What file format do u use?

[Jayst84]

Consistency is a sign that you know what you're doing.

Well, at times it may be. At other times it may be a sign that you don't know what you're doing, or at least, that you're a pretty boring photographer.

That's a whole other discussion though.

 

[Phil V]

Well, at times it may be. At other times it may be a sign that you don't know what you're doing, or at least, that you're a pretty boring photographer.

That's a whole other discussion though.

None taken!:shrug:

 

[Nod]

The flipside of course is it takes me 2 days to process an afternoon's worth of images!

So,basically 4 times as much time spent faffing than taking pictures? Not to say that the results aren't impressive, they are but how long did that single image take you to rescue? Was it taken with rescue in mind or rescued as an exercise in what can be done?

The original post asked what file format we used and why - each to his own. I personally prefer to shoot the largest possible JPEGs with the smallest possible compression to give me the best and quickest results that suit my purposes. I'm not a pro and have no aspirations to be one so feel no need to use raw. I have dabbled gently and with a well exposed and balanced exposure, faffing around in whatever Nikon's own converter's called (? NX Pro ?) for a while ended up producing an A3+ print no better than just hitting the print button on the unprocessed image.

I fully accept that I'm letting the camera make a lot of decisions but I have my D700 set up to give me results that please me (saturation, sharpness etc.) SOOC.

 

[Jayst84]

None taken!:shrug:

Wasn't having a go at you.

But you can't say that consistency (in exposure, etc) means you know what you're doing, as a blanket statement.

If I'm shooting an event I want to get as many different things out of it as I can. Not shoot it all looking the same so I can batch process a job lot.

 

[Phil V]

Wasn't having a go at you.

But you can't say that consistency (in exposure, etc) means you know what you're doing, as a blanket statement.

If I'm shooting an event I want to get as many different things out of it as I can. Not shoot it all looking the same so I can batch process a job lot.

Maybe I was too brief.

But I have always believed that consistency is a sign of professionalism.

If I'm at a restaurant and me and a mate order the same dish I expect them to be close to identical. Whether its a pub meal or a Michelin starred restaurant. If I buy a ford fiesta Zetec the same as the bloke down the road, I would expect the quality and feel to be the same.

In my day job my boss expects all our customers to get the same quality and standard of service, he refers to it as professionalism

If I photograph a portrait session or a wedding, the finished photos might become an album, a triptych or some other montage, that'll never look good if the work isn't consistent.

I really can't see at what point a lack of consistency can be seen as a positive thing

It doesn't mean that the work will always be lit the same or that there'll be no creativity, it just means that my workflow is consistent. And by workflow I don't just mean processing, it's having a standard method of metering and focussing that'll give me predictable results. And it means that my framing and composition are within parameters that give my customers a product which matches my portfolio.

 

[arclight]

I don't see the logic in this - RAW needs to be processed (and then saved into, usually jpeg); jpeg out-of-the -camera is raw data processed by the camera. You can't compare raw side by side with jpeg. You must process raw before you can compare it with jpeg - which is a processed raw!

If you compare your processed raw with the camera's processed raw (jpeg) then you are not comparing formats but you are comparing your PP with the camera's PP. Sometimes the camera will do a PP that you can live with - sometimes not. With camera jpeg, you can tweak the PP that the camera does before the shot is taken only, but with a raw file you can tweak the PP on the big screen of the computer after the shot is taken.

The decision isn't whether you prefer the 'raw image' to the 'jpeg', but whether your camera is producing jpegs that you are happy with - to the extent that you can forego the opportunity to re-work the PP. That desicion might not be one of PP quality only - for example, if you have a deadline to hit, then time taken to PP might determine that you must forego the opportunity to re-work the PP.

Edit: I use RAW + Large JPEG 'fine'.

I have to agree with the logic of that.
Don't think I will stop using RAW, but "Large JPEG Fine" seems to be consistently perfectly good.

One aspect that intrigues me is the comparison between Compressed and Uncompressed (i.e. not lossless uncompressed) RAW files. I have only seen the Nikon variety of those and I am far from sure that I can tell the difference in the processed results.

 

[antihero]

DNG