Big Megapixels? - From NY Times

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Morrisette, Mar 17, 2005.

  1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    March 17, 2005
    FROM THE DESK OF DAVID POGUE
    Defending Big Megapixels

    n my review of 8-megapixel digital cameras a couple of weeks ago, I
    made fun of megapixel mania. Companies hawk megapixel ratings as though they
    're a measure of photo quality, which they're not. And lots of consumers are
    falling for it. The drawback, I noted, is that more megapixels means that
    you have to buy a bigger memory card to hold them. And you have to do a lot
    more waiting: waiting between shots, waiting for the photos to get
    transferred to your computer, and waiting to open and edit them.

    For most people, I wrote, a four- or five-megapixel camera (capable of
    great big 11 x 19 inkjet prints) is more than plenty.

    A dissenting view came by e-mail from an old friend, Harris Fogel. He'
    s an associate professor of photography in Philadelphia:

    "My advice to students is opposite of yours when it comes time to
    decide on resolution. I have always advised them to use the highest quality
    setting they can manage, and to buy big memory cards.

    "Why? Because that family snapshot might just be the last time you see
    your grandmother, or the last time the entire family is together. And to
    shoot that moment at low resolution dooms that image to 5 x 7 or 8 x 10,
    with little opportunity to improve upon that.

    "In digital audio, all those folks who recorded with first-generation
    digital audio decks now cringe at the sound quality. [These days], it's
    pretty much the standard to record at higher resolution and downsample to
    lower res when needed. But you still have a higher quality file to refer to
    when the time comes to remaster.

    "Having spent my life working with images, many of them archival and
    historically important, I thank the gods for the incredible resolution of
    the wet plate process, for the use of large format film, and the care given
    to properly process film and prints. On the other side, there is simply
    nothing you can do to improve upon a low-res image, captured with a lossy
    format like JPEG.

    "So I tell folks, buy a big card or two, especially now that a 1-gig
    card is 80 bucks, and shoot in TIFF or RAW [high-quality formats that take
    up a lot of memory]. For 95 percent of the images, it won't matter a bit.
    But for those once in a lifetime photos, it's well worth the investment. So,
    in my book, the 8 mp file is well worth the effort, and still isn't close to
    film's inherent quality or possibility for future use and exploration."

    Hmm.

    At just about the same time, Karl Petersen, who's a technical adviser
    for a book I'm writing about Apple's iMovie video-editing software,
    mentioned in passing that he's using iMovie's high-definition feature, even
    though he doesn't have an HDTV camcorder. He's using iMovie to create
    high-definition slide shows.

    But how will he show them?

    On a high-definition DVD player, he says, when high-definition DVD
    players (and recorders) become commonplace. Someday.

    What do these two conversations have in common? In both these cases,
    these guys are advocating using resolution and quality settings that are
    obviously overkill or even impossible to view now-but that they might need
    in the future.

    They got me thinking. Three years from now, an eight-megapixel camera
    may indeed seem laughable, just the way most people would scoff at a
    one-megapixel camera today. And when every $300 digital camera shoots
    16-megapixel photos, won't we be glad we shot 8-megapixel photos back in
    2005?

    Similarly, although there's a massively stupid format war brewing
    between two incompatible formats of high-def DVD's, both kinds of players
    and recorders are supposed to start shipping at the end of this year. Sooner
    or later, it's likely that high-def DVD's will replace today's players.
    Shouldn't we prepare for that day?

    Ordinarily, I'm highly cynical about the marketers' campaigns to make
    us think we need unnecessary power, whether it's sport utility vehicles,
    Pentium chips or Microsoft Office versions. But when it comes to
    futureproofing our creative efforts-our photos, our movies, our music-I have
    to admit that Harris and Karl just may be right.



    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy |
    Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
     
    Robert Morrisette, Mar 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I saw a program once that explained why there are no decent photos of the
    shooting in Dealy Plaza. It's because although lots of people had cameras
    they didn't know how to use them or they had the wrong film or the wrong
    camera. You never know.

    I fault I find with the article is the advise to shoot tiff or raw. I shoot
    raw myself but I advise those who don't strive for perfection to shoot the
    best jpg their camera will permit. There are no noticeable artifacts and
    they take up much less space. With my camera my chip can hold 90 jpg or 30
    raw. I can get enough good shots out of 30 tries. Most shooters cannot. For
    them getting 90 to choose from might be better.


    "Robert Morrisette" <> wrote in message
    news:eXn_d.146687$...
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > March 17, 2005
    > FROM THE DESK OF DAVID POGUE
    > Defending Big Megapixels
    >
    > n my review of 8-megapixel digital cameras a couple of weeks ago, I
    > made fun of megapixel mania. Companies hawk megapixel ratings as though

    they
    > 're a measure of photo quality, which they're not. And lots of consumers

    are
    > falling for it. The drawback, I noted, is that more megapixels means that
    > you have to buy a bigger memory card to hold them. And you have to do a

    lot
    > more waiting: waiting between shots, waiting for the photos to get
    > transferred to your computer, and waiting to open and edit them.
    >
    > For most people, I wrote, a four- or five-megapixel camera (capable

    of
    > great big 11 x 19 inkjet prints) is more than plenty.
    >
    > A dissenting view came by e-mail from an old friend, Harris Fogel.

    He'
    > s an associate professor of photography in Philadelphia:
    >
    > "My advice to students is opposite of yours when it comes time to
    > decide on resolution. I have always advised them to use the highest

    quality
    > setting they can manage, and to buy big memory cards.
    >
    > "Why? Because that family snapshot might just be the last time you

    see
    > your grandmother, or the last time the entire family is together. And to
    > shoot that moment at low resolution dooms that image to 5 x 7 or 8 x 10,
    > with little opportunity to improve upon that.
    >
    > "In digital audio, all those folks who recorded with

    first-generation
    > digital audio decks now cringe at the sound quality. [These days], it's
    > pretty much the standard to record at higher resolution and downsample to
    > lower res when needed. But you still have a higher quality file to refer

    to
    > when the time comes to remaster.
    >
    > "Having spent my life working with images, many of them archival and
    > historically important, I thank the gods for the incredible resolution of
    > the wet plate process, for the use of large format film, and the care

    given
    > to properly process film and prints. On the other side, there is simply
    > nothing you can do to improve upon a low-res image, captured with a lossy
    > format like JPEG.
    >
    > "So I tell folks, buy a big card or two, especially now that a 1-gig
    > card is 80 bucks, and shoot in TIFF or RAW [high-quality formats that take
    > up a lot of memory]. For 95 percent of the images, it won't matter a bit.
    > But for those once in a lifetime photos, it's well worth the investment.

    So,
    > in my book, the 8 mp file is well worth the effort, and still isn't close

    to
    > film's inherent quality or possibility for future use and exploration."
    >
    > Hmm.
    >
    > At just about the same time, Karl Petersen, who's a technical

    adviser
    > for a book I'm writing about Apple's iMovie video-editing software,
    > mentioned in passing that he's using iMovie's high-definition feature,

    even
    > though he doesn't have an HDTV camcorder. He's using iMovie to create
    > high-definition slide shows.
    >
    > But how will he show them?
    >
    > On a high-definition DVD player, he says, when high-definition DVD
    > players (and recorders) become commonplace. Someday.
    >
    > What do these two conversations have in common? In both these cases,
    > these guys are advocating using resolution and quality settings that are
    > obviously overkill or even impossible to view now-but that they might need
    > in the future.
    >
    > They got me thinking. Three years from now, an eight-megapixel

    camera
    > may indeed seem laughable, just the way most people would scoff at a
    > one-megapixel camera today. And when every $300 digital camera shoots
    > 16-megapixel photos, won't we be glad we shot 8-megapixel photos back in
    > 2005?
    >
    > Similarly, although there's a massively stupid format war brewing
    > between two incompatible formats of high-def DVD's, both kinds of players
    > and recorders are supposed to start shipping at the end of this year.

    Sooner
    > or later, it's likely that high-def DVD's will replace today's players.
    > Shouldn't we prepare for that day?
    >
    > Ordinarily, I'm highly cynical about the marketers' campaigns to

    make
    > us think we need unnecessary power, whether it's sport utility vehicles,
    > Pentium chips or Microsoft Office versions. But when it comes to
    > futureproofing our creative efforts-our photos, our movies, our music-I

    have
    > to admit that Harris and Karl just may be right.
    >
    >
    >
    > Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy |
    > Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Morrisette

    Mark Weaver Guest

    I expect that someday in the not too distant future, those 8MP images will
    be displayed on screens or with projectors with that much native resolution.

    Mark

    "Robert Morrisette" <> wrote in message
    news:eXn_d.146687$...
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > March 17, 2005
    > FROM THE DESK OF DAVID POGUE
    > Defending Big Megapixels
    >
    > n my review of 8-megapixel digital cameras a couple of weeks ago, I
    > made fun of megapixel mania. Companies hawk megapixel ratings as though
    > they
    > 're a measure of photo quality, which they're not. And lots of consumers
    > are
    > falling for it. The drawback, I noted, is that more megapixels means that
    > you have to buy a bigger memory card to hold them. And you have to do a
    > lot
    > more waiting: waiting between shots, waiting for the photos to get
    > transferred to your computer, and waiting to open and edit them.
    >
    > For most people, I wrote, a four- or five-megapixel camera (capable
    > of
    > great big 11 x 19 inkjet prints) is more than plenty.
    >
    > A dissenting view came by e-mail from an old friend, Harris Fogel.
    > He'
    > s an associate professor of photography in Philadelphia:
    >
    > "My advice to students is opposite of yours when it comes time to
    > decide on resolution. I have always advised them to use the highest
    > quality
    > setting they can manage, and to buy big memory cards.
    >
    > "Why? Because that family snapshot might just be the last time you
    > see
    > your grandmother, or the last time the entire family is together. And to
    > shoot that moment at low resolution dooms that image to 5 x 7 or 8 x 10,
    > with little opportunity to improve upon that.
    >
    > "In digital audio, all those folks who recorded with first-generation
    > digital audio decks now cringe at the sound quality. [These days], it's
    > pretty much the standard to record at higher resolution and downsample to
    > lower res when needed. But you still have a higher quality file to refer
    > to
    > when the time comes to remaster.
    >
    > "Having spent my life working with images, many of them archival and
    > historically important, I thank the gods for the incredible resolution of
    > the wet plate process, for the use of large format film, and the care
    > given
    > to properly process film and prints. On the other side, there is simply
    > nothing you can do to improve upon a low-res image, captured with a lossy
    > format like JPEG.
    >
    > "So I tell folks, buy a big card or two, especially now that a 1-gig
    > card is 80 bucks, and shoot in TIFF or RAW [high-quality formats that take
    > up a lot of memory]. For 95 percent of the images, it won't matter a bit.
    > But for those once in a lifetime photos, it's well worth the investment.
    > So,
    > in my book, the 8 mp file is well worth the effort, and still isn't close
    > to
    > film's inherent quality or possibility for future use and exploration."
    >
    > Hmm.
    >
    > At just about the same time, Karl Petersen, who's a technical adviser
    > for a book I'm writing about Apple's iMovie video-editing software,
    > mentioned in passing that he's using iMovie's high-definition feature,
    > even
    > though he doesn't have an HDTV camcorder. He's using iMovie to create
    > high-definition slide shows.
    >
    > But how will he show them?
    >
    > On a high-definition DVD player, he says, when high-definition DVD
    > players (and recorders) become commonplace. Someday.
    >
    > What do these two conversations have in common? In both these cases,
    > these guys are advocating using resolution and quality settings that are
    > obviously overkill or even impossible to view now-but that they might need
    > in the future.
    >
    > They got me thinking. Three years from now, an eight-megapixel camera
    > may indeed seem laughable, just the way most people would scoff at a
    > one-megapixel camera today. And when every $300 digital camera shoots
    > 16-megapixel photos, won't we be glad we shot 8-megapixel photos back in
    > 2005?
    >
    > Similarly, although there's a massively stupid format war brewing
    > between two incompatible formats of high-def DVD's, both kinds of players
    > and recorders are supposed to start shipping at the end of this year.
    > Sooner
    > or later, it's likely that high-def DVD's will replace today's players.
    > Shouldn't we prepare for that day?
    >
    > Ordinarily, I'm highly cynical about the marketers' campaigns to make
    > us think we need unnecessary power, whether it's sport utility vehicles,
    > Pentium chips or Microsoft Office versions. But when it comes to
    > futureproofing our creative efforts-our photos, our movies, our music-I
    > have
    > to admit that Harris and Karl just may be right.
    >
    >
    >
    > Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy |
    > Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Mark Weaver, Mar 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Robert Morrisette

    meow Guest

    2 comments. I shoot always at the 6mp setting of my Fuji E550, because I
    find my self cropping the picture many times and the extra pixtals after the
    crop is still enough to make a big print. If I shot a 4 or 5 mp and cropped
    50% I wouldnt have enough left to make an 8x10.
    2nd comment I read that the DVD format wars between the Blue ray and the HD
    DvD will be decided by the porno industry and they are leaning toword the
    Blue ray, no suprise there.

    From Time:
    HD DVD, backed primarily by Toshiba, NEC and a number of studios - including
    Paramount Home Entertainment, Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers and New
    Line Cinema - is capable of storing 15 gigabytes of data on a single-layer
    disc. A Blu-ray DVD can store up to 25 gigabytes on a single layer and 50
    gigabytes on a dual-layer disc. Both formats use blue lasers rather than the
    regular red one.
    Backers of HD DVD say making discs in their format will be much less
    difficult and expensive than Blu-ray DVD's, which are supported by Sony,
    Samsung, Hewlett-Packard, Panasonic, LG Electronics, Sharp, Mitsubishi,
    Dell, Walt Disney Pictures and Television, 20th Century Fox and others.



    "EdO" <> wrote in message news:...
    > If you are shooting for archival reasons (and family photos are not in
    > this class) then shoot the best you can. Probably 90+ % of digital camera
    > owners images are snapshots and would never get past 4x6 print and for
    > them the mega pixel race is ludicrous For the FEW (percentage) that
    > really want the best the pixels could be important but when you can get
    > excellent 11 x14 or so from 5mp wasting bandwidth on over kill does not
    > make sense.
    >
    > EdO
    >
     
    meow, Mar 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Robert Morrisette

    Jim Guest

    "EdO" <> wrote in message news:...
    > If you are shooting for archival reasons (and family photos are not in
    > this class) then shoot the best you can.
    >
    > EdO
    >

    You mean to tell me that the family photos I have from the 1880s through the
    1920s need never to have been archival?
    No, I did not take these photographs.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Mar 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Robert Morrisette

    EdO Guest

    If you are shooting for archival reasons (and family photos are not in
    this class) then shoot the best you can. Probably 90+ % of digital
    camera owners images are snapshots and would never get past 4x6 print
    and for them the mega pixel race is ludicrous For the FEW (percentage)
    that really want the best the pixels could be important but when you
    can get excellent 11 x14 or so from 5mp wasting bandwidth on over kill
    does not make sense.

    EdO
     
    EdO, Mar 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Robert Morrisette

    Musty Guest

    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    news:Cto_d.3882$uw6.2280@trnddc06...
    > I saw a program once that explained why there are no decent photos of the
    > shooting in Dealy Plaza. It's because although lots of people had cameras
    > they didn't know how to use them or they had the wrong film or the wrong
    > camera. You never know.
    >
    > I fault I find with the article is the advise to shoot tiff or raw. I

    shoot
    > raw myself but I advise those who don't strive for perfection to shoot the
    > best jpg their camera will permit. There are no noticeable artifacts and
    > they take up much less space. With my camera my chip can hold 90 jpg or 30
    > raw. I can get enough good shots out of 30 tries. Most shooters cannot.

    For
    > them getting 90 to choose from might be better.
    >


    You can shoot both. For example on my 20D, I shoot RAW+JPEG. Dont forget
    that RAW will give more latitude than a JPEG and this is critical. Even 1
    stop of extra latitude is well worth it. Large and fast CF cards are cheap
    and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or
    RAW+JPEG) at whatever megapixels you can afford.

    Thanks
    Musty.
     
    Musty, Mar 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Robert Morrisette

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Musty wrote:

    > You can shoot both. For example on my 20D, I shoot RAW+JPEG. Dont forget
    > that RAW will give more latitude than a JPEG and this is critical. Even 1
    > stop of extra latitude is well worth it. Large and fast CF cards are cheap
    > and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or
    > RAW+JPEG) at whatever megapixels you can afford.


    It doesn't matter how cheap CF is, if you've spent most of your budget on the
    camera itself and can only afford a small (say 512MB) card to go with it. Then
    you won't use RAW unless you can get to a PC easily.

    --
    Ben
     
    Ben Thomas, Mar 18, 2005
    #8
  9. > and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or

    Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the computer.
    Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted. I don't understand it....but
    there are such people. But then when I think of the hundreds of hours I have
    spent learning Photoshop...
     
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Robert Morrisette

    Tony Guest

    I think the reason why there are so few photographs of the shooting in
    Dealy Plaza is because everyone was ducking for cover when the shooting
    started. If some SFB young journalism school grad at the NY Times really
    thinks it was a matter of lots of people who didn't know how to load their
    cameras, then the time has come for the Times to reduce the deadwood on
    their staff.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    news:Cto_d.3882$uw6.2280@trnddc06...
    > I saw a program once that explained why there are no decent photos of the
    > shooting in Dealy Plaza. It's because although lots of people had cameras
    > they didn't know how to use them or they had the wrong film or the wrong
    > camera. You never know.
    >
    > I fault I find with the article is the advise to shoot tiff or raw. I

    shoot
    > raw myself but I advise those who don't strive for perfection to shoot the
    > best jpg their camera will permit. There are no noticeable artifacts and
    > they take up much less space. With my camera my chip can hold 90 jpg or 30
    > raw. I can get enough good shots out of 30 tries. Most shooters cannot.

    For
    > them getting 90 to choose from might be better.
    >
    >
    > "Robert Morrisette" <> wrote in message
    > news:eXn_d.146687$...
    > >
    > >

    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > March 17, 2005
    > > FROM THE DESK OF DAVID POGUE
    > > Defending Big Megapixels
    > >
    > > n my review of 8-megapixel digital cameras a couple of weeks ago,

    I
    > > made fun of megapixel mania. Companies hawk megapixel ratings as though

    > they
    > > 're a measure of photo quality, which they're not. And lots of consumers

    > are
    > > falling for it. The drawback, I noted, is that more megapixels means

    that
    > > you have to buy a bigger memory card to hold them. And you have to do a

    > lot
    > > more waiting: waiting between shots, waiting for the photos to get
    > > transferred to your computer, and waiting to open and edit them.
    > >
    > > For most people, I wrote, a four- or five-megapixel camera

    (capable
    > of
    > > great big 11 x 19 inkjet prints) is more than plenty.
    > >
    > > A dissenting view came by e-mail from an old friend, Harris Fogel.

    > He'
    > > s an associate professor of photography in Philadelphia:
    > >
    > > "My advice to students is opposite of yours when it comes time to
    > > decide on resolution. I have always advised them to use the highest

    > quality
    > > setting they can manage, and to buy big memory cards.
    > >
    > > "Why? Because that family snapshot might just be the last time you

    > see
    > > your grandmother, or the last time the entire family is together. And to
    > > shoot that moment at low resolution dooms that image to 5 x 7 or 8 x 10,
    > > with little opportunity to improve upon that.
    > >
    > > "In digital audio, all those folks who recorded with

    > first-generation
    > > digital audio decks now cringe at the sound quality. [These days], it's
    > > pretty much the standard to record at higher resolution and downsample

    to
    > > lower res when needed. But you still have a higher quality file to refer

    > to
    > > when the time comes to remaster.
    > >
    > > "Having spent my life working with images, many of them archival

    and
    > > historically important, I thank the gods for the incredible resolution

    of
    > > the wet plate process, for the use of large format film, and the care

    > given
    > > to properly process film and prints. On the other side, there is simply
    > > nothing you can do to improve upon a low-res image, captured with a

    lossy
    > > format like JPEG.
    > >
    > > "So I tell folks, buy a big card or two, especially now that a

    1-gig
    > > card is 80 bucks, and shoot in TIFF or RAW [high-quality formats that

    take
    > > up a lot of memory]. For 95 percent of the images, it won't matter a

    bit.
    > > But for those once in a lifetime photos, it's well worth the investment.

    > So,
    > > in my book, the 8 mp file is well worth the effort, and still isn't

    close
    > to
    > > film's inherent quality or possibility for future use and exploration."
    > >
    > > Hmm.
    > >
    > > At just about the same time, Karl Petersen, who's a technical

    > adviser
    > > for a book I'm writing about Apple's iMovie video-editing software,
    > > mentioned in passing that he's using iMovie's high-definition feature,

    > even
    > > though he doesn't have an HDTV camcorder. He's using iMovie to create
    > > high-definition slide shows.
    > >
    > > But how will he show them?
    > >
    > > On a high-definition DVD player, he says, when high-definition DVD
    > > players (and recorders) become commonplace. Someday.
    > >
    > > What do these two conversations have in common? In both these

    cases,
    > > these guys are advocating using resolution and quality settings that are
    > > obviously overkill or even impossible to view now-but that they might

    need
    > > in the future.
    > >
    > > They got me thinking. Three years from now, an eight-megapixel

    > camera
    > > may indeed seem laughable, just the way most people would scoff at a
    > > one-megapixel camera today. And when every $300 digital camera shoots
    > > 16-megapixel photos, won't we be glad we shot 8-megapixel photos back in
    > > 2005?
    > >
    > > Similarly, although there's a massively stupid format war brewing
    > > between two incompatible formats of high-def DVD's, both kinds of

    players
    > > and recorders are supposed to start shipping at the end of this year.

    > Sooner
    > > or later, it's likely that high-def DVD's will replace today's players.
    > > Shouldn't we prepare for that day?
    > >
    > > Ordinarily, I'm highly cynical about the marketers' campaigns to

    > make
    > > us think we need unnecessary power, whether it's sport utility vehicles,
    > > Pentium chips or Microsoft Office versions. But when it comes to
    > > futureproofing our creative efforts-our photos, our movies, our music-I

    > have
    > > to admit that Harris and Karl just may be right.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy

    |
    > > Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Tony, Mar 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Robert Morrisette

    Musty Guest

    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    news:_ss_d.3940$uw6.788@trnddc06...
    > > and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or

    >
    > Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the computer.
    > Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted. I don't understand it....but
    > there are such people. But then when I think of the hundreds of hours I

    have
    > spent learning Photoshop...
    >


    This is why shooting RAW+JPEG is best (For each shot I take, my camera
    stores both a RAW and JPEG). I like to think of the RAW file as my "digital
    negative" and my JPEG as my "digital print". For most of the photos I take,
    I dont touch the RAW, but when the time comes to make a print or send photos
    out, I can make any necessary adjustments in RAW before creating a new JPEG.
    For example, exposure and white balance correction is very simple on RAW
    images.
     
    Musty, Mar 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Robert Morrisette

    Musty Guest

    "Ben Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Musty wrote:
    >
    > > You can shoot both. For example on my 20D, I shoot RAW+JPEG. Dont forget
    > > that RAW will give more latitude than a JPEG and this is critical. Even

    1
    > > stop of extra latitude is well worth it. Large and fast CF cards are

    cheap
    > > and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or
    > > RAW+JPEG) at whatever megapixels you can afford.

    >
    > It doesn't matter how cheap CF is, if you've spent most of your budget on

    the
    > camera itself and can only afford a small (say 512MB) card to go with it.

    Then
    > you won't use RAW unless you can get to a PC easily.
    >
    > --
    > Ben


    One way around that is to "clean up" shots as you go. Regarding importance
    of RAW, you can see my other post. This may be a personal preference, but at
    any size of card (within reason), I would prefer to have less shots and have
    the RAW rather than more shots and just JPEGs.

    Musty.
     
    Musty, Mar 18, 2005
    #12
  13. On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:06:18 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Gene
    Palmiter" <> in <_ss_d.3940$uw6.788@trnddc06>
    wrote:

    >> and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or

    >
    >Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the computer.
    >Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted. I don't understand it....but
    >there are such people. But then when I think of the hundreds of hours I have
    >spent learning Photoshop...


    For some reason I don't like messing with my pictures in the computer.
    It is not an aversion to technology or even photo software, I use tech
    all the time and like making images. But for some reason, which I
    can't explain or defend, I want my photos to be just what I shot and
    nothing else. I am not sure I even like moving things out of the way
    to get a better shot. I suspect it is a vgt that I am very much an
    amateur at this.


    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Will you hold me sacred?
    Will you hold me tight?
    Can you colorize my life I'm so sick of black and white?
    Can you make it all a little less old?

    _I would do anything for love_ by Jim Steinman
     
    Matt Silberstein, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Robert Morrisette

    Steve Guest

    EdO wrote:
    > If you are shooting for archival reasons (and family photos are not in
    > this class) then shoot the best you can.


    Ten feet behind me is a print of Ansel Adams' "Winter Sunrise from Lone Pine". It's a
    wonderful photo, but if tomorrow's weather is cooperative the same shot could be
    taken tomorrow morning. If his family only had some crappy little prints of him taken
    with a Brownie they'd be pretty hard pressed to go out and get a better picture of
    him just now. Extremely few of them will end up on the wall of a museum, but family
    photos deserve archiving far more than a lot of "fine art" that is considered
    important, often only because it can be sold. One of the great things about $300 5MP
    digital cameras is how easy it is to take lousy little snapshots that may become
    extremely valuable somewhere down the road, though that value will almsot certainly
    not be economic. Figuring that a lot of those family snapshots are going to be a bit
    out of focus or a stop off, the available detail is still going to be dependent on
    the resolution at which they were shot.



    > Probably 90+ % of digital
    > camera owners images are snapshots and would never get past 4x6 print
    > and for them the mega pixel race is ludicrous


    I'll agree that most people shouldn't rush out and spend the premium for the best
    that's available, but somewhere down the road they'll probably be glad if they got
    something at the prosumer level and shot at the highest res available, because the
    family photos are going to be the ones that are important.

    --
    Steve

    The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
    belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

    If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
     
    Steve, Mar 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Robert Morrisette

    Crownfield Guest

    Matt Silberstein wrote:
    >


    > For some reason I don't like messing with my pictures in the computer.
    > It is not an aversion to technology or even photo software, I use tech
    > all the time and like making images. But for some reason, which I
    > can't explain or defend, I want my photos to be just what I shot and
    > nothing else. I am not sure I even like moving things out of the way
    > to get a better shot. I suspect it is a vgt that I am very much an
    > amateur at this.


    nothing personal, but probably a lot of your pictures
    show the lack of processing.

    few cameras put out such a perfect image
    that they do not need adjustment
    in white balance, contrast, exposure, and cropping.



    >
    > --
    > Matt Silberstein
    >
     
    Crownfield, Mar 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Robert Morrisette

    Barry Bean Guest

    "Musty" <> wrote in news:xTr_d.14560$8D.11589
    @tornado.texas.rr.com:

    > You can shoot both. For example on my 20D, I shoot RAW+JPEG.


    Why? Assuming you have software that reads RAW, why not simply shoot RAW
    and convert to JPG when you have some reason to?
     
    Barry Bean, Mar 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Robert Morrisette

    Barry Bean Guest

    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in news:_ss_d.3940
    $uw6.788@trnddc06:

    > Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the computer.
    > Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted.


    No. More data is always good. Even if you print 99.9% of your shots exactly
    as they were stored, the one time you save a photo that got stored
    over/under exposed, too noisy, or with some other correctable flaw, you'll
    be awfully glad you had al that raw data to work with.
     
    Barry Bean, Mar 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Robert Morrisette

    rafe bustin Guest

    On 18 Mar 2005 13:15:09 GMT, Barry Bean <> wrote:

    >"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in news:_ss_d.3940
    >$uw6.788@trnddc06:
    >
    >> Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the computer.
    >> Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted.

    >
    >No. More data is always good. Even if you print 99.9% of your shots exactly
    >as they were stored, the one time you save a photo that got stored
    >over/under exposed, too noisy, or with some other correctable flaw, you'll
    >be awfully glad you had al that raw data to work with.



    More data always good? Think so?

    This might explain the widespread belief
    that 16-bit files will make one's images
    look like those of Jack Dykinga or David
    Muench.

    Or why Stacey decided that Film Died in
    3Q 2004, as opposed to any of the N years
    preceding.

    Or why the firmware projects I work on
    in 2005 are approximately a thousand
    times more complicated (and dreary) than
    those I worked on in 1976.

    This might also explain the 185 CDs and
    65 DVDs holding the film scans and digicam
    captures I've acquired since 1998 or
    thereabouts. Or why it takes a mere
    matter of months to fill a 160G RAID
    drive with images.

    I'm freaking *drowning* in data.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Mar 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Robert Morrisette

    Owamanga Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:55:04 GMT, Ben Thomas <>
    wrote:

    >Musty wrote:
    >
    >> You can shoot both. For example on my 20D, I shoot RAW+JPEG. Dont forget
    >> that RAW will give more latitude than a JPEG and this is critical. Even 1
    >> stop of extra latitude is well worth it. Large and fast CF cards are cheap
    >> and so are hard-drives. There is no excuse to shoot anything but RAW (or
    >> RAW+JPEG) at whatever megapixels you can afford.

    >
    >It doesn't matter how cheap CF is, if you've spent most of your budget on the
    >camera itself and can only afford a small (say 512MB) card to go with it. Then
    >you won't use RAW unless you can get to a PC easily.


    That's what credit cards are for. :)

    I now have 3 x 1Gb and 1 x 500Mb, which can hold around 600 RAW+JPG
    6Mpixel images. I also carry a battery powered 40Gb card-reader drive
    thingy to dump stuff onto if I need to (useful for vacations).

    I've never had to get a print made in the field (but can, because the
    JPEG provides that capability). And with this capacity, I've never
    been forced to review and delete stuff in the field either.

    The last 1Gb card I purchased was around $75.

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
     
    Owamanga, Mar 18, 2005
    #19
  20. Robert Morrisette

    Barry Bean Guest

    rafe bustin <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 18 Mar 2005 13:15:09 GMT, Barry Bean <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in news:_ss_d.3940
    >>$uw6.788@trnddc06:
    >>
    >>> Not an excuse...but a reason. Not everyone wants to edit on the
    >>> computer. Without that any benefit from RAW is wasted.

    >>
    >>No. More data is always good. Even if you print 99.9% of your shots
    >>exactly as they were stored, the one time you save a photo that got
    >>stored over/under exposed, too noisy, or with some other correctable
    >>flaw, you'll be awfully glad you had al that raw data to work with.

    >
    > More data always good? Think so?


    Yes.

    > This might explain the widespread belief
    > that 16-bit files will make one's images
    > look like those of Jack Dykinga or David
    > Muench.


    Hardly. GIGO still applies. But if your next shot is an Ansel Adams
    quality masterpiece, it'd be a shame if its stored in a 640X480 Jpeg with
    8 to 1 compression.

    > <more non-sequitors snipped>


    No, it simply means that more data is better. Its a simple principle.

    > This might also explain the 185 CDs and
    > 65 DVDs holding the film scans and digicam
    > captures I've acquired since 1998 or
    > thereabouts. Or why it takes a mere
    > matter of months to fill a 160G RAID
    > drive with images.


    So?

    > I'm freaking *drowning* in data.


    And thats a problem how?
     
    Barry Bean, Mar 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Moo

    Boot Times and Recycle Times

    Moo, Nov 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    396
    Bob Harrington
    Nov 20, 2004
  2. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    360
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. JWBH

    better big optical zoom or big megapixels?

    JWBH, Feb 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    938
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    279
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
Loading...

Share This Page