Tariq Gibran wrote: GMPhotography wrote: Tariq Gibran wrote: tsdevine wrote:
I am not a professional Guy, and while I don\'t have any problem with someone presenting a case as to why they think something is a bad idea, you just seemed to come on a little strong.
You know there are people out there that shoot JPEG only? And while space is somewhat cheap, I keep my RAWs on at least two devices on premises and also back them up off site. So there is some thought in balancing your purest view against some realities of other constraints.
For example, would you suggest I sacrifice off prem backup for uncompressed RAW? Or should I sacrifice uncompressed RAW for the existing lossy compressed RAW? Should I sell my camera? What price should I sell it for?
I just think there are nuances to this that really are an individuals choice.
Sorry, I have a pet peeve about people telling me what I should or shouldn\'t do. I have no problem with reasoning over it, but just outright demands sort of put me off.
-Tim
GMPhotography wrote:
Need another espresso but truth is I have hard fast rules and one is never ever screw with your raws. I have seen dozens of folks play this space savings game and get burned bad. I can\'t emphasize this enough. Personally I\'m out here risking my career and reputation and you don\'t take risks with that. Just passing on some hard rules to go by. Btw im as calm as a baby sleeping.
Now DNG many folks don\'t know when this format was introduced by Abobe the bloody wars broke out over it. I mean wars, it was not pretty as bottom line Adobe was trying to Take over. OEMS do NOT want to give up there special algorithms in there file format to anyone especially Adobe.
Guy\'s advice (and I completely understand where you are coming from otherwise) is completely as would be taught in any photo class. I do find it ironic that his #1 rule (never ever touch your raws) is the one that Sony broke in the first place and why we even have this thread, Sony basically gave us fancy jpegs to begin with instead of real raws. Now were are talking about dealing with huge, silly uncompressed raws vs lossless compressed raws.
I\'m ROTFLMAO. Too funny. If the files get bigger we need to figure out how to deal with them in a proper way. Trying to save hard drive space when hard drives are pretty cheap now is something we just need to be careful of. I read this thread and my gut reaction right away reading between the lines is I might want to think about even faster SD cards now. I know OT but the Lexar 2000 might be a great choice,
Anyway carry on with the math stuff guys you know I get off the bus on this stuff but love to hear the end results.
Just OT a bit but having recently started using compact flash cards again with another camera, I\'m amazed at the speed advantage the better ones hold over their counterpart SD siblings (compare Sandisk Extreme Pro for both formats). Not only that but at some point SD cards got really flimsy and cheap with regard to build quality. I have had Sandisk Extreme Pro SD cards just break at their thinnest point recently near the contacts. By contrast, the big compact flash cards are very robust and stiff. Maybe that Lexar 2000 SD card would be even faster but I know from recently buying a Lexar 1000x SD card they are unfortunately flimsy with regard to build quality as well. I think this must have to do with the extra contacts needed for these faster, higher capacity SD cards.
Yea agree they are starting to feel even thinner these days or Finley as you say and not making me happy either. I\'m using both Sandisk Extreme Pros and the Lexar 1000 as well. I do like CF cards better as they just feel robust. I wish there where more ruggedizied SD cards available or something that does not take your breath away when handling them.
Sep 17, 2015 at 08:27 AM
Previous versions of GMPhotography's message #13202828 « Uncompressed 14 bit for A7sii and A7rii »
Now were are talking about dealing with huge, silly uncompressed raws vs lossless compressed raws.