Tamma,
Just a few more tips from someone whos 'been there, done that' thousands of times.
You mentioned saving TIFFs or JPEGs as your final. ALWAYS use TIFF or even PSD, never JPEG, as each editing session with JPEG can result in data loss.
As you progress in your shooting endeavor, you will find that you won't take as many shots and that you will paying more attention to composition, lighting, exposure, etc. At least you should be.
This is probably the number one mistake that new people make when getting into digital. They take a pile of images, and they are usually at a lower resolution because they don't have enough card space. Then later on, they are sad because that low rez shot won't print a decent 8x10.
I shoot a great majority of styles including children and families, model and pageant portfolios, products, outdoor scenery, sports, and wildlife. I shoot RAW for everything including the sports. I have several large cards but I have a digital wallet that hangs at my side for immediate transfer. My C1 RAW workflow is just as fast as a JPEG based workflow.
Instead of worrying too much about RAW or JPEG at this point, get to know your equipment better and learn basic lighting, composition and how your camera handles white balance and exposure. Without these basics, you end up wasting a lot of shots or trying to fix them in PS or Elements.
HTH,
VG
Tamma wrote:
> jbf,
>
> Thanks very much. I think I finally do understand with the help of
> this forum. Now, I am on the fence about what to do. I think for
> optimum results, I will shoot RAW, make some corrections in a
> program like Capture 1 then either stop there or if I need to do
> more editing in PSE, I will convert into a TIFF ("lossless") in C1,
> do the post processing in PSE, then finally save as a TIFF (or
> JPEG). I find that I do some postprocessing on most shots.
>
> The big question, of course is one you raised - is it worth the
> hassle and increased file space for every one of the hundreds of
> shots I take? Sure I get some great shots occasionally - and for
> those I would love to maintain the highest "lossless" quality - but
> for every one like that there are many others that are nice, but
> will stay at 4x6 and go into the album, not get blown up and
> framed. I think I'll do the C1 trial and see whether the results
> justify the increased cost, time and storage space.
>
> Thanks for the AEB suggestion. I have not had too much trouble
> with exposure so haven't tried it but I will.
>
> jbf wrote:
> > Tamma,
> >
> > I am not an expert, but here are my thoughts. From your posts it
> > sounds like you understand the RAW vs. jpeg issue pretty well. The
> > computer software is better and more flexible than in-camera
> > processing but requires more effort and storage space. If you
> > upgrade your software at a later date, you can go back and work on
> > your 'digital negatives' with the improved software if you shot in
> > RAW.
> >
> > I use jpeg if I'm going to shoot a lot of snapshot type pictures.
> > From tests I've seen, the DReb resolution is remarkably good even
> > for a medium jpeg. As an amature, I find that in situations where
> > I don't have time to set up the shot, the ability to shoot a lot of
> > pictures can outweigh the benefits of RAW when looking at the
> > overall quality of the results. If you are a very good
> > photographer, taking four times as many pictures will only slow you
> > down (I'm guessing). The pros don't take full advantage of the
> > 'delete elbow shot' phase of post-processing. ;)
> >
> > In situations where the exposure is difficult, RAW provides an
> > advantage by better being able to capture the detail in the light
> > and dark areas. If you are shooting jpeg in conditions where the
> > light varies greatly, try turning on auto-exposure bracketing (AEB)
> > and setting the bracketing steps to around +/- 2/3 stop. Hold down
> > the shutter button and let the camera fire off three shots. You
> > will get three different exposures of the same scene and will be
> > less likely to have to deal with a poor exposure.
> >
> > If you want to get fancy, you can combine exposures in post
> > processing to increase the dynamic range of the image. Even if the
> > subject moves, you can combine a darker sky with a lighter subject,
> > for example. Combining exposures is a safety option and requires
> > more work than processing RAW photos. As a side note, I tend to
> > get better results on the DReb by bracketing for a slightly darker
> > exposure.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > jbf
>