Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2011 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??
  
 
oldnslow
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


I see that there is a thread already about raw vs jpeg and i did not want to hijack it, so i stated this one that is specific to my needs.

David


Hello everyone, I shoot a lot of motocross (between 25k and 35k a year) in jpeg format with a file size of around 4.5mb to 8.0mb and had a few questions.

1. don't want to shoot the d300 in raw--too big a file/bigger or more cf cards/more computer space/etc.

2. d2hs raw file is around 6.50mb

So my main question is, would it be better to edit a smaller raw file (d2hs) or edit a bigger jpeg file (d300).

All help would be appreciated.

David



Dec 08, 2011 at 07:11 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


i think it depends on your output...you're prob rarely going over iso 800, so noise shouldn't be TOOOO much of an issue with the d2hs.....but like i said it all depends on your output.....i personally prefer shooting raw....so if you asked me, i'd take the d2hs over the d300 for your particular situation...shooting motoX....


Dec 08, 2011 at 07:42 PM
eSchwab
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


Usually this type of shooting is very easy to set and shoot because lighting and conditions are pretty consistent. I would shoot Jpeg with whichever body is easier to use.


Dec 08, 2011 at 07:43 PM
williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


What is the end use of your pics? Are you getting the quality to satisfy?


Dec 08, 2011 at 07:56 PM
oldnslow
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


The end use is photos ordered from the riders through zenfolio, with 16x24 being the biggest print. I just thought it would be better to edit a raw file, instead of a jpeg file.

David
williamkazak wrote:
What is the end use of your pics? Are you getting the quality to satisfy?




Dec 08, 2011 at 09:05 PM
mrgetalife
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


It almost makes no sense. Apples and oranges. You're comparing maximum output of a 4 megapixel sensor to a 12.

If you have to edit light levels RAW is much easier to handle than JPEG. If you're just using whatever came out and cropping JPEG will be much faster. In the end pretty much everything gets output as JPEG.

And you know you can cut down on the JPEG resolution of the D300. If you half it to about 6MP you'll be pretty much at 8FPS for up to 100 frames.

Edited on Dec 08, 2011 at 10:09 PM · View previous versions



Dec 08, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Dwight3
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


I presume you've been doing this for a while. How much processing do your images need? If it's minimal, jpg's will do just fine for you. I don't think the size of the file is the important thing here. It's the image quality that counts. If you need to do some more than minimal processing on some photos, RAW is worth it.

Memory is cheap these days, and a 1Tbyte backup can be had for less than $100 if you watch for sales. At 30K files per year averaging 8Mbytes, that's about 4 years worth of storage. I would say the larger problem is how you find files with that many to keep track of.



Dec 08, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Don Olson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


I shoot Off Road GP Scrambles and the light changes depending on where I station myself. Could be anything from bright sunlight to deep shadow and or lots of rain (one lap is usually 3 miles). I shoot RAW anywhere from 700 to 1400 images a race and sort/ process through Lightroom3.5 with no problems. I also shoot MotoGP and Sprint Boat races same thing. D700


Dec 08, 2011 at 10:17 PM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


oldnslow wrote:
The end use is photos ordered from the riders through zenfolio, with 16x24 being the biggest print. I just thought it would be better to edit a raw file, instead of a jpeg file.

David



I find that if the camera is set up properly, the JPEGs are better than the RAW and don't need editing.
A 4mb file is big enough to "capture the moment" and print 17x24.

We shoot MotoCross Events and it takes enough time to sort thousands of shots.
If I had to edit each one , I would still be working on the last shoot.

By the way, the D3 is the best camera you can buy for Events.
But it is too heavy for me now, so I shoot with a D7000 and use a D5100 for backup.



Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00 PM
Erie Patsellis
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


The D2Hs benefits greatly from shooting raw and generating jpgs from LR3 or NX2. The jpg engine in the Hs was good, for it's time, but alot of improvements have occurred since then.

Between better noise reduction, being able to better take advantage of the 12 bit data from the raw file and more advanced sharpening methods available today, raw is the only way I shoot my D2Hs. As an example, shooting raw 1600 is quite workable and clean when processed from a raw file. The OOC jpg is rather visibly noisy by comparison. At base ISO it doesn't matter, but anything above 400 or so the difference becomes more visible.



Dec 10, 2011 at 03:49 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



PShizzy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


My take on it: Why not set the D300 to 12-bit and/or Lossy Compression NEF. That keeps file sizes small. Also, the D300 AF should be better than the D2hs, due to the 51 pt sensor technology. Faster? Dunno, don't have a D2hs.

But I'd take a 12bit Lossy NEF from a D300 over a 12bit Lossless NEF from a D2hs. The sensor is newer, and the noise and color are better. Sharpness or resolution I won't mention because I don't have one to compare, and because I know other smaller mp cameras can resolve insane amounts of detail (the Canon 1D is a BEAST).

Anyhow, I understand its a choice, but really, 35k files a year is not that unmanageable, RAW or JPEG. I'm managing well over 500,000 now, and 4TB. I'm not trying to brag, just saying that now more than ever, space is cheap, as are services.

Just my take



Dec 10, 2011 at 06:56 PM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


oldnslow wrote:
Hello everyone, I shoot a lot of motocross (between 25k and 35k a year) in jpeg format with a file size of around 4.5mb to 8.0mb and had a few questions.

1. don't want to shoot the d300 in raw--too big a file/bigger or more cf cards/more computer space/etc.


A 12-bit, lossless-compressed RAW file from the D300 will be 10MB on average... and very close to that average, mind you, based on my experience with over 100K RAW files from the D300. And that gives you a 12MP RAW image that you can edit to your heart's content, with large prints that will put to shame anything the D2hs can do with 4MP at any ISO and any settings.

Let's say you do switch, and you shoot 40K images a year at 5MB each, and that you're a fantastic shooter with an unbelievably-high 50% keeper rate. Your actual space savings each year are 100GB total, about a McDonald's Happy Meal ($6) worth of hard drive space.

I see no reason at all, at all, to make this switch. You gain nothing, lose quite a bit, and all to save $10/year on hard drive space and maybe $50-$60 one time on CF cards. This makes zero sense to me. Run, don't walk, to hug your D300 and promise you won't trade it in for an older model which will give you poorer results.

And don't listen to anyone who tells you that 16x24 prints are going to look great from a 4MP image. They can look good if you did everything right, but they'll never look as good as the same image shot by the same shooter with 12MP. The level of detail is much better, and the prints will withstand much closer scrutiny from the higher-pixel file.



Dec 10, 2011 at 11:07 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
A 12-bit, lossless-compressed RAW file from the D300 will be 10MB on average... and very close to that average, mind you, based on my experience with over 100K RAW files from the D300. And that gives you a 12MP RAW image that you can edit to your heart's content, with large prints that will put to shame anything the D2hs can do with 4MP at any ISO and any settings.

Let's say you do switch, and you shoot 40K images a year at 5MB each, and that you're a fantastic shooter with an unbelievably-high 50% keeper rate. Your actual space
...Show more

i've changed my original response! :-) ...very very convincing argument!



Dec 11, 2011 at 04:29 AM
Avi B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


If you'd have said that your max printing size requirement is 8x10 or 11x14, I would say the D2Hs will be fine, shot in RAW. But since your max printing size is 16x24, I would say that the 12MP of the D300 is probably a lot better suited.

(from a guy who has a soft spot in his heart about the D2H and D2Hs)



Dec 11, 2011 at 04:49 AM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


Nathan, I wasn't directing my comments at your post, sorry if it sounded that way. I was referring to Roger's comments:

RRRoger wrote:
I find that if the camera is set up properly, the JPEGs are better than the RAW and don't need editing.
A 4mb file is big enough to "capture the moment" and print 17x24.

We shoot MotoCross Events and it takes enough time to sort thousands of shots.
If I had to edit each one, I would still be working on the last shoot.


1. I'm going to call "JPG better than RAW" a logical impossibility. The JPG is derived from the RAW using simple choices made by the camera settings. There is no way those can be better than making the same kinds of choices, carefully and with greater computing power, in the computer. At best, the JPG can be just as good as the RAW in theory; but in practice, a processed RAW file will always give you a better JPG at the end, than the JPG you had from the camera at the beginning.

2. Yes, a well-executed 4MP capture (note MP not MB, not the same thing at all!) is enough to make a good-looking 16x24 print. It is also true that a 12MP capture of the same scene will look even better.

3. Those comments, especially "if I had to edit each one" et al, simply show that Roger is not yet as skilled at post as he is with his camera. He should work on that some more, since I'm sure he's a skilled shooter and we all need every edge we can get.

Look at how simple it is. In LR, for example, I set up a metadata profile and a "develop settings" profile. Those have my default settings for exposure modification, brightness, contrast, saturation, curves, sharpening, NR, vignetting, lens corrections, and color profiles... everything the camera has inside it, and then some. When I import a CF full of cards, all the files are renamed, keyworded, tagged, and processed according to my default settings. Previews generated too. Zero editing, just like a JPG. When I run through them to do the sorting, rejecting, filtering, picking, whatever, any quick "slider edits" I might have done to a JPG get done the same say as I would have done to a JPG. At the end, I tell LR to export all my picks to JPG. The end result is that I have all my JPG's processed from the RAW files after processing, but it took me no more time. So no, it does not take more time, and you don't have to "edit every one". Those are incorrect ideas, let go of them already.

And the JPG-from-RAW files are always better than the OOC JPG files... always. Why? Remember a JPG can only hold 256 tones of R, G, and B each. Say that in editing you wipe out 60-80 shades of red (30% or so)... you're down to 176 shades of red which is probably enough. But heavy editing will start to show posterization and banding. But in a RAW, you start with 4,096 shades of red. Say you trash 3,500 of them (about 87%) in heavy editing, you still have almost 600 shades of red left, enough to pick the best and most representative 256 reds and make a perfect JPG. You are guaranteed to have a better JPG if you go through RAW first. And that's just in a simple, normal case.

Seriously screwed up your WB? Your JPG is worthless, your RAW is totally unaffected. Need to edit and save several times? Your JPG gets progressively more compression artifacts and loses quality, your JPG-from-RAW results are always perfect. Need to push/pull your base image to do faux HDR so you recover some DR? JPG is very limited, RAW is far more flexible. Overexposed and blew some highlights? RAW has almost a full stop of better highlight recovery ability.

You can tell me that your clients buy your images as-is and that JPG is good enough for you. I will respect that, and you have every right to feel that way. But don't tell me JPG is better, and don't tell me that editing RAW is cumbersome and time-consuming. Those statements are false. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.



Dec 11, 2011 at 05:32 AM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


Sorry, but I do agree that RAW files are better.
They do hold more data and are more editable.

But, JPEGs are better than RAW for "My use"
Rodolfo, I am glad you have your workflow under that much control.
Editing RAW is cumbersome and time-consuming "for me"
Yes, I have CS5 etc. but typically use ACDsee.

I do shoot RAW and JPEG at important EVENTs such as Weddings (mostly because the lighting can be so tricky.
However, I end up using the JPEG at least 99% of the time anyway.

Like I said, if you set up the camera properly for JPEGs, you don't even have to batch edit the images.

And as far as the original debate goes, I moved on from the D2h, D2x, and D300 years ago when the D3 came out..
For "my use" even the D7000 blows them away for image capture and quality.



Dec 11, 2011 at 06:59 AM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


RRRoger wrote:
Editing RAW is cumbersome and time-consuming "for me"
Yes, I have CS5 etc. but typically use ACDsee.


That's why I phrased it as saying that anyone who's seen your images knows that you know what you're doing, but that IMHO more investment in the post-processing side of the equation would yield a good return for you.

I find Lightroom to be a fantastic addition to my workflow, and a huge improvement with a very gentle learning curve. Just for the sake of an interesting experiment, I'd suggest you download the trial and try it out for 30 days. If you learn how to: create a develop-settings preset; create a metadata preset; and do triage with labels, stars, and quick collections, I think you'll find that it pays big dividends on your time and effort invested. Just an idea.



Dec 11, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


The obvious issue is, for many who find RAW workflows frustrating or time consuming, that they are using the wrong tools. Using CS5 as the core of a RAW workflow is like using a swiss army knife to trim flower stems all day long as a professional florist.

You have to have a tool like Lightroom, Aperture, or Bibble. Those tools are custom designed to make that particular workflow fast, efficient, and powerful. You just don't get that same type of efficiency using PS, it's a graphic design tool anyway .




Dec 11, 2011 at 07:16 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


Rodolfo, i know you weren't speaking to me directly, but your reasons were so good, that i have to agree with you!! :-) ... As for raw or jpg, i always choose raw... I actually find jpg's more difficult to edit than raws, every time...


Dec 11, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Tommy_D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · D2HS raw or D300 jpeg??


I would stick with the D300 over a D2hs. I'm sure it was a great camera at its time, and I still hear about people praising its ergonomics, but the D300 smokes it in every respect.

A lot of people will say that RAW is the only way to shoot, but then they turn around and praise Trenchmonkey's SOOC jpeg images, so take their advise with a grain of salt. If your Jpeg images are selling and none of your customers are complaining about your image quality, then why make the change to RAW format? It only adds to the amount of time it takes for you to get the image processed. If it will not increase the sales of your images, or the price of your images, then just stick with what works and keep on shooting.



Dec 12, 2011 at 12:39 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password