On 4/13/2018 10:59 AM, Jan Steinman via olympus wrote:
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
I was doing some non-critical stuff for web, and had the dimensions set to 1024
wide. Then I forgot, and shot an entire one-time concert that one of our
foreign homestay students was playing in.
This is pure foolishness. I ALWAYS shoot Raw. I may very occasionally shoot Raw
+ JPEG of one sort or another, but it
doesn't matter if I forget to turn the JPEGs off. You can even throw the Raws
away later, but you ensure always having
'em if needed.
Different strokes for different folks.
I prefer to spend as little time in post as possible.
I spend a lot of my life in post, but that's because I mostly like it. Sow's ear ==> Silk purse is rewarding. Likewise,
I imagine I wouldn't enjoy your farming work. But that's not the point. I wasn't suggesting that you spend time in post.
I was suggesting a work practice that doesn't require any more time in post than you spend now.
If I know something will never be used larger than 1024, then why should I
spend hours or even minutes capturing 20 million pixels, and then throwing 96%
of them away?
You already answered that question yourself - so you can't screw up the next
project/shots. ;-)
As to time, it takes no longer on your dual processor speed demon E-M1 II to shoot Raw+JPEG than JPEG. I use a download
app, PIE, that puts different file types in different (sub)directories (with all sorts of control of how, names, etc.).
If I shoot Raw+JPEG, perhaps plus the occasional video, I end up with three separate folders. If I don't want the Raws
or the JPEGS, I just delete a folder. (Well, I actually never delete all the Raws, but I could.)
Alternatively, if you've shot Raw only, and want JPEGs, Viewer 3 will give you exactly the same result as shooting JPEGs
in the first place. Will it do that as a batch? I don't know, 'cause I don't care. You can use LR, ACR/PS, FastStone and
without doubt others, to create the small JPEGs from Raws in a batch. Even if you have a LOT of files, it runs by
itself, while you do something else. All are equal for 'Bay, etc. use.
As to waste, as far as I know, dumped pixels cost nothing and have no negative
environmental effect. :-)
BTW, if you want to save time in "post", get a really fast UHS II SD card and USB 3 UHS II reader. You won't believe how
fast images fly from camera to computer! It's a whole new experience.
I know you have an elaborate backup system and that you save just about everything.
And I’m somewhat envious of your discipline!
Elaborate??? Your projects such as the FrankenBellows are elaborate! I have two large HDs and a "toaster" One drive in
the desktop, one kept at the other end of the house in a cheap little fire resistant safe - which isn't locked, just
closed for protection. Every couple of weeks, or after (a) big shoot(s), the external one goes in the toaster and get
the new back-up files. What, maybe 10-15 minutes a month?
I also don't erase/format cards until I need them again. That saved me once
long ago for a file or two.
But I have too many things going on in my life, and have become a ruthless
editor. And the fewer I have to throw away, the more time I have for other
pursuits.
Choosing what to delete, however ruthless, is time consuming. I resent that time (and am poor at ruthless), and would
prefer to "waste" storage space.
As a personal side note. When I browse through all those files, I more often than not find an image I did nothing with
back when, but now like a lot. The last two PESOs I posted came about that way. Yes, it means a lot of files to browse,
but LR, and geocoding for many years, make that not so bad. (When I get the unpaid intern I need for keywording, it will
get good.)
The only time I ever shoot RAW is if I know in advance that I want to make a
huge print of it.
I'm with Philippe here. It's not about size. It's about flexibility and the ability to enhance what the camera saw to
what I envisioned. Especially about things like NR and distortion correction. In camera just isn't as good as the
various options available in post, and completely inflexible, once the shot is taken.
This is, in a way, a different kind of discipline, and I find myself being fairly discerning with
the shutter button. Yea, I miss some stuff this way. But I’d miss the time it takes even more
to go through the 90% of “bad shots.”
As you say, "Different strokes". I would much rather toss files than miss the best shot. I freely take duplicates and
alternates. This was very much reinforced by our recent Bhutan trip. A fair amount of dross, and many great shots I
would have missed if being parsimonious in shooting.
I feel that both the overall quality of my photography AND my hit rate went up with digital - in large part because I
didn't feel constrained by the number of shots on a roll or the cost of film and processing. I was willing to try things
that I would have considered too high risk before. I still highly value that freedom.
And thanks for the tip about paying attention to the info in the viewfinder. I can’t very
well boast about having “viewfinder discipline” if I screw that up, can I? :-)
LOL! I am quite VF agnostic. When I compared the small, dark tunnel VF of my first DSLR to an OM-1, the difference was
huge. When I put the DSLR to my eye, I just saw through/past that, to the subject, and was content with it. The VF on
the ZS40 compact superzoom I had was "terrible", except that it was the only camera in that class with a VF, and worked
for me in practical use out in the bright sun of the tropics.
The flip side is that I easily ignore the indicators in VFs, and have to train
myself to pay attention to some.
Different Folk Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|