Wouldn't I have to downsize RAW photos to get them under the 8MB limit?
Two things - you've already said you occasionally have to downsize to get within an 8mb limit - so that's nothing new
+
You'd not be posting /. using RAW 'photos (of any size)' - only the jpgs derived from the original RAW files. Yes, the RAW files themselves (cf a digital negative) will be bigger than 8mb, but, in DPP you can downsize them to whatever size you want - either individually - or in batches - probably even all 500+ in one go...
Incidentally, if you have to already 'downsize' some of the pics already being taken, to get them under 8mb, this can only be done in 2 ways, reducing quality by altering the jpg settings and / or resizing the pixel dimensions of the image.
If you do it the second way, it implies that the destination for these images isn't pixel dimension specific ... in which case, it might be an idea to downsize all output to a fixed set of pixel dimensions?
This is easily done in DPP - and might have additional benefits (upload speed / storage requirements etc) for wherever these pics are being stored / used?
As I've already stated, you can also do this - downsize to a specific set of pixel dimensions - with your existing jpgs, using DPP - you don't have to switch to shooting RAW.
@TonyCooper said:
I shot a Nikon D300, and my comments about speed were based on that. I see no difference when shooting RAW or .jpg using the continuous burst mode. The camera's buffer capacity and the card's speed do make a difference, but
only when shooting multiple groups of bursts in one go. I don't think the RAW or .jpg factor affects anything, though.
Just to leave the details covered, I looked this up:
D300 manual, page 77:
14 bit raw maximum frame advance rate is 2.5fps
12 bit raw maximum frame rate is 6fps (with standard battery)
JPG vs Raw doesn't seem to matter. Interestingly on the D800 (page 426) , the frame rate goes from 4 to 5 fps (with standard battery) as you go from FX to DX, but it doesn't seem to matter if JPG or RAW.
A brief look did not find any where the camera shoots faster (as opposed to longer) in JPG. I'm surprised, especially with DX being faster than FX on the D800.
Sorry for the confusion, I think I was stuck on the D300's 14 bit rate.
Regarding the D300 comments by Ferguson: When I shoot a baseball game, I set the D300 to Ch,
the fastest burst setting. When a close play is expected at home plate, I'll trip the shutter to catch
a burst and then - sometimes - trip the shutter again for more frames. That's usuially going to
get one good frame of the catcher (my grandson) making the play on the runner.
The trick, of course, is to anticipate the play at home and have the lens pre focussed on the catcher and
to use a wide enough shot so it can be cropped to the action. Dunno how many fps I'm getting, but
it works for me and has resulted in some good shots.
I' don't see any lag using RAW, and I have shot .jpg in the past.
I'm using a D300, not even a D300S, and don't have the external battery pack. All post in LR, but
i may open and edit in PS when I've got some bright color on a fan in the stands I want to tone down.
I totally get the business about anticipating the action. That's absolutely what I do, especially when driving, but I've also done it in the past with various sports - Back in the film days I would go out to the horse jumping cross country courses and walk the course backward so that the horses were coming toward me over the jumps (someone commented to me that a photo of the horse's butt wasn't that interesting). I got some really interesting photos of falls that way. I can't find the original of this one, but the girls mother convinced the Technical Delegate that the horse you can see the feet of was blocking the jump and therefore that the fall shouldn't count. If I had been digital at the time (this was c 1982) I could have proved that the fall should have counted and she shouldn't have been first or second.
I don't want to change the settings on Bob's camera because I may need the additional detail. I frequently shoot a group of grave markers that are close together and then cut them apart to post them to individual memorials. I want the greatest detail possible. Most of the time I can downsize his photos just by cropping some, and usually cropping is a good idea anyway.
As I was thinking about this - I thought of another problem which perhaps you guys haven't considered. Most of the time I am operating the camera with only one hand. There's no possibility of doing anything with the settings - I more or less have to use automatic focus. I use my left hand to run the scooter. So I have to do all the camera work with my right hand. I remove the lens cap (or leave it off for the duration), flip the on switch, look through the view finder and (after I check the focus), I take the photo (s), and turn the camera off and go to the next place to take a photo. If I am inside a museum, I will also sometimes have to turn the flash off before I take the photo in order to keep from having reflections off the glass.
All while concentrating on not running over people or crashing into stuff. I am NOT a particularly coordinated person. When I was walking cross country with my children, I almost always fell into some kind of stream or mud along the way.
Even in the car, I am often holding my cell phone in my left hand (to give Bob directions).
I suppose that shooting RAW wouldn't necessarily mean that I couldn't use auto-focus (?) and auto-exposure (?)
We took 483 photos today - 2 cemeteries, a museum, lunch and a historic downtown tour.and a ferry ride.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
Why do you turn the camera off between shots? There's very little drain on the
battery by just leaving the camera turned on.
Not knowing your camera, but making suggestions anyway, I'd set it on shutter priority
at 1/125. That's a setting that will capture more scenes without blur from a scooter.
If it's a bright day, I'd set it at 1/250th just to make sure.
I wouldn't use Auto, because the camera sets the shutter speed in Auto.
Also, shooting from a moving scooter, (or car) I'd use the widest lens available. A 35mm or
55mm lens. If you can't properly frame the photo on the go, shoot wide and crop in post.
Using RAW or .jpg doesn't affect auto focus or auto exposure in any way. Zero affect.
I don't quite understand turning the flash off. I have to turn the flash on, and the default
is no flash. But, your camera may be different.
With another day at 400-plus shots, you really should consider Lightroom at the $9.99 monthly
cost. That gives you Photoshop and the ability to process RAW images at the same time
With Lightroom, you can use presets to synchronize processing of multiple shots and a
image managment system that allows you to use keywords to identify shots. Plenty of free
tutorials on the web, and a free 30 day trial. This thread isn't about Lightroom, so I'll drop it, though.
I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3, and I'm using the lens that came with (18-55 mm) except when I'm on a boat or in a cemetery and want to zoom closer then that lens can manage
In a museum or aquarium where there is glass between me and the thing I'm taking a photo of (or a mirror), I change from full auto to flash off
I've had a total of four digital cameras (from 2000 when I got my first one), and this one (which I got in 2012) is the only one that didn't run the batteries down PDQ if I left the camera on between shots. In those 12 years I've just gotten in the habit of turning the camera off between shots. ** Thank you** for pointing out that I can stop doing that.
When I was using film, my dad told me that 1/25th of a sec was about as slow as I could go when the camera was hand held.(this was back in 1959 and I was shooting Kodachrome slide film). If I needed a slower speed, I should press the camera against my face and hold my breath. Or else rest the camera against some solid object like a fence or doorway. (This does not work when the solid object is the railing of a boat where the whole boat is vibrating). But when I look at the settings that full auto give me, the speed of the shutter changes depending on the lighting and it isn't all that consistent that I am confident that I could set one exposure and have it be OK. Or that I could manage to change it by recognizing the change in lighting.
I will consider Lightroom although normally I'm too cheap to sign up for a monthly fee of something. The 483 photos yesterday - mostly Bob's (358) which I can process at my leisure (and he wouldn't shoot RAW anyway) and which I don't keep after they are posted. I've deleted quite a few of mine because I was taking photos of a very reflective surface with writing on it. The camera focused on the reflected scene and I switched to manual to try to get the writing clearer, and then FORGOT to switch back so most of the next 30 photos are out of focus. I am much more forgetful now than I was. That's why I shoot Auto most of the time. I think I will remember to go back to auto focus and then I don't and it takes me longer than it should to remember why the camera isn't focusing.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
As I was thinking about this - I thought of another problem which perhaps you guys haven't considered. Most of the time I am operating the camera with only one hand. There's no possibility of doing anything with the settings - I more or less have to use automatic focus. I use my left hand to run the scooter. So I have to do all the camera work with my right hand. I remove the lens cap (or leave it off for the duration), flip the on switch, look through the view finder and (after I check the focus), I take the photo (s), and turn the camera off and go to the next place to take a photo. If I am inside a museum,
All while concentrating on not running over people or crashing into stuff. I am NOT a particularly coordinated person. When I was walking cross country with my children, I almost always fell into some kind of stream or mud along the way.
A T3 + 18/55 isn't a particularly heavy rig - so, have you considered attaching it to your scooter via an articulated / bendy arm or similar?
Such a device needn't be anything fancy - and I'd probably look in charity / thrift shops for something suitable first, before considering making something.
A quick release at both ends of the 'arm' would let you quickly remove both cam and 'arm when necessary.
This would not only remove the weight (of holding) aspect, but it would allow you to concentrate on not hitting someone in an emergency situation?
@grandmaR said:
I will consider Lightroom although normally I'm too cheap to sign up for a monthly fee of something.
You can still buy a perpetual license version of Lightroom 6 for both PC and Mac for around $140. I suspect that would be a better deal for you than the subscription, as you probably wouldn't need every brand new feature. It doesn't force you to use raw if you'd rather not. You have the same tools for both raw and jpg. Once you get used to them, you'll probably find that you have greater control with raw. It makes it very easy to improve your editing skills little by little. The catalog maintenance functions are excellent--finding old pics by date, location, keyword etc. is really easy as long as you take the trouble to add some stuff to your files. Some of the metadata comes from your camera automatically, and the rest can be added in batch as you go. And unlike the subscription model, the perpetual license means that you can keep using the catalog even if you stop using LR for processing.
My comment about pre-setting your camera to shutter priority and 1/125th or 1/250th was a suggestion of a setting
to be used when you are on your scooter or in your car as a default to prepare for the unexpected shot. I would also
set my camera to spot metering instead of matrix because the target may be in shade in an overall brightly-lit area.
Naturally, when on foot, the camera can be re-set to a different setting to accomodate the conditions.
I'm a test-shot-shooter. When in new conditions, I'll take a photo and look at the histogram. That tells me that
I'm over- or under-exposed. I delete that shot immediately after checking the histogram and re-set my settings if
necessary. There are myriad advantages in using modern digital cameras, and the visible histogram available
after a shot is one of the major ones.
You may not think of my camera as particularly heavy, but I have arthritis in my neck (and just about all my joints) and I can't wear the camera without eventual pain. But I already have a solution for that - I have a vest (called a Cotton Carrier for some reason) that holds the camera and keeps the weight off my neck (transfers it to my shoulders). And that works even when I'm not on the scooter and also helps A LOT when I'm using the big lens. Also my particular brand of scooter has a collectable steering column which cannot support any weight or it collapses. No basket.
Yes I'd rather buy something outright rather than by the month.
If I am in the car, I do not have time to take a shot twice. Once has to do. Bob is driving the speed limit, whatever that is. But I will set the camera so that there is one little flashing red spot and put that spot on what I'm going to want exposed correctly. (not a technical explanation I know but I hope you know what I mean - I think that is spot metering?).
I really can't tell if a shot is under or over exposed from a histogram - I've never paid much attention to those things. But I will look at the shot (provided we aren't bucketing down the highway) and retake if it isn't good.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
@grandmaR said:
You may not think of my camera as particularly heavy, but I have arthritis in my neck (and just about all my joints) and I can't wear the camera without eventual pain. But I already have a solution for that - I have a vest (called a Cotton Carrier for some reason) that holds the camera and keeps the weight off my neck (transfers it to my shoulders). And that works even when I'm not on the scooter and also helps A LOT when I'm using the big lens. Also my particular brand of scooter has a collectable steering column which cannot support any weight or it collapses. No basket.
I was aware that (holding / using) your cam gear was likely to create problems - even though it's a relatively lightweight rig - which is exactly why I suggested something that would take all of the weight off you and transfer it to the scooter.
I was unfamiliar with the harness you use - so I googled it.
Yes, your scooter may well have a collapsible steering column - but I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't some way of adding some sort of support system - if one wanted to.
Depending on the type / nature of such a rig, it could also offer help in keeping the cam more level - together with taking all of the weight off you - and for the type of pics you're taking, might only need small (if any?) compositional adjustment between frames - since the average headstone is just sticking up out of the ground (a datum / reference level for all) ... Yes, I'm aware that other fancier stuff exists.
There could also - conceivably be another trade off in certain circumstances - frame wider (knowing that you're more likely going to have to crop afterwards) ... but once the cam is set up, use a remote release?
The reason that my scooter has no real attachment points is that it is folded up to about carry-on suitcase size and to put in the trunk. It isn't the scooter I'm on in my avatar. It is a Luggie
and the steering column collapses down and the thing folds in the middle. This is it (the blue thing) folded up by my red suitcase.
If I attach something to it, it would have to be removed every time I folded the scooter up and reattached when we got it out again.
It is very narrow wheelbase and has almost no suspension. I have tipped over on it on a steep slope. When the ground is uneven the steering handle can twist out of my hand
I can hang stuff on the back of the seat, or put a bag under the seat, but I can't put anything on the front.
i don't have that much problem with vertical headstones. My position on the scooter is the best angle because I am pretty much even with the stone and I don't have to bend or squat to get a photo where I don't have a downward angle on the stone. It is the stones that are flat that I have a big problem with. Bob can do them by shooting straight down, but when I take them they always look wonky because of the angle.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
OK - just fyi - I let the airline gate check the scooter once, and the control head was broken off when I got it back. I have to be really careful not to lean or push on the control lever section or it collapses down. It is good for what it is, but not so good for anything other than giving me a semi comfortable place to sit.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
> Keep in mind that I am almost 80 years old and I'm pretty happy with what I have been doing. I know I'm not professional grade, and have no desire to become a professional (although I have actually sold some of my pictures). How much time would it take me to learn a new technique? Would it really be worth it? Or should I just say - I come from the film era and I have enough to do with figuring out digital jpeg so respect your elders and lay off the 'people should shoot raw' stuff. :smiley:
I'm 60. I don't think your age is or should be a factor.
I highly recommend that you use raw precisely because you're NOT a professional.
Shooting in raw allows you to recover from errors or misjudgments that either COULDN'T be fixed or which would be agonizing to fix.
80% of what I do is studio macro. Focus and exposure can be devilishly tricky when you're shooting a 1/8" long gnat. Shooting in raw allows me to fix mild to moderate exposure issues relatively painlessly.
It's not necessary for you to shell out a ton of money for full-blown Photoshop. I use Photoshop Elements 15 and find it perfectly acceptable (and easy) for routine adjustments of exposure, sharpness, color, etc.
If for whatever reason you don't want to use Elements, there are plenty of alternatives. I don't recall seeing what brand/model camera you use, but the manufacturers usually provide an OEM product. I used Canon's Digital Photo Pro to adjust raw files before I bought Elements 10. I used both Corel Photopaint (part of the Corel Draw suite) and Gimp (free) to edit photographs.
Using raw, I find I discard WAY fewer images than I did when I was shooting in jpeg.
You will find, when you get there, that things that you did at 60 are not as easy and take longer to do when you get to 80. Although my mother learned to use a computer and did email when she was in her 70s and that was back in the 80s when computers were harder to use. She never did go digital for photos, although I was using a digital camera for about 6 years before she died.
I do have a Canon, but have more or less decided to get Lightroom.. I don't discard that many photos that are important to me. The real problem with shooting raw (assuming that I have or acquire a program to deal with the pictures) is that it would take extra time. When I have a lot of photos to process (and I do), most of the time I just look at the photo, fix it so it is straight, and then post. And even just doing that takes time when I have a lot of photos - on the last 2 week trip in May 2017 we had 2000 photos. There's stuff I have to do to match the photos up to where they are to be posted, and I still have about 700 to process (not edit, but just organize) and post.
How much time does it take so that you can see an individual photo when you shoot raw? Just to see what you have, and not to edit it?
I can see the photos right away now.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
> How much time does it take so that you can see an individual photo when you shoot raw? Just to see what you have, and not to edit it? Elements 15 automatically imports my pictures from the memory card and brings them up for review. I only edit the ones which require it. I've got 8gb or RAM in my PC. I plan to double that, making the process even faster.
I get MUCH better results from shooting raw than I ever did shooting jpeg. I've edited raw and jpeg for the same issues, and raw is WAY easier. It also doesn't permanently alter the file, merely (if modified) creating a set of "amendments" to the data that can be wiped out.
Feel free to use jpeg, but I find using raw consumes much less effort to fix problems.
It would take me weeks to process 2000 shots, and I don't spend all that much time on each. If you're doing minimal processing, you might want to try batch processing using a few of the automatic adjustment settings in Lightroom. White balance, tone, even straightening all have automatic options that will probably do more good than harm on average. And you can set other defaults (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) as desired. If you are working from raw files, these adjustments are not permanent, and if you don't like the way any pic turned out, you can always go back to the original and adjust it individually. Just a thought.
> @Richard said: > It would take me weeks to process 2000 shots, and I don't spend all that much time on each. If you're doing minimal processing, you might want to try batch processing using a few of the automatic adjustment settings in Lightroom. White balance, tone, even straightening all have automatic options that will probably do more good than harm on average. And you can set other defaults (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) as desired. If you are working from raw files, these adjustments are not permanent, and if you don't like the way any pic turned out, you can always go back to the original and adjust it individually. Just a thought.
I do focus stacking using CombineZP, often of upwards of 300 images. I run my images through Elements 15 first to (if necessary) fix minor exposure or sharpness issues. Since if there's a problem with one image, it will be duplicated in the rest, I just select all of them and make my adjustments.
I then export to jpegs in batch mode. At that point, there's usually no need for further adjustments. Then off to CombineZP.
Once you learn the process, it's very quick and easy.
It does take me some time to process shots (I'm still working on that last batch), but since they are all different (that is I am not shooting multiple images of the same thing), they all need different editing. Some of them I have to resize (some more than others which depends on the amount of detail in the photo), some need distracting elements cropped out, some need to be brightened and some need to be straightened. I don't really think I could batch process them.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
GrandmaR said: It does take me some time to process shots (I'm still working on that last batch), but since they are all different (that is I am not shooting multiple images of the same thing), they all need different editing. Some of them I have to resize (some more than others which depends on the amount of detail in the photo), some need distracting elements cropped out, some need to be brightened and some need to be straightened. I don't really think I could batch process them.
“"..
I have no interest in or intention of convincing you to adopt a RAW/Lightroom workflow, but I don't think you fully understand what "batch processing" is.
"Batch processing" is processing a group of images using some - or all - commonalities. It does not exclude individual processing after batch processing.
For example, when I shoot a baseball game (both grandsons are in Babe Ruth baseball), I may come home with 150 images. I will first view them all and delete the obvious non-keepers. Then I will batch process the remaining images to use a crop factor of 4 x 6, to remove chromatic aberration and enable (lens) profile, and sometimes to add some Clarity and/or Vibrance.
This does not crop the images. I still crop individually, but the resulting crop is always at a 4x6/6x4 factor. I still straighten where needed (before cropping) and make other editing adjustments.
The batch process simply saves me the step of setting the crop factor on each image. I can still change the Clarity and/or Vibrance individually.
I can designate a batch within that 150 images if necessary after the first batch process. I might batch-change Temp or Exposure of a burst of shots.
In short, "batch processing" does NOT mean processing all images the same in all aspects.
Thank you for the explanation. I can see that would save time.
I have finally found a size that I can use if I just can't get the photos down to size by regular cropping, but I only have to do that maybe twice in 200 photos. I don't want all the same cropping dimensions. I'm not bound by any specific size and since things are now digital and do not have to fit on any specific size paper, I can crop in any way that I think works.
It would definitely save me time to batch edit if I accidentally set the camera to aperture priority or something that I didn't want, but that wouldn't happen if I were shooting raw anyway would it?
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
@grandmaR said:
I have finally found a size that I can use if I just can't get the photos down to size by regular cropping, but I only have to do that maybe twice in 200 photos. I don't want all the same cropping dimensions. I'm not bound by any specific size and since things are now digital and do not have to fit on any specific size paper, I can crop in any way that I think works.
It would definitely save me time to batch edit if I accidentally set the camera to aperture priority or something that I didn't want, but that wouldn't happen if I were shooting raw anyway would it?
I've lost track, what tool are you using to edit (raw or not)?
As a general practice, what most people do when working with raw, is worry about aspect ratio not size. Maybe that's actually what you mean by size? But if you mean "size" as in either file size or pixel dimensions and you are doing the edits to reduce files to some size, you may want to see if your workflow would benefit from ignoring size until you need to use the photos (for a web site or whatever). I would never resize my shot that I am keeping as my "master", almost always it is better to leave it the original size (not aspect).
Let me put it a different way in a quick walk through of how batch processing works for me to do a large number of images from an event in a short time (in raw):
What I do to process a batch is initially cull to remove shots I do not want, then I go through and crop and straighten the remainder. As I crop, I pick the most pleasing aspect ration. I do this with a special tool that is very fast (Photo Mechanic) so I am never waiting for the computer, it happens as fast as I can draw and position rectangles. I then take the results into Lightroom where I mass-apply metadata (since I work in batches of a shoot, usually all shots are of one event, so most metadata like title, keywords, location are all the same). I also mass-apply any settings specific to the venue, such as custom camera profiles for a specific lighting (NOT white balance, that is set to auto). These mass-apply steps are nearly instant.
Now I am ready for the real "edits". I first look to see if there are any develop settings I can apply that are needed on all (or almost all) shots. If for example it is bright sun (with deep shadows) I may increase shadows and kill highlights a bit more strongly and apply that to all shots. Again, almost instant to do no matter the number.
Now I go through and just browse the images in library mode, one by one, and adjust exposure where needed, and a bit of white balance. I do not use the Lightroom Develop module for this as it is too slow, there are "quick develop" buttons which let me go a third stop darker or lighter, or add a bit of warmth (or coolness), etc. Minor tweaking. If I did my shooting well, there is only a bit of this touchup to do.
On maybe 5-10% of the images I need to go in and really do a more careful edit, painting areas, adjusting overall tone or colors, saturation, etc. But by this time, starting with maybe 1200 shots, I am culled down to 90 I mass edited and reviewed, and only 5-10 that I need to edit by hand, individually.
Then... all that done... if I want to extract some for a web posting, I export them to the SIZE I want, e.g. "under 100K" or "max width 1200" or whatever sizing criteria I have. The export do not resize the image itself, it just produces a copy at my requested size.
Takes about 2-3 hours between putting the card in the reader with maybe 1200 shots, and having the resulting keeper images posted to a gallery for the event.
I don't suggest these mass-processing steps work for everyone, just that the goal is to whittle down what you need to pay individual attention to, by mass-applying what can be mass-applied.
No I meant size. There is a limit of 8.0 MB for the grave photos and some of Bob's are 10 or 11 MB (depending on the amount of detail in the shot). And after I get the photos posted, mostly I take them off the computer and discard them (well I put them on a CD, but the chances of my being able to find one are minus zero). These are not great art. (Sometimes they are nice but that's an extra benefit). I want to get the photos straight and readable and below the 8.0MB size and posted as quickly as I can. And then I off-load them.
You have convinced me to get Lightroom mostly for organizing purposes, but I think I will wait until after I get this current batch done.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
@grandmaR said:
No I meant size. There is a limit of 8.0 MB for the grave photos and some of Bob's are 10 or 11 MB (depending on the amount of detail in the shot). And after I get the photos posted, mostly I take them off the computer and discard them (well I put them on a CD, but the chances of my being able to find one are minus zero). These are not great art. (Sometimes they are nice but that's an extra benefit). I want to get the photos straight and readable and below the 8.0MB size and posted as quickly as I can. And then I off-load them.
You have convinced me to get Lightroom mostly for organizing purposes, but I think I will wait until after I get this current batch done.
One of the nice things about most editors (but not all) is they will do an export at-or-below a certain size. So you can just set it to export a pile of photos, put a limit of 8 meg on them, and it will adjust as needed (resolution, not cropping) to make them fit. Then you can just crop for appearance, and let it handle all the sizing issues.
GrandmaR said: " You have convinced me to get Lightroom mostly for organizing purposes, but I think I will wait until after I get this current batch done."
Lightroom is a wonderful tool for photographers for both organization and editing, but it not something to just jump into without help. At one time the advice
would be to get a good book on Lightroom, but the cost of books today are close to the entire cost of an app, and there are so many really good free online tutorials
that a book is no longer necessary.
Not all online tutorials are good, though. Anyone can put one up, and they are not all well done. I rank tutorials by Julieanne Kost as being the best or at least
right up there with the best. For example, http://tv.adobe.com/show/getting-started-with-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-5/ is a good place to start. While this is for
Version 5, and the current version is 6, the changes are not significent.
In your case, because of some restrictions you've brought up here, pay particular attention to the module on "Exporting Images". That allows you to set a max file size.
The one truly major rule in using Lightroom is to make any location or name changes to an image in Lightroom. Never in the folder where the original image is
contained. The reason for this is explained in the tutorials, but - believe me - it's a rule you need to adhere to. Making a change in Lightroom changes the location
or name of the original, but it doesn't work the other way around.
Thank you for the information on Lightroom. I will keep that advice in mind.
I already have the ability to resize photos by exporting them to a folder. But I don't want the ones that are OK to be resized. I am uncertain whether resizing photos that were already OK would make them smaller, when they don't need to be. I am using Picasa which is kind of a bare bones editor although it does most of what I want to do with jpg images. It make me pick the length of a side to export instead of being able to tell it a max size.
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
Comments
.
Two things - you've already said you occasionally have to downsize to get within an 8mb limit - so that's nothing new
+
You'd not be posting /. using RAW 'photos (of any size)' - only the jpgs derived from the original RAW files. Yes, the RAW files themselves (cf a digital negative) will be bigger than 8mb, but, in DPP you can downsize them to whatever size you want - either individually - or in batches - probably even all 500+ in one go...
Incidentally, if you have to already 'downsize' some of the pics already being taken, to get them under 8mb, this can only be done in 2 ways, reducing quality by altering the jpg settings and / or resizing the pixel dimensions of the image.
If you do it the second way, it implies that the destination for these images isn't pixel dimension specific ... in which case, it might be an idea to downsize all output to a fixed set of pixel dimensions?
This is easily done in DPP - and might have additional benefits (upload speed / storage requirements etc) for wherever these pics are being stored / used?
As I've already stated, you can also do this - downsize to a specific set of pixel dimensions - with your existing jpgs, using DPP - you don't have to switch to shooting RAW.
pp
Flickr
Just to leave the details covered, I looked this up:
D300 manual, page 77:
14 bit raw maximum frame advance rate is 2.5fps
12 bit raw maximum frame rate is 6fps (with standard battery)
JPG vs Raw doesn't seem to matter. Interestingly on the D800 (page 426) , the frame rate goes from 4 to 5 fps (with standard battery) as you go from FX to DX, but it doesn't seem to matter if JPG or RAW.
A brief look did not find any where the camera shoots faster (as opposed to longer) in JPG. I'm surprised, especially with DX being faster than FX on the D800.
Sorry for the confusion, I think I was stuck on the D300's 14 bit rate.
Regarding the D300 comments by Ferguson: When I shoot a baseball game, I set the D300 to Ch,
the fastest burst setting. When a close play is expected at home plate, I'll trip the shutter to catch
a burst and then - sometimes - trip the shutter again for more frames. That's usuially going to
get one good frame of the catcher (my grandson) making the play on the runner.
The trick, of course, is to anticipate the play at home and have the lens pre focussed on the catcher and
to use a wide enough shot so it can be cropped to the action. Dunno how many fps I'm getting, but
it works for me and has resulted in some good shots.
I' don't see any lag using RAW, and I have shot .jpg in the past.
I'm using a D300, not even a D300S, and don't have the external battery pack. All post in LR, but
i may open and edit in PS when I've got some bright color on a fan in the stands I want to tone down.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I totally get the business about anticipating the action. That's absolutely what I do, especially when driving, but I've also done it in the past with various sports - Back in the film days I would go out to the horse jumping cross country courses and walk the course backward so that the horses were coming toward me over the jumps (someone commented to me that a photo of the horse's butt wasn't that interesting). I got some really interesting photos of falls that way. I can't find the original of this one, but the girls mother convinced the Technical Delegate that the horse you can see the feet of was blocking the jump and therefore that the fall shouldn't count. If I had been digital at the time (this was c 1982) I could have proved that the fall should have counted and she shouldn't have been first or second.
I don't want to change the settings on Bob's camera because I may need the additional detail. I frequently shoot a group of grave markers that are close together and then cut them apart to post them to individual memorials. I want the greatest detail possible. Most of the time I can downsize his photos just by cropping some, and usually cropping is a good idea anyway.
As I was thinking about this - I thought of another problem which perhaps you guys haven't considered. Most of the time I am operating the camera with only one hand. There's no possibility of doing anything with the settings - I more or less have to use automatic focus. I use my left hand to run the scooter. So I have to do all the camera work with my right hand. I remove the lens cap (or leave it off for the duration), flip the on switch, look through the view finder and (after I check the focus), I take the photo (s), and turn the camera off and go to the next place to take a photo. If I am inside a museum, I will also sometimes have to turn the flash off before I take the photo in order to keep from having reflections off the glass.
All while concentrating on not running over people or crashing into stuff. I am NOT a particularly coordinated person. When I was walking cross country with my children, I almost always fell into some kind of stream or mud along the way.
Even in the car, I am often holding my cell phone in my left hand (to give Bob directions).
I suppose that shooting RAW wouldn't necessarily mean that I couldn't use auto-focus (?) and auto-exposure (?)
We took 483 photos today - 2 cemeteries, a museum, lunch and a historic downtown tour.and a ferry ride.
Why do you turn the camera off between shots? There's very little drain on the
battery by just leaving the camera turned on.
Not knowing your camera, but making suggestions anyway, I'd set it on shutter priority
at 1/125. That's a setting that will capture more scenes without blur from a scooter.
If it's a bright day, I'd set it at 1/250th just to make sure.
I wouldn't use Auto, because the camera sets the shutter speed in Auto.
Also, shooting from a moving scooter, (or car) I'd use the widest lens available. A 35mm or
55mm lens. If you can't properly frame the photo on the go, shoot wide and crop in post.
Using RAW or .jpg doesn't affect auto focus or auto exposure in any way. Zero affect.
I don't quite understand turning the flash off. I have to turn the flash on, and the default
is no flash. But, your camera may be different.
With another day at 400-plus shots, you really should consider Lightroom at the $9.99 monthly
cost. That gives you Photoshop and the ability to process RAW images at the same time
With Lightroom, you can use presets to synchronize processing of multiple shots and a
image managment system that allows you to use keywords to identify shots. Plenty of free
tutorials on the web, and a free 30 day trial. This thread isn't about Lightroom, so I'll drop it, though.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3, and I'm using the lens that came with (18-55 mm) except when I'm on a boat or in a cemetery and want to zoom closer then that lens can manage
In a museum or aquarium where there is glass between me and the thing I'm taking a photo of (or a mirror), I change from full auto to flash off
I've had a total of four digital cameras (from 2000 when I got my first one), and this one (which I got in 2012) is the only one that didn't run the batteries down PDQ if I left the camera on between shots. In those 12 years I've just gotten in the habit of turning the camera off between shots. ** Thank you** for pointing out that I can stop doing that.
When I was using film, my dad told me that 1/25th of a sec was about as slow as I could go when the camera was hand held.(this was back in 1959 and I was shooting Kodachrome slide film). If I needed a slower speed, I should press the camera against my face and hold my breath. Or else rest the camera against some solid object like a fence or doorway. (This does not work when the solid object is the railing of a boat where the whole boat is vibrating). But when I look at the settings that full auto give me, the speed of the shutter changes depending on the lighting and it isn't all that consistent that I am confident that I could set one exposure and have it be OK. Or that I could manage to change it by recognizing the change in lighting.
I will consider Lightroom although normally I'm too cheap to sign up for a monthly fee of something. The 483 photos yesterday - mostly Bob's (358) which I can process at my leisure (and he wouldn't shoot RAW anyway) and which I don't keep after they are posted. I've deleted quite a few of mine because I was taking photos of a very reflective surface with writing on it. The camera focused on the reflected scene and I switched to manual to try to get the writing clearer, and then FORGOT to switch back so most of the next 30 photos are out of focus. I am much more forgetful now than I was. That's why I shoot Auto most of the time. I think I will remember to go back to auto focus and then I don't and it takes me longer than it should to remember why the camera isn't focusing.
.
A T3 + 18/55 isn't a particularly heavy rig - so, have you considered attaching it to your scooter via an articulated / bendy arm or similar?
Such a device needn't be anything fancy - and I'd probably look in charity / thrift shops for something suitable first, before considering making something.
A quick release at both ends of the 'arm' would let you quickly remove both cam and 'arm when necessary.
This would not only remove the weight (of holding) aspect, but it would allow you to concentrate on not hitting someone in an emergency situation?
pp
Flickr
You can still buy a perpetual license version of Lightroom 6 for both PC and Mac for around $140. I suspect that would be a better deal for you than the subscription, as you probably wouldn't need every brand new feature. It doesn't force you to use raw if you'd rather not. You have the same tools for both raw and jpg. Once you get used to them, you'll probably find that you have greater control with raw. It makes it very easy to improve your editing skills little by little. The catalog maintenance functions are excellent--finding old pics by date, location, keyword etc. is really easy as long as you take the trouble to add some stuff to your files. Some of the metadata comes from your camera automatically, and the rest can be added in batch as you go. And unlike the subscription model, the perpetual license means that you can keep using the catalog even if you stop using LR for processing.
My comment about pre-setting your camera to shutter priority and 1/125th or 1/250th was a suggestion of a setting
to be used when you are on your scooter or in your car as a default to prepare for the unexpected shot. I would also
set my camera to spot metering instead of matrix because the target may be in shade in an overall brightly-lit area.
Naturally, when on foot, the camera can be re-set to a different setting to accomodate the conditions.
I'm a test-shot-shooter. When in new conditions, I'll take a photo and look at the histogram. That tells me that
I'm over- or under-exposed. I delete that shot immediately after checking the histogram and re-set my settings if
necessary. There are myriad advantages in using modern digital cameras, and the visible histogram available
after a shot is one of the major ones.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
You may not think of my camera as particularly heavy, but I have arthritis in my neck (and just about all my joints) and I can't wear the camera without eventual pain. But I already have a solution for that - I have a vest (called a Cotton Carrier for some reason) that holds the camera and keeps the weight off my neck (transfers it to my shoulders). And that works even when I'm not on the scooter and also helps A LOT when I'm using the big lens. Also my particular brand of scooter has a collectable steering column which cannot support any weight or it collapses. No basket.
Yes I'd rather buy something outright rather than by the month.
If I am in the car, I do not have time to take a shot twice. Once has to do. Bob is driving the speed limit, whatever that is. But I will set the camera so that there is one little flashing red spot and put that spot on what I'm going to want exposed correctly. (not a technical explanation I know but I hope you know what I mean - I think that is spot metering?).
I really can't tell if a shot is under or over exposed from a histogram - I've never paid much attention to those things. But I will look at the shot (provided we aren't bucketing down the highway) and retake if it isn't good.
I was aware that (holding / using) your cam gear was likely to create problems - even though it's a relatively lightweight rig - which is exactly why I suggested something that would take all of the weight off you and transfer it to the scooter.
I was unfamiliar with the harness you use - so I googled it.
Yes, your scooter may well have a collapsible steering column - but I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't some way of adding some sort of support system - if one wanted to.
Depending on the type / nature of such a rig, it could also offer help in keeping the cam more level - together with taking all of the weight off you - and for the type of pics you're taking, might only need small (if any?) compositional adjustment between frames - since the average headstone is just sticking up out of the ground (a datum / reference level for all) ... Yes, I'm aware that other fancier stuff exists.
There could also - conceivably be another trade off in certain circumstances - frame wider (knowing that you're more likely going to have to crop afterwards) ... but once the cam is set up, use a remote release?
pp
Flickr
The reason that my scooter has no real attachment points is that it is folded up to about carry-on suitcase size and to put in the trunk. It isn't the scooter I'm on in my avatar. It is a Luggie
and the steering column collapses down and the thing folds in the middle. This is it (the blue thing) folded up by my red suitcase.
If I attach something to it, it would have to be removed every time I folded the scooter up and reattached when we got it out again.
It is very narrow wheelbase and has almost no suspension. I have tipped over on it on a steep slope. When the ground is uneven the steering handle can twist out of my hand
I can hang stuff on the back of the seat, or put a bag under the seat, but I can't put anything on the front.
i don't have that much problem with vertical headstones. My position on the scooter is the best angle because I am pretty much even with the stone and I don't have to bend or squat to get a photo where I don't have a downward angle on the stone. It is the stones that are flat that I have a big problem with. Bob can do them by shooting straight down, but when I take them they always look wonky because of the angle.
Thanks for the scooter pics - I wasn't aware of the existence of folding ones.
I can still see potential anchorage points for what I've been talking about, but this is now wayyyy outside the original topic, so I'll shut up
pp
Flickr
OK - just fyi - I let the airline gate check the scooter once, and the control head was broken off when I got it back. I have to be really careful not to lean or push on the control lever section or it collapses down. It is good for what it is, but not so good for anything other than giving me a semi comfortable place to sit.
> Keep in mind that I am almost 80 years old and I'm pretty happy with what I have been doing. I know I'm not professional grade, and have no desire to become a professional (although I have actually sold some of my pictures). How much time would it take me to learn a new technique? Would it really be worth it? Or should I just say - I come from the film era and I have enough to do with figuring out digital jpeg so respect your elders and lay off the 'people should shoot raw' stuff. :smiley:
I'm 60. I don't think your age is or should be a factor.
I highly recommend that you use raw precisely because you're NOT a professional.
Shooting in raw allows you to recover from errors or misjudgments that either COULDN'T be fixed or which would be agonizing to fix.
80% of what I do is studio macro. Focus and exposure can be devilishly tricky when you're shooting a 1/8" long gnat. Shooting in raw allows me to fix mild to moderate exposure issues relatively painlessly.
It's not necessary for you to shell out a ton of money for full-blown Photoshop. I use Photoshop Elements 15 and find it perfectly acceptable (and easy) for routine adjustments of exposure, sharpness, color, etc.
If for whatever reason you don't want to use Elements, there are plenty of alternatives. I don't recall seeing what brand/model camera you use, but the manufacturers usually provide an OEM product. I used Canon's Digital Photo Pro to adjust raw files before I bought Elements 10. I used both Corel Photopaint (part of the Corel Draw suite) and Gimp (free) to edit photographs.
Using raw, I find I discard WAY fewer images than I did when I was shooting in jpeg.
You will find, when you get there, that things that you did at 60 are not as easy and take longer to do when you get to 80. Although my mother learned to use a computer and did email when she was in her 70s and that was back in the 80s when computers were harder to use. She never did go digital for photos, although I was using a digital camera for about 6 years before she died.
I do have a Canon, but have more or less decided to get Lightroom.. I don't discard that many photos that are important to me. The real problem with shooting raw (assuming that I have or acquire a program to deal with the pictures) is that it would take extra time. When I have a lot of photos to process (and I do), most of the time I just look at the photo, fix it so it is straight, and then post. And even just doing that takes time when I have a lot of photos - on the last 2 week trip in May 2017 we had 2000 photos. There's stuff I have to do to match the photos up to where they are to be posted, and I still have about 700 to process (not edit, but just organize) and post.
How much time does it take so that you can see an individual photo when you shoot raw? Just to see what you have, and not to edit it?
I can see the photos right away now.
> How much time does it take so that you can see an individual photo when you shoot raw? Just to see what you have, and not to edit it?
Elements 15 automatically imports my pictures from the memory card and brings them up for review. I only edit the ones which require it. I've got 8gb or RAM in my PC. I plan to double that, making the process even faster.
I get MUCH better results from shooting raw than I ever did shooting jpeg. I've edited raw and jpeg for the same issues, and raw is WAY easier. It also doesn't permanently alter the file, merely (if modified) creating a set of "amendments" to the data that can be wiped out.
Feel free to use jpeg, but I find using raw consumes much less effort to fix problems.
It would take me weeks to process 2000 shots, and I don't spend all that much time on each. If you're doing minimal processing, you might want to try batch processing using a few of the automatic adjustment settings in Lightroom. White balance, tone, even straightening all have automatic options that will probably do more good than harm on average. And you can set other defaults (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) as desired. If you are working from raw files, these adjustments are not permanent, and if you don't like the way any pic turned out, you can always go back to the original and adjust it individually. Just a thought.
> It would take me weeks to process 2000 shots, and I don't spend all that much time on each. If you're doing minimal processing, you might want to try batch processing using a few of the automatic adjustment settings in Lightroom. White balance, tone, even straightening all have automatic options that will probably do more good than harm on average. And you can set other defaults (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) as desired. If you are working from raw files, these adjustments are not permanent, and if you don't like the way any pic turned out, you can always go back to the original and adjust it individually. Just a thought.
I do focus stacking using CombineZP, often of upwards of 300 images. I run my images through Elements 15 first to (if necessary) fix minor exposure or sharpness issues. Since if there's a problem with one image, it will be duplicated in the rest, I just select all of them and make my adjustments.
I then export to jpegs in batch mode. At that point, there's usually no need for further adjustments. Then off to CombineZP.
Once you learn the process, it's very quick and easy.
It does take me some time to process shots (I'm still working on that last batch), but since they are all different (that is I am not shooting multiple images of the same thing), they all need different editing. Some of them I have to resize (some more than others which depends on the amount of detail in the photo), some need distracting elements cropped out, some need to be brightened and some need to be straightened. I don't really think I could batch process them.
GrandmaR said: It does take me some time to process shots (I'm still working on that last batch), but since they are all different (that is I am not shooting multiple images of the same thing), they all need different editing. Some of them I have to resize (some more than others which depends on the amount of detail in the photo), some need distracting elements cropped out, some need to be brightened and some need to be straightened. I don't really think I could batch process them.
“"..
I have no interest in or intention of convincing you to adopt a RAW/Lightroom workflow, but I don't think you fully understand what "batch processing" is.
"Batch processing" is processing a group of images using some - or all - commonalities. It does not exclude individual processing after batch processing.
For example, when I shoot a baseball game (both grandsons are in Babe Ruth baseball), I may come home with 150 images. I will first view them all and delete the obvious non-keepers. Then I will batch process the remaining images to use a crop factor of 4 x 6, to remove chromatic aberration and enable (lens) profile, and sometimes to add some Clarity and/or Vibrance.
This does not crop the images. I still crop individually, but the resulting crop is always at a 4x6/6x4 factor. I still straighten where needed (before cropping) and make other editing adjustments.
The batch process simply saves me the step of setting the crop factor on each image. I can still change the Clarity and/or Vibrance individually.
I can designate a batch within that 150 images if necessary after the first batch process. I might batch-change Temp or Exposure of a burst of shots.
In short, "batch processing" does NOT mean processing all images the same in all aspects.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Thank you for the explanation. I can see that would save time.
I have finally found a size that I can use if I just can't get the photos down to size by regular cropping, but I only have to do that maybe twice in 200 photos. I don't want all the same cropping dimensions. I'm not bound by any specific size and since things are now digital and do not have to fit on any specific size paper, I can crop in any way that I think works.
It would definitely save me time to batch edit if I accidentally set the camera to aperture priority or something that I didn't want, but that wouldn't happen if I were shooting raw anyway would it?
I've lost track, what tool are you using to edit (raw or not)?
As a general practice, what most people do when working with raw, is worry about aspect ratio not size. Maybe that's actually what you mean by size? But if you mean "size" as in either file size or pixel dimensions and you are doing the edits to reduce files to some size, you may want to see if your workflow would benefit from ignoring size until you need to use the photos (for a web site or whatever). I would never resize my shot that I am keeping as my "master", almost always it is better to leave it the original size (not aspect).
Let me put it a different way in a quick walk through of how batch processing works for me to do a large number of images from an event in a short time (in raw):
What I do to process a batch is initially cull to remove shots I do not want, then I go through and crop and straighten the remainder. As I crop, I pick the most pleasing aspect ration. I do this with a special tool that is very fast (Photo Mechanic) so I am never waiting for the computer, it happens as fast as I can draw and position rectangles. I then take the results into Lightroom where I mass-apply metadata (since I work in batches of a shoot, usually all shots are of one event, so most metadata like title, keywords, location are all the same). I also mass-apply any settings specific to the venue, such as custom camera profiles for a specific lighting (NOT white balance, that is set to auto). These mass-apply steps are nearly instant.
Now I am ready for the real "edits". I first look to see if there are any develop settings I can apply that are needed on all (or almost all) shots. If for example it is bright sun (with deep shadows) I may increase shadows and kill highlights a bit more strongly and apply that to all shots. Again, almost instant to do no matter the number.
Now I go through and just browse the images in library mode, one by one, and adjust exposure where needed, and a bit of white balance. I do not use the Lightroom Develop module for this as it is too slow, there are "quick develop" buttons which let me go a third stop darker or lighter, or add a bit of warmth (or coolness), etc. Minor tweaking. If I did my shooting well, there is only a bit of this touchup to do.
On maybe 5-10% of the images I need to go in and really do a more careful edit, painting areas, adjusting overall tone or colors, saturation, etc. But by this time, starting with maybe 1200 shots, I am culled down to 90 I mass edited and reviewed, and only 5-10 that I need to edit by hand, individually.
Then... all that done... if I want to extract some for a web posting, I export them to the SIZE I want, e.g. "under 100K" or "max width 1200" or whatever sizing criteria I have. The export do not resize the image itself, it just produces a copy at my requested size.
Takes about 2-3 hours between putting the card in the reader with maybe 1200 shots, and having the resulting keeper images posted to a gallery for the event.
I don't suggest these mass-processing steps work for everyone, just that the goal is to whittle down what you need to pay individual attention to, by mass-applying what can be mass-applied.
Every time that I come back to this thread it makes me realize how lucky I am to spend my life in the studio.
Website
No I meant size. There is a limit of 8.0 MB for the grave photos and some of Bob's are 10 or 11 MB (depending on the amount of detail in the shot). And after I get the photos posted, mostly I take them off the computer and discard them (well I put them on a CD, but the chances of my being able to find one are minus zero). These are not great art. (Sometimes they are nice but that's an extra benefit). I want to get the photos straight and readable and below the 8.0MB size and posted as quickly as I can. And then I off-load them.
You have convinced me to get Lightroom mostly for organizing purposes, but I think I will wait until after I get this current batch done.
One of the nice things about most editors (but not all) is they will do an export at-or-below a certain size. So you can just set it to export a pile of photos, put a limit of 8 meg on them, and it will adjust as needed (resolution, not cropping) to make them fit. Then you can just crop for appearance, and let it handle all the sizing issues.
GrandmaR said: " You have convinced me to get Lightroom mostly for organizing purposes, but I think I will wait until after I get this current batch done."
Lightroom is a wonderful tool for photographers for both organization and editing, but it not something to just jump into without help. At one time the advice
would be to get a good book on Lightroom, but the cost of books today are close to the entire cost of an app, and there are so many really good free online tutorials
that a book is no longer necessary.
Not all online tutorials are good, though. Anyone can put one up, and they are not all well done. I rank tutorials by Julieanne Kost as being the best or at least
right up there with the best. For example, http://tv.adobe.com/show/getting-started-with-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-5/ is a good place to start. While this is for
Version 5, and the current version is 6, the changes are not significent.
In your case, because of some restrictions you've brought up here, pay particular attention to the module on "Exporting Images". That allows you to set a max file size.
The one truly major rule in using Lightroom is to make any location or name changes to an image in Lightroom. Never in the folder where the original image is
contained. The reason for this is explained in the tutorials, but - believe me - it's a rule you need to adhere to. Making a change in Lightroom changes the location
or name of the original, but it doesn't work the other way around.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Thank you for the information on Lightroom. I will keep that advice in mind.
I already have the ability to resize photos by exporting them to a folder. But I don't want the ones that are OK to be resized. I am uncertain whether resizing photos that were already OK would make them smaller, when they don't need to be. I am using Picasa which is kind of a bare bones editor although it does most of what I want to do with jpg images. It make me pick the length of a side to export instead of being able to tell it a max size.
No, the choice is only to "Limit file size to (choose)" That only resizes file that are above that number.
If you work through the tutorials, all will become clear.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
OK - that would work then