almost never on. Still lost everything from September to January though =(

They're not lost:

http://gillware.com/

Quote:

Hard Drive Data Recovery Services

Only $378.99 US for Microsoft Windows operating systems.

We also service Macintosh, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems, as well as RAID recoveries, invasive recoveries, and other systems at an increased price. See our online quote page for details.

Joey Bowman 06-03-2009 03:43 PM

The one thing that always gets overlooked in every thread about RAW is that it gives you the chance to keep your large file from NEVER being a JPG. JPGs are lossy file formats that everytime they are opened and saved are compressed more and more.

I shoot in RAW, Convert to TIFF (8-bit) and then make a JPG copy if I want to put it on the internet.

I have noticed a distinct increase in print quality since using this method.


Also, most camera manufacteurs provide a RAW conversion software with the camera, so unless you are determined to use ACR (adobe camera RAW), then the excuse that you need a new version of photoshop is not really valid.

I shoot in RAW, use Canon ZoomBrowser EX RAW processing to make adjustments in white balance, exposure, and anything else needed that that software can do. Save as a TIFF, and anything (if) anything else is done in Photoshop.

Joe the Photog 06-03-2009 04:18 PM

It's kinda like sayiong that since negatives take up so much space, you should just toss them. More room, less hassel, right?

Wizzo 06-03-2009 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 91198)
It's kinda like sayiong that since negatives take up so much space, you should just toss them. More room, less hassel, right?

You are SOOOOOO right Joe - if I'd have thrown away my negs from the 80's and 90's I wouldn't have have half the shots on this site that I do - and when I started storing them in the early 80's it was way before the Internet was mainstream and PC's as we know them today weren't even available, let alone affordable slide/neg scanners

lock4244 06-03-2009 04:55 PM

I suppose I'm the only one that burns the RAW's on a DVD-R to as a back-up to my back-up?

JRMDC 06-03-2009 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lock4244 (Post 91200)
I suppose I'm the only one that burns the RAW's on a DVD-R to as a back-up to my back-up?

Not the only one. I use two externals plus DVD.

Now, I am certainly not good at keeping up with my burning and "externaling," and in fact this thread coincides with a relatively free evening and I will be doing my backup tasks tonight. :)

Wizzo 06-03-2009 05:00 PM

I copy an image of my hard drive to an identical spare in the PC that is normally offline about once a week and copy any updated data files to an external hard drive at the end of a session.

I could mirror the drives, the SATA controller on my PC supports that but it would involve re-installing Windows and all the apps from scratch and I can't be bothered with that right now.

Joey Bowman 06-03-2009 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lock4244 (Post 91200)
I suppose I'm the only one that burns the RAW's on a DVD-R to as a back-up to my back-up?

All paid work I do I keep copies of everything, before the photos are even touched they are backed up onto DVDs and external hard drives.

If its something that I am just doing for fun, I only keep what I like, throw away the bad stuff.

TheRoadForeman 06-03-2009 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman (Post 91204)
All paid work I do I keep copies of everything, before the photos are even touched they are backed up onto DVDs and external hard drives.

If its something that I am just doing for fun, I only keep what I like, throw away the bad stuff.

Same for me with the paying customers. I only keep the best of my personal collections as well. Too bad that only yields me about 1 in 10, LOL! I'm sure that I'm not the only one tho!

Watain 06-03-2009 10:44 PM

I use RAW for trains and trains only, I found in my own experience that images of food(in dull commercial kitchen light), cars, nature animals, potraits and family photos that it was useless and space wasting. Especially in indoor light, I could never get the color temperature right. Once I started shooting trains in raw though, I never looked back... I found Rockwell's website good for product reviews, but never for tips or techniques..

Joe the Photog 06-03-2009 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watain (Post 91207)
I found in my own experience that images of food(in dull commercial kitchen light), cars, nature animals, potraits and family photos that it was useless and space wasting. Especially in indoor light, I could never get the color temperature right.

I swear it sounds like you're arguing for shooting this stuff in RAW, not against. Personally, I shoot everything in RAW, including when I let y kids shoot a picture of me and my wife. I manually set the exposure, then let them focus in and shoot. It's usuallly a little dark, but I've got it in RAW, so I can muck around with it.

Watain 06-04-2009 01:53 AM

Could just be the difference in camera brands, not sure. But for other things besides trains, I have never been able to get the colors right. Sometimes in outdoor light I will shoot in raw, but since train images require a certain amount of tweaking I always shoot raw.

I shot this in JPEG Fine, nothing touched in photoshop except resizing. Looks like I forgot to even level it.:shock: Unfortunately this image quality is from Myspace compression.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...7ebeeb13f3.jpg


This on the other hand was shot in RAW, processed then saved to a TIFF and finished in PS CS2 and saved to a JPEG. This image was also originally underexposed, RAW helped save it.

[photoid=274812]

While this was shot in JPEG. Quality is so much better in the RAW version.

[photoid=261043]

My point is that I have found no reason to use RAW in anything for personal use, especially if I am going to put it on Myspace where it kills the image quality and sharpness anyway..

Freericks 06-04-2009 02:46 AM

Shoot RAW and JPEG - edit the JPEG if the camera got it perfect, edit the RAW if the camera missed.

Save all original images on an external harddrive and two backup external hard drives.

Save the RAWs only to DVD (two copies)

Keep one backup external and one DVD at my office.

Edited files are then saved on two external drives and two backup drives, and on three DVDs (one DVD and one backup drive stays at my office).

Paranoia, thy name is Freericks

(Although an audio engineer once told me that nothing digital exists unless it exists in three places... which I've come to accept as gospel.)

Joe the Photog 06-04-2009 03:40 AM

Charles;

Are you suggesting that all of us send our RAW images to your office on DVD for safekeeping?

;)

Freericks 06-04-2009 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 91230)
Charles;

Are you suggesting that all of us send our RAW images to your office on DVD for safekeeping?

;)


:lol::lol::lol:

John West 06-04-2009 08:29 PM

Golly, this is almost as much fun as the old debates about Kodachrome 25.

John West 06-04-2009 11:30 PM

Golly, this is almost as much fun as the old debates about Kodachrome 25. Oh, that was bright John hit the key twice.

trainboysd40 06-04-2009 11:44 PM

25 is too slow!
I shoot 64.
Well, theoretically..

Dennis A. Livesey 06-05-2009 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lock4244 (Post 91200)
I suppose I'm the only one that burns the RAW's on a DVD-R to as a back-up to my back-up?

I shoot on 4 gig cards which fit nicely onto a single layer DVD. I download the file, import into Aperture, update it's vault (an external HD) then burn the file onto 2 DVD's. I keep one DVD at home, the other at a relative's home.

Now I have the original RAW files, all of them, on two HD's and two DVD's.

khalucha 06-05-2009 12:38 AM

Some people complain that RAW takes up to much space on the HD, but every time I save a edited RAW as TIFF file it is around 50 meg. Same for everyone else too or is my PS jacked up?

jnohallman 06-05-2009 01:35 AM

I hope everyone who's burning their stuff to DVD for backup hasn't read the information that suggests they're a less stable long-term storage format than CD-R, which in itself is questionable . . . :evil:

Jon

Joey Bowman 06-05-2009 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalucha (Post 91290)
Some people complain that RAW takes up to much space on the HD, but every time I save a edited RAW as TIFF file it is around 50 meg. Same for everyone else too or is my PS jacked up?

A TIFFs size depends on the size of the photo, as well as what bit it is (8, 16, 32bit), AND, how many layers are saved on it. For example, my 8mp SLR's TIFFs are around 22MB straight from the camera in 8bit mode (XT is 22, 30D is 23). If you start adding more layers it can get larger, I have a few composite images that are as big as 250mb, while the regular work I do to an image usually brings the file size up to 60-80mb. I work in 8bit mode, if I worked in 16 that would double the file size.

My GF's 50D's TIFFs are easily 150-300mb with out much effort.

milwman 06-05-2009 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalucha (Post 91290)
Some people complain that RAW takes up to much space on the HD, but every time I save a edited RAW as TIFF file it is around 50 meg. Same for everyone else too or is my PS jacked up?

Tiff files are about as large as you can make them. they save everything, Loss less.

Joey Bowman 06-05-2009 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 91299)
I hope everyone who's burning their stuff to DVD for backup hasn't read the information that suggests they're a less stable long-term storage format than CD-R, which in itself is questionable . . . :evil:

Jon

Weve started using these for backing up our paid work. http://www.delkin.com/products/archivalgold/index.html They can be as much as 20-40 times the cost of a conventional CD or DVD but I think its worth it.

We also use them for when we sell a CD or DVD to a client, we have also raised our prices for discs because of this, but we can also truly say that they are archival, up to 300 years. In our experience we have found some of our own "normal" DVDs and CDs have corrupt files, even after being burned just a few months ago (while being stored in a correct manner)


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.