Herman Surkis wrote:
As a re-cap to a previous.
He also uses the second card slot as overflow and NOT as backup. He has not had a card fail and thus never will.

I had never had a problem with my memory cards, except for accidentally deleting images.

Was it last year in spring? Or the year before???

I've been shooting the Olive You! campaign for the Greek government, sponsored by the European Union.

One of the important events, a cooking demo at a cooking class with a famous chef, two events/classes one at 1pm and the other at 7pm.

For whatever reason, the 2nd one was completely erased... I mean... so erased that even Data Vision, weren't able to recover that second time slot... tried all kinds of software... it was gone and nobody could explain what happened.

But, hey, something of that severity has never happened to me in my career, including shooting runway...

... UNTIL IT HAPPENED.

This was such a big shocker and professional embarrassment, etc., that from that time on, I never, ever, ever shoot without a backup card.

Now, your JPG loving, Automatic settings enthusiast with his TiFF fromat lossless (after jpg) friend... I don't know if he has anything more at stake than some captured memories of his dog and pet turtle... might be fine... but if he does it for a living, he should just know that it never happens until it happens.

Oh... and how many photos is he shooting... I use a main 64GB main card and 128GB backup card, but I shoot 98% RAW.

I guess in his mind, his strategy is awesome...

I know a few people like that, but mostly in different fields than photography.

martin b wrote:
I enjoy the process of doing things the long way but most photographers I know (semi pro) shoot jpeg and use auto and even the camera filters and love it.  They same money time and education and mistakes.  Clients also don't know the difference so I'm sure it's ok them as well.

BTW . I shoot a lot on micro four thirds and I know it makes some photographers cringe.  To each his own,

The clients would not care and should not, if the end product is the same and suits their needs.

However in the past, clients were stupid in the other direction. Had a friend who would rent the latest and greatest Nikon camera available when going to talk to his clients. Then he would shoot the job with his Nikormats that had been around for years. Same film, same lenses, same talent. Clients were happy, and never noticed.

Lachance Photography wrote:
I shoot JPEG fine and I can see no difference in quality between that and raw files.  Also saves time when editing.  Also every commercial photo job I have ever done has shot jpegs whether it be at Sea World, or one of those photo companies like Lifetouch.  RAW is great if you have the time, patience and storage.  Most people I know that shoot raw are not shooting commercially and just for their own art.  Do what works for you and your client.

If you use Lightroom then shooting RAW is basically just as fast as jpeg but it gives you much more control over the final image. Sure, you have to export the file to jpeg but with presets that is two clicks. Storage is incredibly cheap these days and I can't imagine that being much of a factor when deciding which format to shoot.

When I go back and look at my images from pre-2005 I cringe when I see they're jpegs. Once you fully understand the power of shooting RAW it's impossible to settle for jpeg.

Voy wrote:
Sure you can get good photos in JPG. The problem is that you can't do much with them once they are taken.

In a surprisingly reverse sort of way, that's nor really true in the FUJI world.

I was forgetting that Fuji also has FREE Raw-conversion software available, FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO which permits you to work on (Fuji) RAW images –files that you've already downloaded to your computer– by reconnecting your camera  to the computer (no card needed), and then converting the RAWs to JPEGs with Fuji's own proprietary and excellent JPEG-engine.

This allows for even more control than you would have originally had in the camera because you can TRY OUT AND COMPARE each of the seven film-simulations they offer, AFTER shooting (in RAW), while also having access to all of the normal in-camera tweaks possible within their in-camera simulation software. Thus, you can create the outstanding JPEG version(s) of your choice, long after shooting!

If that's to be your final or intermediate output (and assuming proper exposure), then there's not much more needed than perhaps a little cropping. Elegant, simple, effective, free, and easy!

Modelphilia wrote:

In a surprisingly reverse sort of way, that's nor really true in the FUJI world.

I was forgetting that Fuji also has FREE Raw-conversion software available, FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO which permits you to work on (Fuji) RAW images –files that you've already downloaded to your computer– by reconnecting your camera  to the computer (no card needed), and then converting the RAWs to JPEGs with Fuji's own proprietary and excellent JPEG-engine.

This allows for even more control than you would have originally had in the camera because you can TRY OUT AND COMPARE each of the seven film-simulations they offer, AFTER shooting (in RAW), while also having access to all of the normal in-camera tweaks possible within their in-camera simulation software. Thus, you can create the outstanding JPEG version(s) of your choice, long after shooting!

If that's to be your final or intermediate output (and assuming proper exposure), then there's not much more needed than perhaps a little cropping. Elegant, simple, effective, free, and easy!

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Modelphilia wrote:

In a surprisingly reverse sort of way, that's nor really true in the FUJI world.

I was forgetting that Fuji also has FREE Raw-conversion software available, FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO which permits you to work on (Fuji) RAW images –files that you've already downloaded to your computer– by reconnecting your camera  to the computer (no card needed), and then converting the RAWs to JPEGs with Fuji's own proprietary and excellent JPEG-engine.

This allows for even more control than you would have originally had in the camera because you can TRY OUT AND COMPARE each of the seven film-simulations they offer, AFTER shooting (in RAW), while also having access to all of the normal in-camera tweaks possible within their in-camera simulation software. Thus, you can create the outstanding JPEG version(s) of your choice, long after shooting!

If that's to be your final or intermediate output (and assuming proper exposure), then there's not much more needed than perhaps a little cropping. Elegant, simple, effective, free, and easy!

Well, you are still shooting RAW. BTW, you can do the same in Lightroom and PhotoShop. The problem is when you only shoot JPG and don't have a RAW file. You can't convert a JPG to RAW.

Mike Collins wrote:
Our studio only shoots jpeg not because of the auto settings but because of the convenience and speed in which we need to work.  Shooting event work, especially when you may have 10 of us shooting 10 events and shooting around 300-500 or more shots at each one makes it very time consuming to shoot raw and convert.  We sometimes even need to give our clients the images right after the event ends.  And sometimes several days in a row.

I do rely on TTL if I use flash.  Again, it's just a speed thing.  Light and distance is always changing so TTL works very well. 

We do tweak our jpegs before we deliver to client if we are delivering in 3-5 days.  But our tech guys can fly through smaller jpegs and correct if needed with no noticeable loss in quality for the client.  Who, at most, will use them as small images on a website, Instagram, FB, whatever. 

Now if we shoot a trade show booth or large group, yes, we have the time so we will shoot raw + large jpeg and go from there.  And a lot of times, the large jpeg is fine. 

If it works for YOUR workflow and YOUR clients are happy, jpeg is perfectly fine.  And for years, it has been for me and our clients.   The only people it EVER upsets are photographers on forums.  Why?  I have no idea.  Not their clients.  Not their business.

If your client is happy with a McDonalds then yes, shooting JPG is good enough.

PHP-Photography wrote:
Sorry, I don't get your point.

Voy wrote:
Well, you are still shooting RAW. BTW, you can do the same in Lightroom and PhotoShop. The problem is when you only shoot JPG and don't have a RAW file. You can't convert a JPG to RAW.

The point is that by shooting RAW, then following the method of the free FUJI software, you can both have the RAW files on-hand if later needed and, AFTER the shoot, can still ALSO create the best possible JPG, with the choice of any of the film simulations, and many possible choices of effect and parameters.

Thus, you can have the safety and future flexibility of the RAWs, while also being afforded the opportunity for creating excellent after-the-fact JPGs, in a wide choice of flavors, all without having to rely on a less-malleable JPG original. It's a reversal of the usual process of shooting either solely JPGs, or having to shoot and download both formats. AND it gives you much more flexibility with regard to the JPGs, with no degradation of the output, as would otherwise result from trying to modify a JPG original.

From what I've read, you CANNOT do the same thing in PS or LR because their implementation of the conversion process AVERAGES the effects of ALL of the Fuji JPG-engines in the many Fuji cameras. Thus, all the advantages of having the X-T3's superb JPG processing and sensor advances are weakened or lost via those programs. They can do a credible job, but it ain't the real thing. That said, it may be "good enough" for many.

In addition to the free Fuji software, Capture One has partnered directly with Fuji for a superb rendering, and also has a limited free version available, while Alienskin Exposure 3 is also excellent and widely used. Adobe simply climbed on late, and then tried to satisfy everyone's complaints with their in-house solution, but without the best results.

Voy wrote:

If your client is happy with a McDonalds then yes, shooting JPG is good enough.

Pretty ignorant response.  And like I said, typical of forum photographers.

Our studio covers the corporate events of some of largest and most well known companies and corporations in the world.  Have been for over 30 years.  But because we choose to shoot jpeg (for the reasons stated), you feel we deliver sub par images.  Yet, we have over a 90% client retention rate year after year.

A partial list of our clients are, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Papa Johns, Marcos Pizza, Publix, Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Longhorn, etc), Vitamin Shoppe, Pepsi, Visa, Enterprise.  I could go on and on.

How's your business doing?  Who are YOUR clients?

Mike Collins wrote:

Pretty ignorant response.  And like I said, typical of forum photographers.

Our studio covers the corporate events of some of largest and most well known companies and corporations in the world.  Have been for over 30 years.  But because we choose to shoot jpeg (for the reasons stated), you feel we deliver sub par images.  Yet, we have over a 90% client retention rate year after year.

A partial list of our clients are, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Papa Johns, Marcos Pizza, Publix, Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Longhorn, etc), Vitamin Shoppe, Pepsi, Visa, Enterprise.  I could go on and on.

How's your business doing?  Who are YOUR clients?

Wow. No need to get offended. Even CEO’s like to eat at McDonalds. My point is that if your client is fine with photos coming straight out of the camera then JPGs are good enough. However, there are other situations where shooting only JPGs is not a good idea. Such as Weddings, professional headshots, advertising, products and others.

Phil_I wrote:
+1 Mike Collins and Shadow Dancer

Courses for horses, or is it horses for courses (I could never figure out which) - I think too much is made of shooting in raw by forum photographers, and I don't see the connection between photography and eating at Macdonalds.  Most of the sports photographers I know shoot jpeg, most of the news photographers I know shoot jpeg, and I assume (though I don't know any) war correspondent photographers shoot jpeg.  The news cycle is no longer 24 hours, not even 24 minutes but more like 24 seconds and uploading the photos as soon as they are taken is of the essence nowadays, so jpegs are preferred by sports, news and war photographers. Even the photographer for my local rugby team shoots jpeg and uploads images to it's facebook page during the game.

Most of the wedding photographers I know shoot jpeg. When I was in Vietnam last year I ran into a National Geographic photographer who shoots in jpeg.

I usually shoot both raw and jpeg with about 90% of my edits being done in jpeg, only resorting to the raw file when there are tricky lighting situations or I stuffed up on the white balance. I also do most of my portrait work with my D800 and not the D850, the sole reason being file size with jpegs of the D850 of the order of 20Mb or more, raw files 70Mb and greater, far exceeding those of the D800 (and yes, I do know file size can be reduced in the D850). Lastly, you can still use ACR on jpegs, but maybe not to the full extent one can with raw files.

Not everyone knows that you can use ACR on jpegs!   

Voy wrote:

Wow. No need to get offended. Even CEO’s like to eat at McDonalds. My point is that if your client is fine with photos coming straight out of the camera then JPGs are good enough. However, there are other situations where shooting only JPGs is not a good idea. Such as Weddings, professional headshots, advertising, products and others.

Didn't offend me at all.  Did you actually READ my post?  I didn't say we always gave client jpegs right out of camera but only when needed.  If you were aware of what event photographers need to do sometimes you would know that sometimes right after the key note, or anytime really, the client needs those image immediately.  There is NO time to even convert if we shot raw.  It's shoot.  Take out card.  Up load to clients computer.  In todays atmosphere of Twitter, FB and Instagram, you better be prepared to deal with requests like this.  A raw file is of no use to the client in that situation. 

I NEVER said this is how ALL photographers should shoot.  I ONLY mentioned this is how we HAVE TO shoot at events due to the volume of work and the SPEED needed sometimes. 

And again, shooting it raw doesn't make it "better" than McDonalds.  If you captured the moment, THAT'S what is more important.  And for HOW a lot of images are used today, jpeg can be used for a lot of situations.  No, no ALL, but a lot. I've built a career shooting mostly jpeg.  And that INCLUDES wedding and portraits. 

Yes, raw WILL give you a lot more to work with.  IF you need it.  Most of the time, with MY type of work.  I don't need it.  Heck, even Ken Marcus who posts on here talked about this same thing.  I wouldn't call his work "McDonalds" quality. 

What the point actually is, "give the client what they need and can use".

Warren Leimbach wrote:
A little knowledge is a dangerous (and expensive) thing.  Salesmen love it when you keep coming back for another incremental improvement.   Remember kids: always measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.





Re: storing on the SD card.

I had a chat recently with a computer guru who said that archiving images on hard drives sitting in a closet is a bad idea.  Apparently the hard drives will go bad just sitting there!  He said writing onto a fresh CF card would be the best way to archive work.  I don't know how long SD cards last, but maybe they could be good long term storage?  Obviously he needs to start archiving somewhere, maybe he would relent to backing up onto SD cards?

I photographer here on MM advised that I shoot on a new SD card every time and save the SD card as my back up.

veypurr wrote:
A photographer here on MM advised that I shoot on a new SD card every time and save the SD card as my back up.

This photographer has shares in SanDisc, right? 

The internet never ceases to surprise me!

I have gotten some really sage advice from MM photographers, but the universe just has to stay in balance and allow the weirdest advice too.   

udor wrote:
The internet never ceases to surprise me!

I have gotten some really sage advice from MM photographers, but the universe just has to stay in balance and allow the weirdest advice too.   

Advice like "keeping the RAW file in edited condition" ?

PHP-Photography wrote:
Advice like "keeping the RAW file in edited condition" ?

Yes, what's wrong with that?

You can edit RAW files and save them like that... a small file is created and attached to the photo with the changes made and it stays like that when you use the same software! I am using ACDSee as my photo editor for that long and it works just like that.

I have RAW photos like that, from over 15 years ago and there is no need to convert them into TiFF's.

If you don't know what that means, it's not my fault!

udor wrote:

Yes, what's wrong with that?

You can edit RAW files and save them like that...

You don't save the RAW file, you create an sidecar file. To keep the edits you need to have the sidecar file and use the same editing software.

PHP-Photography wrote:
You don't save the RAW file, you create an sidecar file. To keep the edits you need to have the sidecar file and use the same editing software.

I didn't call it a "sidecar file", but I've said the same thing, you just didn't quote my entire post, so that you are able to nitpick.

Now, go and play in traffic!

PHP-Photography wrote:
You don't save the RAW file, you create an sidecar file. To keep the edits you need to have the sidecar file and use the same editing software.

Errr, not ezackily . . .

That's one (cumbersome) way of doing it. but not the only way.

In LR5 at least, you can go to "Catalog Settings" and turn on  "Automatically write changes into XMP", e voila! No more sidecar files, but everything is up to date.

Thus, there's no longer any need for the sidecar file to be maintained and kept track of across the years (provided that you are working with DNGs and are willing to trust that degree of non-RAWness). I've had it switched on for many years, as perhaps has Udor, judging from what he's described.

Modelphilia wrote:

Errr, not ezackily . . .

In LR5 at least, you can go to "Catalog Settings" and turn on  "Automatically write changes into XMP", e voila! No more sidecar files, but everything is up to date.

What you think the xmp is ?

PHP-Photography wrote:
What you think the xmp is ?

Your point, I suppose, is that the information within the sidecar file is contained in the XMP file, with which I would agree. My point though, is that by writing it to the XMP, we are spared the necessity for maintaining a a separate base of sidecar files. If you prefer to instead keep those around, go for it!

I just find it easier and more convenient not to have to worry about that at all. There is an argument made that this process slows down LR, but that's likely nothing that can't be fixed with more RAM. It seems a small cost to pay for the great convenience of never having to worry about where the sidecar files might be, or whether they might get lost or corrupted.

However, this all seems very far from the OP's original discussion, an excursion you've made deep into the weeds of personal preferences, seemingly only for the sake of demeaning others and having a nit to pick.

Modelphilia wrote:

Your point, I suppose, is that the information within the sidecar file is contained in the XMP file, with which I would agree. My point though, is that by writing it to the XMP, we are spared the necessity for maintaining a a separate base of sidecar files. If you prefer to instead keep those around, go for it!

I just find it easier and more convenient not to have to worry about that at all. There is an argument made that this process slows down LR, but that's likely nothing that can't be fixed with more RAM. It seems a small cost to pay for the great convenience of never having to worry about where the sidecar files might be, or whether they might get lost or corrupted.

However, this all seems very far from the OP's original discussion, an excursion you've made deep into the weeds of personal preferences, seemingly only for the sake of demeaning others and having a nit to pick.

It sounds like you might be confused about XMP files vs sidecar files - they're the same thing! Lightroom stores adjustments to images in the catalog but you can opt to write the changes to a file also. For Lightroom, that external file has an .xmp extension. Commonly called a sidecar file, this file contains XML of adjustments to the file. You can have Lightroom always write adjustments to external files using the ‘Automatically Write Changes to XMP' option in Catalog Settings. That's only necessary if you plan to use other editing software to edit the files or if you need to send someone the RAW files with your edits. You can export the LR adjustments and Metadata changes to a XMP file for an individual image using the option 'Save Metadata to File' (or Ctrl/Cmd - S) under the Photo menu.

From what I understand, LR always saves adjustments to the catalog even if you choose to enable the option to save external XMP sidecar files.

veypurr wrote:
I photographer here on MM advised that I shoot on a new SD card every time and save the SD card as my back up.

That is what my friend does. But he shoots so little that it actually works for him, especially since all he saves are the TIFF's of the JPG's. Which is ironic since in many cases the TIFF's will be larger than the original RAW.

And somewhere somebody linked to an article that said SD cards also deteriorate just sitting there.
Now at my age I figure if they last 5yrs that is good enough.