SD Fakes, Do they Exist

[SirEvan]

I will be buying a 30mb's memory card and was wondering, do SD fakes exist. If anyone has ways to check they like the pro duo can be checked in a PSP. Also any cheap sellers on amazon marketplace people recommend.

30 megabytes? thats like 2 photos...you might want to get a bigger card.....

Because its still time consuming. If I have my settings set up already, what is RAW going to do for me?

Going to a bridge cam.... right. Like I'd get any sports shots using a bridge.

Move along noob. Its quite obvious you don't know squat about what RAW is or what it's benefits are. Heres a short list for you

1.) Better color depth

2.) Raw data off the sensor, instead of what Nikon/Canon/Leica/Sony/Panasonic/Olympus thinks your image should look like

3.) The ability to adjust things post process you could NEVER do...shot in B&W by accident? no problem. Wrong white balance? no problem

4.) I'm not going to list anymore because it's clear you don't know what I'm even talking about.

[Brandon]

Move along noob. Its quite obvious you don't know squat about what RAW is or what it's benefits are. Heres a short list for you

1.) Better color depth

2.) Raw data off the sensor, instead of what Nikon/Canon/Leica/Sony/Panasonic/Olympus thinks your image should look like

3.) The ability to adjust things post process you could NEVER do...shot in B&W by accident? no problem. Wrong white balance? no problem

4.) I'm not going to list anymore because it's clear you don't know what I'm even talking about.

Or That you really need to re-think how you post things online.

As I had said before. If you know how to use your camera the correct way, you will gain little benefit for sports (where you would need a high FPS) or everyday shooting using RAW.

Obviously you have never worked on a tight deadline for a media outlet. You don't have time to do any RAW conversions using ACR. You dump the images on the computer and move along. Pictures are used and needed right after the event. So you need to get it right the first time.

As for your #3.... You should always check your settings before you start shooting. How do you accidentally shoot in B&W? If you are worried, do an image review on the camera's LCD after taking a picture or two.

For Color depth, I think JPEGs are 8 bit whereas RAW photos are 14 bit. None of my local printers take PSD, TIFF or CR2 files, JPG's only. If I were ordering from a pro-lab for a wedding or whatnot, they would more than likely take TIFF files (again I've never printed using TIFF files). But if you shoot RAW then convert to JPG, whats the difference in color depth then?

If you do mess up the exposure, I do understand that RAW files will be able to recover more data... but then for what I shoot its get it right the first time.

I'm not discrediting the use of RAW. I use it for portraits and other things where I know I will need the advantages that RAW offers. For photos that will end up on Facebook, basic sports prints and everyday life... JPG.

[HawkMan]

Obviously you have never worked on a tight deadline for a media outlet. You don't have time to do any RAW conversions using ACR. You dump the images on the computer and move along. Pictures are used and needed right after the event. So you need to get it right the first time.

Sounds like the only "media outlet" you've ever worked for is at best a school newspaper, probably the online one. since that's the only place such quality would be acceptable. It certainly sounds like you're just making things up on the spot here.

And if you're shooting sports events professionally for media outlets. You're definitely using raw and you're definitely using a camera and memory card that's fast enough to do it. And that wouldn't be an SD card, as much as I like the SD cards in my D90 They're not fast enough for that kind of pro usage.

on top of that, using raw images, with the correct tools doesn't take more time than using jpegs, not as if you'd be using jpegs when you hand in your photos to a newspaper anyway. I'm no expert, but I'd wager they're still using TIFF for that stuff, or EPS.

On top of that, as I said before, unpredictable action shots in high speed such as sports. Yeah, That's one spot where you DEFINATELY want to keep the extra information RAW gives you. You can be as good a shot as you think you are, but you can never predict the lighting and conditions of each shot when you're shooting high speed in a sports setting. Had you at least said you used jpeg for predictable portraits where you can take your time to adjust for every shot. instead you went to completely wrong route.

[crazzy88ss]

As I had said before. If you know how to use your camera the correct way, you will gain little benefit for sports (where you would need a high FPS) or everyday shooting using RAW.

uhhh shooting in RAW doesn't limit your FPS. I shoot RAW for all my sports games, ESPECIALLY the indoor games.

Obviously you have never worked on a tight deadline for a media outlet. You don't have time to do any RAW conversions using ACR. You dump the images on the computer and move along. Pictures are used and needed right after the event. So you need to get it right the first time.

Having spent the last 4 semesters shooting for student papers and magazines, I can tell you I still only shoot in RAW. It doesn't slow down the editing process by more than an extra 4-6 seconds per image. I've run into many local pro shooters on "real" daily publications, and they all shoot RAW. I don't ask them if they shoot RAW (because that'd be a pretty silly question to ask them because EVERYBODY shoots RAW); I know they're shooting RAW cuz when we compare images the file names are .NEF or .CRW (I think that's the canon one?). And their deadlines are within 30 minutes after the event. They go back to their car, edit their photos on a laptop, and upload through FTP using a cellular 3G adapter.

As for your #3.... You should always check your settings before you start shooting. How do you accidentally shoot in B&W? If you are worried, do an image review on the camera's LCD after taking a picture or two.

Yea i dunno wtf evan's talking about on that one...

For Color depth, I think JPEGs are 8 bit whereas RAW photos are 14 bit. None of my local printers take PSD, TIFF or CR2 files, JPG's only. If I were ordering from a pro-lab for a wedding or whatnot, they would more than likely take TIFF files (again I've never printed using TIFF files). But if you shoot RAW then convert to JPG, whats the difference in color depth then?

Only the brand new DSLRs shoot 14 bit, for now. Most are all 12 bit. The extra 4-6 bits gives you a lot more EDITING power. Yes, once you convert down to JPG, you lose the extra channels, but it's during the editing processes where you gain the benefits. Things like this will include bringing out details in the shadows, brining back blown out areas, changing the over all exposure of the whole image by 4 stops. You simply just CANNOT do that with

oh, and "move along noob" was unnecessary.

on top of that, using raw images, with the correct tools doesn't take more time than using jpegs, not as if you'd be using jpegs when you hand in your photos to a newspaper anyway. I'm no expert, but I'd wager they're still using TIFF for that stuff, or EPS.

Wrong. JPGs are used, at least everywhere I've gone/seen/asked/etc.

On top of that, as I said before, unpredictable action shots in high speed such as sports. Yeah, That's one spot where you DEFINATELY want to keep the extra information RAW gives you. You can be as good a shot as you think you are, but you can never predict the lighting and conditions of each shot when you're shooting high speed in a sports setting. Had you at least said you used jpeg for predictable portraits where you can take your time to adjust for every shot. instead you went to completely wrong route.

I do have to side with brandon on Sports shooting and RAW. Most of the time you don't need RAW for outdoor sports. The Out Of Camera image isn't every different than my final image when it comes to shooting outdoor sports. Indoor sports is completely different, though. I only shoot RAW.

However, in his previous post, he seemed to imply shooting RAW lowered the FPS. It doesn't. Your buffer fills up faster, true, but his 7D should have a plenty big buffer. I do just fine with my D90 and it's ~9 photo buffer (at 4.5FPS, though :/ ).

[Brandon]

Nikon's can only shoot RAW files at 2.5FPS for some reason (at least the D300s) instead of 7FPS for JPGs. 14 bit has been out for at least 2.5 years, my 40D had it which came out in 08'

I shoot for the sports information department at my school and they just want JPGs. They post pictures online within half an hour and don't have the time or space for RAW

[crazzy88ss]

Ok... no offense, but maybe the "move along noob" WAS necessary if you honestly think that Nikon cameras only shoot RAW files at 2.5FPS.... You are SEVERELY HORRIFICALLY HILARIOUSLY misinformed. Even my D90 shoots 4.5FPS RAW. The D300 shoots at 6 or 8 FPS RAW. The D300s shoots at 7 or 8 FPS RAW. The D200, which is 3 years old, shoots at 5FPS RAW. The D2 shoots at 8FPS RAW the D3 shoots at 9 or 11 FPS RAW. The D70, which is 5 years old, shoots at 3FPS RAW.

I think I'll stop there... hopefully you get the point...

My sports information department posts game info within half an hour of my games I give them all RAWs. *shrug* Every place is different.

[SirEvan]

As I had said before. If you know how to use your camera the correct way, you will gain little benefit for sports (where you would need a high FPS) or everyday shooting using RAW.

What camera/memory card combo are YOU shooting with? with any recent D series Nikon, and a 260-300x CF card, I can barely keep up with the camera's buffer... RAW+JPG writes take literally 3/4 of a second, if that, and with a 15+ shot buffer....I'm not filling it any time soon. You must be shooting with a P+S.

Obviously you have never worked on a tight deadline for a media outlet. You don't have time to do any RAW conversions using ACR. You dump the images on the computer and move along. Pictures are used and needed right after the event. So you need to get it right the first time.

I've worked on a tight deadline for websites and modeling agents before, as well as event promoters, and I wouldn't touch ACR. EVEN if I shot in raw for a club event, I've already got actions and batch profiles set in Nikon Capture and Neat Image to quicky correct and reduce noise and output to web-sized Jpgs... a few clicks and sit back and wait. There should be no reason you would ever shoot in RAW or try and post process a sports shot.

And by the way, I worked in Public Affairs for the US Army, and let me tell you that editing of images in any media organization is strictly prohibited. This is true whether you shoot RAW or JPG.

As for your #3.... You should always check your settings before you start shooting. How do you accidentally shoot in B&W? If you are worried, do an image review on the camera's LCD after taking a picture or two.

I never said I accidentally shot in b&W, i said what if. Just recently on a shoot I did some shots with in-camera b&w turned on, but later decided I wanted them color, With Raw, it was a one-click adjustment to get color back. If I decided later with JPG I wanted color, I'd have been screwed.

For Color depth, I think JPEGs are 8 bit whereas RAW photos are 14 bit. None of my local printers take PSD, TIFF or CR2 files, JPG's only. If I were ordering from a pro-lab for a wedding or whatnot, they would more than likely take TIFF files (again I've never printed using TIFF files). But if you shoot RAW then convert to JPG, whats the difference in color depth then?

It's clear you've never worked with a professional print shop then. The shop I send my prints too only deals with pre-setup TIFF files, profiled for their printer....do you know what profiling is?

As for your second question, It's clear as well you don't understand proper work-flow processes. It's always better to start with More data, and end up with less, then to start with Less, and try to get more, which you never will. Every edit you make to an image destroys some ammount of data, especially when working with JPG's. It only makes sense to start with a 12 or 14 bit image, do what edits you can in 16Bit, then finally and ONLY convert to 8bit JPG when you are ready to finalize the image. CMYK or RGB depends on what your intended use is.

It is always better to get rid of data by converting to JPG when you're ready, then wishing you had that extra exposure lattitude, or bit depth, or detail that you would've had by a 14 bit RAW file, but instead you only went with the 8bit Lossy Jpg. Enjoy your blocks.

If you do mess up the exposure, I do understand that RAW files will be able to recover more data... but then for what I shoot its get it right the first time.

I'm not discrediting the use of RAW. I use it for portraits and other things where I know I will need the advantages that RAW offers. For photos that will end up on Facebook, basic sports prints and everyday life... JPG.

Use your head...obviously you're not going to use RAW shot for facebook, sports, or emailing to your mom. RAW is for when you CARE about the ouput, and want the best possible final image. Sports illustrated does not shoot RAW at the superbowl, but I guarentee you they shoot RAW when they do their swimsuit issue.

Nikon's can only shoot RAW files at 2.5FPS for some reason (at least the D300s) instead of 7FPS for JPGs. 14 bit has been out for at least 2.5 years, my 40D had it which came out in 08'

The ONLY nikon to ever shoot 2.5FPS RAW that I know of was the original D1...you must be looking at the JPG FPS rate of your P+S

[crazzy88ss]

And by the way, I worked in Public Affairs for the US Army, and let me tell you that editing of images in any media organization is strictly prohibited. This is true whether you shoot RAW or JPG.

Uhhh not true? Color corrections, curves/levels adjustments, brightness, contrast, exposure and things like that are all perfectly acceptable. It's not different than what you'd do in the dark room with film.

[Brandon]

Ok... no offense, but maybe the "move along noob" WAS necessary if you honestly think that Nikon cameras only shoot RAW files at 2.5FPS.... You are SEVERELY HORRIFICALLY HILARIOUSLY misinformed. Even my D90 shoots 4.5FPS RAW. The D300 shoots at 6 or 8 FPS RAW. The D300s shoots at 7 or 8 FPS RAW. The D200, which is 3 years old, shoots at 5FPS RAW. The D2 shoots at 8FPS RAW the D3 shoots at 9 or 11 FPS RAW. The D70, which is 5 years old, shoots at 3FPS RAW.

I think I'll stop there... hopefully you get the point...

My sports information department posts game info within half an hour of my games I give them all RAWs. *shrug* Every place is different.

Im right.

• With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up to 8 fps

• 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page2.asp

I'm just basing my opinion on my experiences between the sports info department and the newspaper. Newsprint can't resolve enough detail or color for RAW to matter.

Also for the deteriorating of JPEG files, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lightroom doesnt touch the original file until output, unlike Photoshop.

I have to say, most of my experience and what I am relating to is sporting events or other campus activities. Obviously if I were professional shooting for more than $8 an hour I'd probably spend more time post processing the files.

[MR_Candyman]

Im right.

? With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up to 8 fps

? 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page2.asp

yes you're right about that. I haven't been arguing with you, but really why not just shoot 12 bit raw? I don't buy that whole "need to send off quickly" thing. You can do it just as quickly with raw and batch converting. Loads of people who do sports photography use filters and batch filter a set of photos and convert to jpeg. It doesn't take long at all and you will end up with much better results

[SirEvan]

Uhhh not true? Color corrections, curves/levels adjustments, brightness, contrast, exposure and things like that are all perfectly acceptable. It's not different than what you'd do in the dark room with film.

I was refering to regular edits, such as retouches... levels/curves/etc aren't really edits and more than adjusting shutter speed or white balance pre-shot would be considered an edit.

yes you're right about that. I haven't been arguing with you, but really why not just shoot 12 bit raw? I don't buy that whole "need to send off quickly" thing. You can do it just as quickly with raw and batch converting. Loads of people who do sports photography use filters and batch filter a set of photos and convert to jpeg. It doesn't take long at all and you will end up with much better results

If youre shooting 14 bit for sports, clubs, friends, your dog...whatever, you're an idiot...you don't need the extra 2 bits for that...stick to 12...14 should only be studio work

taking pictures requires a little brain activity.

If you are just going to batch to jpg, shoot in 12, or in JPG

if you're going to print, shoot with as much detail and worry about resizing later down the line.

[crazzy88ss]

Im right.

? With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up to 8 fps

? 12-bit RAW at full speed, 14-bit RAW only 2.5 fps

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page2.asp

I'm just basing my opinion on my experiences between the sports info department and the newspaper. Newsprint can't resolve enough detail or color for RAW to matter.

Also for the deteriorating of JPEG files, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lightroom doesnt touch the original file until output, unlike Photoshop.

I have to say, most of my experience and what I am relating to is sporting events or other campus activities. Obviously if I were professional shooting for more than $8 an hour I'd probably spend more time post processing the files.

uhh... seriously? Then shoot 12 bit? It's not that hard to figure out lol

I was refering to regular edits, such as retouches... levels/curves/etc aren't really edits and more than adjusting shutter speed or white balance pre-shot would be considered an edit.

gotcha

Maybe we should rename this thread or break it off to "why shoot raw?

[HawkMan]

Now that you've said you use lightroom... there's seriusly NO reason not to use RAW anyway, since your workflow will be the same with raw and Jpeg there so you'll have the same time between import to export.

[crazzy88ss]

Actually import takes longer cuz RAW files are larger. How much longer? Not really. Maybe an extra 60 seconds for every 4gb of photos.

[Brandon]

Now that you've said you use lightroom... there's seriusly NO reason not to use RAW anyway, since your workflow will be the same with raw and Jpeg there so you'll have the same time between import to export.

Space is one issue. RAW files for me are around 30MB each.

Second issue as I personally said is that our sports media just wants dumps of photos, so I don't have time to do lightroom and export to JPEGS

Again, this is my personal workflow.

[crazzy88ss]

My 12MP RAW files are only ~15MB. However, I have been considering switching to JPG for my outdoor sports photos just to save space.