What size for raw please?

Let's not forget in camera RAW processing, you can develop a raw image using the camera and apply all the filters etc.... No need for a PC or Lightroom, if you have a HDMI cable you can do this on the big screen.

You can do monochrome, Polaroid, poster, etc and also batch processes.

You can do this on the bus!

I'd caution on that approach - converting in camera results in an 8bit image only - both TIFF & JPEG, and there's nothing between them. You've lost all the 16bit advantage straight away. Sky textures are a bit rough and patchy even on TIFF (just like a JPEG with no NR) and you can't get it back. To be frank, you might as well have shot camera JPEGs in the first place.

If you want the absolute best quality the camera can deliver, and need a good amount of processing 'latitude' to achieve the result needed, then RAW and computer 'development' of RAW is the only way to go. If you don't have these needs as critical, and you're able to make good choices on the camera settings for your particular scenes and subjects, then stick to camera JPEGs.

OP, Aura, tell us a bit about the sort of image adjustments you have already been doing, and in what software.... for example, do you change brightness, contrast, white balance? And what other kinds of changes do you make to your shots? And I'm assuming up to now you've been using camera JPEG files straight from the camera?

If you have a prefered JPG look 'n feel setting (bright, B&W, etc), you can still set them even if shooting RAW. Then, if you use the software supplied with your camera, those settings will be applied to the RAW image so the end result should appear the same, but better.

Converting RAW to JPEG on a computer also gives an 8 bit image. JPEG is always 8 bit.

AuraTodd, use the format you're happy with. Life is to short to waste it on such trivial things.

If you enjoy sitting in front of a computer for hours transforming yur pictures fifty different ways, then go for RAW.

On the other hand, if JPEG gives you results you like and you're happy with, then use JPEG.

Interesting issues in this thread.

FWIW I shoot RAW + JPEG, using the RAW files as negatives and the JPEGs as prints.

If I don't like the 'prints' I can always go to the 'negatives' and reprocess them.

If I don't have the 'negatives' I can't.

Going back to the original question ...

You can use any card size I would suggest 4 or 8 GB. If you shoot RAW+JPG then the PEF files will be around 20MB each and full resolution, high quality, low compression JPGs around 10-12MB. So, allowing for 33MB per image pair you can store around 30 images in 1GB. A 4 GB card will take 120.

If you go for larger 16 and 32 GB cards you can get lazy and not download them as you know there is space. then you can misplace the card, it could get corrupted, or you suddenly find the card is full.

Shoot RAW plus with a 32GB card.
Just import Jpeg, Gartmore said so.
If you have an image not up to snuff., reprocess in camera.

No overheads, no software to learn.

Not been my experience. I use 16gB cards and always transfer the files to my computer after each shoot.

It's a habit easy enough to develop IMO


All that can happen with 4 or 8GB cards as well. There's certainly no difference in likely hood of a corrupted card depending on capacity

Jpeg from camera,
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/IM5G0822_zpsdb62c0ca.jpg~original[/IMG]

All in Camera post processed, Hipster processed from RAW with different exposure, shadow correction and other tweaks, then digital filter applied to make it look like I'm 25 years younger and I know WTF instagram is (needs a touch of vignette)
[IMG]http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx49/df8/IM5G0868_zpse0ba913c.jpg~original[/IMG]

I think I'll just use my phone from now on and flog the K-5 and lenses

You start off by being reasonable and showing an unbiased and sensible approach...


... but then totality contradict that by showing a complete irrational bias against RAW.

I've never heard so much nonsense. You clearly have never worked with RAWs. I've taken well over 150,000 RAW images over the years. 99% of them I've edited ONCE. The other 1% I might have changed my mind a couple of times.

It just makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that the file format determines how many times you edit something.

Indecision is a flaw of the human mind not a file format. If someone hasn't got a vision of what the image should look like it doesn't matter what file format it arrives in.

For those of use that do have a vision, RAW Enables us to get there quicker and more easily IMO, because the data is starts off as ahigehr quality and allows more leeway for editing

I don't understand the prejudice against post processing. Post processing is simply polishing what should be at foundation a good image. If you are spending more than a few minutes processing an image then frankly it wasn't much cop to start with and you're vainly trying to polish a turd.

So in order for AuraTodd to use the format she's happy with she should at least give all formats a fair crack of the whip so she can make her mind up.

I'm not sure on the point of that comparison Doug. Are you trying to say JPG from the Camera is better or Raw from the camera + post processing is better. Eiother way your comparison doesn't lean towards either being better

It's a nice image and nice composition, but both the JPG and RAW version you've posted need some work to bring them up to scratch in terms of a quality presentation that pops. They both look really flat and have no depth or character.

Proper editing could make both those images shine, but the point is that RAW gives the editor more to work with and ore latitude to get what the editor's vision wants.

In that respect RAW wins

The predjudice isn't against RAW shooting, it's against people being made to feel they have to because they're doing something inferior. The "serious photographers shoot RAW" is clearly not true, but more importantly leads some to areas that detract from their enjoyment. They don't need it, but are made to feel guilty that they aren't doing the right thing.

It's a trap of digital photography and it takes confidence to stand up and say "I shoot JPEG" or "I use Pentax" or "I enter competitions with images I like and if the judge agrees that's just a bonus". The rest of the world can do its own thing with pleasure, but let's understand why we do what we do.

As for Aura, she asks basic questions, but has come along leaps and bounds over the past months, producing far better images than when she started. Developing that skill might be more fun that becoming distracted by RAW processing.

I'll give you an example. Our friend was a beginner and she became a good photographer very quickly, as she has a good eye. Then she started trying to double guess what judges would like. She'd not take pictures she wanted because she thought the judge might not like them. All the fun and spontinaety went out of her photography. Until she realised what she was doing and stopped. Then it came back and she now has a CPAGB and AFIAP to her name. She eventually came out of that trap.

So let's not assume that Aura needs RAW capture, perhaps now she could tell us what she thinks, now that the opinions have been hammered into the thread?

True, but there will be less to lose.

Why is that? i thought they held more detail? :[/quote]Put simply, the number of pixels is the same so actual detail doesn't change but due to the limitations of jpegs, a 'raw pixel' can contain more information about colour and contrast. The camera amends the raw data to fit the jpeg format and can apply enhancements.