Raw, Tiff, Shq, Hq

Shortlist

Wow!:scratch

I'm all brand new to a semi-pro camera. And one of the first things I read is about selecting a record mode. :dunno
I shoot a lot of pics for my maritime investigation business. You know, accident investigation, claims investigation etc. Inside and outside of boats.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of my competition's photography is really bad. Not that our industry needs super pro results, however when I've taken the time to shoot better than average shots that are typically done in our industry, my clients do comment on the better quality.
My other interests are general photography, i.e. wildlife, especially birds, some action motorcycle shots, close up work on antique firearms, rare coins and the typical family "stuff".
So, I'm pretty sure that I do not need to shoot in RAW, as I have no clue on how to use a program to manipulate photos(?).
But the others?
Presently, I'm in the SHQ at 2560x1920 and compression is 1/2.7 :dunno

What do ya think?

Thank you for your help:thumb

Richard

Shortlist wrote:

Wow!

I'm all brand new to a semi-pro camera. And one of the first things I read is about selecting a record mode.
I shoot a lot of pics for my maritime investigation business. You know, accident investigation, claims investigation etc. Inside and outside of boats.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of my competition's photography is really bad. Not that our industry needs super pro results, however when I've taken the time to shoot better than average shots that are typically done in our industry, my clients do comment on the better quality.
My other interests are general photography, i.e. wildlife, especially birds, some action motorcycle shots, close up work on antique firearms, rare coins and the typical family "stuff".
So, I'm pretty sure that I do not need to shoot in RAW, as I have no clue on how to use a program to manipulate photos(?).
But the others?
Presently, I'm in the SHQ at 2560x1920 and compression is 1/2.7

What do ya think?

Thank you for your help

Hi Shortlist, and welcome to Dgrin. If you don't want to do any processing on your pics, then stay away from RAW. I am guessing that hq and shq modes produce jpg files and that one is of a higher size and/or quality. The higher the size and quality, the fewer pics your memory card on the camera can hold, so you will have to choose the one that suits your needs best. If you ever become seriously interested in photography as a hobby, you will almost certainly want to find an editing program (like Photoshop) to enhance the quality of your pics, and at that point you may want to start shooting in RAW.

Hope this helps.

Shortlist

rsinmadrid wrote:

Hi Shortlist, and welcome to Dgrin. If you don't want to do any processing on your pics, then stay away from RAW. I am guessing that hq and shq modes produce jpg files and that one is of a higher size and/or quality. The higher the size and quality, the fewer pics your memory card on the camera can hold, so you will have to choose the one that suits your needs best. If you ever become seriously interested in photography as a hobby, you will almost certainly want to find an editing program (like Photoshop) to enhance the quality of your pics, and at that point you may want to start shooting in RAW.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the welcome to this site. And a very big thank you on the info
I will certainly be purchasing Photoshop in the near future. At least after I learn this camera better:D

01af

Shortlist wrote:

Presently, I'm in the SHQ at 2560 x 1920 and compression is 1/2.7

For the purposes you need for photographs for, using JPEG format is just fine and absolutely adequate. Even pros use JPEG rather than raw format for all kinds of images that need to be presented to the customer quickly. Just make sure you get the white balance and the exposure right.

HQ and SHQ most likely mean 'high quality' and 'super-high quality,' respectively. A compression ratio of 1:2.7 is close to the best JPEG is capable of. An uncompressed image file at 2,560 x 1,920 pixels would be 14 MB. But your image files are 5 MB or less, right? Using HQ rather than SHQ most likely will yield somewhat smaller files (same number of pixels but less megabytes, occupying less memory---I'd guess 2 or 3 MB per image), at a slightly lower but still more-than-good-enough quality. Using SHQ is like shooting cannons at sparrows when you plan not to post-process your image files. If you feel uncomfortable sacrifying a bit of quality for smaller file size then simply shoot the same subject twice, in HQ and in SHQ, and compare the results at a high magnification on your computer monitor. Most likely you will find hardly any differences, if any at all. And if you find some then consider the magnification and whether they'll show up in prints.

-- Olaf

Shortlist

Thank you too!
I really appreciate the help.
I'm in that "SHQ" mode and will go to HQ and do the comparo. For my work, that will probably be just fine. I do have to, most of the time get bulk photos to clients ASAP. I know that they typically print thenm out on plain paper to share about. However, when it's litigation or trial time, then they get enlarged and priinted on photo paper. That is when quality photos will enhance my services.
Thanks

SloYerRoll

Shortlist wrote:

I will certainly be purchasing Photoshop in the near future. At least after I learn this camera better:D

Just a thought. Until you get way into post production. I think Photoshop Elements may be the way to go. You can do ALLOT w/ this program and learn the workflow of Adobe products this way. Photoshop is expensive most photogs in honest reality only use about 25% (and that's being generous) of the processing power and abilities that the CS2 version has.
Save your dough and get some new glass or strobes!
Welcome to dgrin!

Khaos

While pros do shoot in jpeg when speed is a question, I highly doubt they do it for their personal stuff or anything paying a large amount of money.

Photography is a hobby to, and a big part of that hobby used to be developing your own pictures. Learning your way around a darkroom was as much if not more fun to some photographers than taking the shots.

The wet darkroom has now become the digital darkroom. It hasn't gotten any easier. Quicker once learned, cleaner, and in the long run cheaper, yes, but not easier.

I wouldn't of spent a ton of money on equipment and then sent my pictures to a local lab hoping they do the best 20 years ago. To me, letting the camera "process" the pic for immediate results is doing the same thing as letting someone else develop your film.

That's the choice. Will you "develop" your digital images or let someone else do it? I "develop" my own and thus shoot RAW.