Shooting DNG + JPEG Simultaneously

[hdrmd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lars: I , too, am an old guy from the Tri-X days. You are wrong about jpegs being all we will ever need. It is hard to imagine anyone saying this seriously. Try shooting raw, and listen to Jaapv and others. Respectfully. DR

[ho_co]

Alwyn--

I understand your software discomfort, though that's of little benefit to you. I used to be someone the other folks turned to when they had troubles with Windows or Mac and was fairly comfortable with both.

 

Now in my sixties, I no longer look with glee on the prospect of learning a new software package. I've decided I need to learn Capture One because it does a better job; I'm beginning to work with Lightroom because of its database capabilities; and I use Photoshop as my standard, after having taken a couple Photoshop training courses.

 

I agree with those who say that DNG/RAW is the only way to go, but I also understand the difficulty the computer raises: I spend more time in front of the screen than I do behind the lens.

 

So although my mind says RAW is best, my compassion says if JPG does it for you, stay with JPG. RAW will be there when you decide to get into post-processing. But whenever you decide to move that way, RAW processing isn't something you'll get in a day or a week or a month. It's a very satisfying step, but a very big one as well.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gfspencer]

Alwyn--

I understand your software discomfort, though that's of little benefit to you. I used to be someone the other folks turned to when they had troubles with Windows or Mac and was fairly comfortable with both.

 

Now in my sixties, I no longer look with glee on the prospect of learning a new software package. I've decided I need to learn Capture One because it does a better job; I'm beginning to work with Lightroom because of its database capabilities; and I use Photoshop as my standard, after having taken a couple Photoshop training courses.

 

I agree with those who say that DNG/RAW is the only way to go, but I also understand the difficulty the computer raises: I spend more time in front of the screen than I do behind the lens.

 

So although my mind says RAW is best, my compassion says if JPG does it for you, stay with JPG. RAW will be there when you decide to get into post-processing. But whenever you decide to move that way, RAW processing isn't something you'll get in a day or a week or a month. It's a very satisfying step, but a very big one as well.

Howard, you are exactly where I am! For someone in their 60's I am pretty good with computers but I don't like to spend a lot of time working of RAW images. And I know that RAW images contain much, much more data. So I shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time. Most of my photos are JPEG quality anyway. They are pictures of family and friends of shots of the last trip that I took. Point and Shoot stuff. But if I do get that ONE great shot I can work it in RAW.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Howard, I am in agreement with many of your aches and pains.

 

Alwyn, you can always shoot both dng + hi-res jpg and have the best of both worlds. Even if you haven't gotten up to speed with raw, yet, you can save the files for a later examination.

 

I always rework a photo from scratch when I go back to it. As Howard says, so much *&^%$#@! computer stuff [that's my paraphrase, not Howard's words, of course] has gone on since I took the shot that I can always tweak the image in a better way.

 

As I said above, shooting both doesn't bother anything except storage and you can edit your images and delete the ones Ansel wouldn't approve of to solve that problem. You only need worry about the in-camera processing speed.

[Guest g12]

The IT side is a pain, but you need to think of it as the difference between being a photographer who prints from their own negatives and one who gets a set of prints from Quik-e-mart, keeps those, and throws the negatives in the trash.

[wparsonsgisnet]

My main complaint about the IT side is two-fold:

 

1. There's way too much of it. At least twice a year some software piece in the chain changes and must be updated or modified (sometimes with bad consequences until a bug gets fixed). Also, there are backups, additions to the disk farm, and the like.

 

2. The changes mean the workflow needs to be changed or tuned.

 

As Howard indicated, all this stuff gets in the way of "Taking Photographs." I've put it in quotes because the process may in fact merely be an artifact of our existence. In reality, we may be IT butterflies who dream that we take photos.

[Skippy Sanchez]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My main complaint about the IT side is two-fold:

 

1. There's way too much of it. At least twice a year some software piece in the chain changes and must be updated or modified (sometimes with bad consequences until a bug gets fixed). Also, there are backups, additions to the disk farm, and the like.

 

2. The changes mean the workflow needs to be changed or tuned.

 

As Howard indicated, all this stuff gets in the way of "Taking Photographs." I've put it in quotes because the process may in fact merely be an artifact of our existence. In reality, we may be IT butterflies who dream that we take photos.

 

Good and interesting points, Bill. Interesting, too, how this thread has evolved since it's genesis.

 

Allow me to counterpoint: As a technology and an art form, photography hasn't been around nearly as long as other art forms, and, like other art forms, the technology evolves. Painters, sculptors, writers, poets, thespians and dancers adapt to technologies, too.

 

I recall reading Edward Weston's "Daybooks" how he adapted, grudgingly, to be sure, to the Graflex, although he always preferred his 8x10.

 

The technology of darkroom materials, lenses, films, evolved at a rapid pace, especially relative to the lifespan of the medium.

 

I don't see IT as getting in the way of taking photographs, I see it as part of taking photographs. Yes, our workflow will have to adapt, but sometimes it's usually a matter of preffering old and familiar habits & ways of thinking rather than actually being unable to develop new skills, over and over.

 

Photo technology will continue to accelerate. Some great ideas -- carbon paper was a great technology at the time -- will be replaced with other technologies; and other ideas, like the layout of typewriter and piano keyboards, have been around for a long, long time.

 

Alvin Toffler wrote in "Future Shock", way back in the mid 1960s, that if the whole of human history were divided into an average lifespan of 62 years, there have been 800 such "lifetimes." Of these 800 lifetimes, 650 were spent in caves; only during the past 6 generations have the masses of men ever seen a printed word. Only in the last two has anyone, anywhere, used an electric motor.

 

My late grandmother remembered the first flight at Kitty Hawk and later watched astronauts play golf on the moon during the evening news.

 

Oops. I digress.

[jimmy@jimmybruno.com]

When shooting in jpeg and Dng with film style set to black and white. When importing to lr i get two images, however when shooting in Low 3200. i onlt get the BW.  Anyone know what is going on?

 

[farnz]

22 hours ago, jimmy@jimmybruno.com said:

When shooting in jpeg and Dng with film style set to black and white. When importing to lr i get two images, however when shooting in Low 3200. i onlt get the BW.  Anyone know what is going on?

 

I shoot IR in DNG and Fine jpeg, with saturation set to B&W and I always get a (magenta) DNG and a B&W jpeg if that helps.  I don't import using LR, I import directly onto my iMac's HDD and then view them in Adobe Bridge from where I make basic adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw and then into PSCS6 (I refuse to succumb to Adobe's PS subscription model) for finishing in LAB colour space.

If you're only shooting in Low 3200 jpg (ie not in DNG as well) then I would expect there to be only one B&W file but forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

Pete.