Camera settings for Canon6D

vlherring

I have just returned from a trip using my Canon6D which is a wonderful camera but the images are all huge = each one is 22-23mb in size [I'm shooting RAW] - I do like to shoot RAW and do the work in Aperture but would like to know from others as to whether I should instead shoot in something else [RAW+JPG or whatever] and then have a workflow that will save the best in RAW and offload the JPGs...tho again, I like RAW - and I'm using Aperture 3.5.1 and will probably continue to do so for some time, as I work thru my many libraries and delete or save images external to the libraries as needed.

pathfinder

Victoria, I am not sure I understand what your question is, exactly.

Many folks shoot RAW files, save them to an archive of some sort in Lightroom or Aperture, or iPhoto or other image editing software, and then edit them. This gives them more complete artistic control of their final image, with more precise control of color, noise, sharpness, and image tonalities.

Other shooters refer to shoot jpgs, and let the camera do the image processing, to quickly spit out very nicely rendered jpgs. They give up some control for the speed of finished product coming out of their camera. Some people, wrongly, think this is Straight Out of the Camera without any change from what the camera saw, but a RAW file looks horrid without rendering its tones, so the camera really does edit the RAW image internally to a jpg in the camera body itself.

One can shoot Raw +jpg too, since today memory cards are easily large enough to store thousands of both files for easy shoot. The upside of this is that you do have an immediate jpg, the downside is that you now have two sets of files to deal with, save, delete, edit or whatever.

Event shooters and people on a deadline, some photo-journalists, and others, just shoot jpgs only as they know their light sources and can remember to change the light temperature settings on their camera as they work. I tend to forget setting the color temps when I shoot jpgs, so I prefer the forgiveness of RAW.

Personally, I shoot RAW most of the time, because I prefer the ability to edit my files to my taste later at my computer, but I am not on a timetable and do not have paying customers waiting for me to produce a product. I readily understand why many event pros prefer to shoot and deliver jpgs. One advantage of RAW + jpg that I take advantage from occasionally is to shoot RAW + a monochromatic jpg so that I can see the effect or a Red or Orange filter for B&W images and then choose to image my RAW file as a color or B&W image later.

An incidental comment, it is my understanding that Aperture will no longer be supported and updated by Apple, so some Aperture users are looking for a new software platform looking forward. Your plan is to stay with Aperture if I understand you correctly. Is this plan viable long term?

vlherring

Thanks for the complete answer, and I should be clearer. #1 - I now use Aperture, know it's being phased out but it still works and probably will for a year or two at least and Photos might or might not be a good successor but that's in the future = #2 - Assuming I do want to save space or move to another program or whatever, the Q really is what export method is best == I shoot RAW and won't stop that, but each pic now is 22-24 mb and that's just too much 'stuff' - Not all my shots are so wonderful I will work with them, but I do want to archive for the future and get them off my main machine == so, assuming I continue to shoot RAW but need or want to export out of Aperture Library to something for archival purpose, and assuming I'd like to keep what info is in the image that I can, is it best to export to TIFF8 or 16 or keep in RAW [but then delete more images instead of archiving them]. I am actually going back several years and reviewing older Libraries and updating things but know I can't keep all the images ready at hand, but don't want to toss either = so export to what format? Just in case I or someone wants them some day. I hope that is clear.

pathfinder

I haven't used Aperture since version 1 something, so......

Assuming you can export either a Raw file, or and 8 or 16 bit tiff, I would export RAW files for images that you have not already edited in Aperture - that is you are exporting the RAW file your camera shot and has not been changed. But it will need editing in new software at some point. For the files that you have already edited in Aperture and are finished, I would export them as 16 bit tiffs if you are interested in being able to edit them further in the future with newer editing software. If you are convinced they will need no further editing at any time in the future, then 16 bit tiffs are best, but 8 bit tiffs or jpgs might suffice if storage size is an issue.

As for image storage these days, the ideal is to store them on at least two separate, external hard drives with ideally a third copy off site ( out of your home ) or online like with Crashplan or something. You can find 3 and 4 Tb external drives these days that are not too expensive, and keeping your data off you boot drive is always a good idea. My boot drive stores ONLY my operating system and my applications, no image files whatsoever. If you can afford an external RAID array for your primary external image storage that is even better.

As for software, I was an initial Aperture user, too, years ago, but finally left for Lightroom about version 3. The RAW engine now in LR 5 is quite effective and is my choice along with Photoshop CC. There are lots of other choices for RAW editors and image storage software choices, but those are mine. I am sure other folks will join us to suggest other choices away from Adobe's influence.

I would strongly suggest that you not delete your RAW files, as the capabilities of modern RAW engines are so much, much better than they were a decade ago. I enjoy going back to re-edit images I shot years ago with modern software to improve the images, some of them quite a bit.

Concerning external drives, beware of USB 2 external drives they will be just too slow in and out. Ideal is USB 3.0, or Thunderbolt or eSATA. Moving terabytes of data back and forth to external arrays needs more bandwidth than USB 2 can provide.

You are an Apple user I assume from your website which readers of this thread should wander through. You have some lovely images, and I enjoyed reading your blog, too.

If you have Thunderbolt in your Mac, use it for your external drives, it is quite fast.

vlherring

All good advice, if I live to be 120! It'll take that much time to go back and review and work on images! [joking] I am happy with Aperture and may or may not move to Lightroom = but I have gobs of harddrives already cluttering up the office [many bought in the day that 1-2 G was huge] - so my review of Libraries and pictures is to do some archiving for the future = I doubt my heirs will want to sort thru it all...The main need for semi pros such as I am [travel/architectural and only selected shots are used] is to save the best and put the rest either in trash or in format those who come after can work with = I barely have time to work with the images I shot this year much less years ago....so I'm trying to cut down/back on the plethora of images out there= I do have Crashplan = and I have plenty of dups of the best pics....but really, I do need to cut back/down and I guess the idea of at least saving best images in RAW and then offporting others will work = with the same Q being whether TIFF 8 or 16 is best....and easily accessible....then I can do my archiving and revamping of the Libraries.

photowest

There is some software, such as Photo Mechanic, that lets you extract the JPG from the RAW so you don't need to do RAW+JPG. It extracts a full sized JPG.

JBHotShots

I'm sure this is how it works on most Canon cameras, but you could opt to shoot in raw small instead of raw large. Here is the thinking. The difference is the overall size pixel wise of your file. The format and detail will still be there, but the physical dimension changes. My thought process is what do I shoot for the most? If you are shooting large billboards, then this isn't an option for you. But if you are shooting for smaller prints or just digital imagery, then raw small would suit you just fine.