| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
File Size & Newspaper workflows
Mike Morones, Photographer
 |
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 7:44 AM on 06.27.06 |
->> Hello everybody,
I thought I'd put out this survey question:
For those of you who shoot predominantly for newspapers, what file size settings are you using on your cameras?
Do you shoot RAW files or jpegs of varying sizes? Since you are printing predominantly on newsprint or online, is it really necessary to shoot RAW, or even L jpegs?
For me, in studio and portrait situations or really weird lighting situations I'll shoot RAW. For most other times I'll shoot JPG at either L or M.
I guess I'm worried that by dialing back on file size to conserve card space as well as drivespace on my laptop, how much image quality am I sacrificing?
Thanks in advance! |
|
Dan Powers, Photographer
|
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 8:17 AM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> I shoot for a daily and shoot jpgs. My cameras are set for the largest file size possible...camera is on L and the jpeg compression is on 10...Dan. |
|
David Lucas, Photographer
|
Clint Austin, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 9:16 AM on 06.27.06 |
->> I work for a daily newspaper, and I second Dan. I shoot JPGs with the lowest compression possible. Canon files on L with compression set on 10.
You never know when you are going to get a gem, and what a shame it would be to shoot it on M with the compression set at 5.
You can always size the image down to fit the newspaper layout.
Just my 2 cents.
Clint |
|
Pete Souza, Photographer
|
Arlington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:16 AM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> I certainly echo the sentiment to shoot RAW. Yes, jpegs are "good enough" for newsprint, but I find especially for making large prints that RAW files are a huge advantage. |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 9:41 AM on 06.27.06 |
->> Thanks for all the info guys.
I guess one of my main concerns was covering something like a sporting event where you may be shooting a lot more files than you would on a feature. But you are right, David, it is sort of galling to know that you are losing information.
I guess if we have the capability to record that much data, we might as well do so. Thanks again! |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Belvidere | IL | USA | Posted: 10:00 AM on 06.27.06 |
->> David and Pete,
I understand very well that "You are sacrificing a HUGE amount of image quality when you shoot jpeg", but I also know that you are losing a HUGE amount of quality when you go from an original file (RAW or jpg) to a downsized version to CMYK to newsprint.
So, I guess my question is: Do you actually see those huge advantages come to fruition in newsprint? In my experience those advantages get less huge during each stage of the journey onto newsprint.
On the other hand, I can speculate that:
* The wider dynamic range of RAW will be apparent on the final newsprint version (especially in shadows), and
* Starting with 16-bit color will give you a wider gamut to start with, and there will be fewer funky color shifts when coverting to CMYK.
We are using ancient computers with USB 1.0 connections, Photoshop 6 and 7, no Photo Mechanic, etc. etc. so RAW is not a viable option for us, especially for big events that require hundreds of photos. However the higher-ups have promised new computers by the end of the year (although they don't say *which* year LOL) so if RAW is really the way to go, I want to get started with it as soon as possible.
Many thanks,
Curtis |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
|
Longmont | CO | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> I always shoot in RAW. I don't do it because it will look better on newsprint but because it's a noncompressed file that retains maximum quality. Just because it's good enough for the paper does mean that your image is good enough for a magazine that wants to pick it up or a stock agency or a commercial client, or your folio. That's all extra money and ways to broaden your client base. Even if you are staff, it's a smart thing to do. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> I shoot for a daily and I shoot everything in RAW. It really doesn't take any extra time to tone them and I like the flexibility I get with a RAW file. It's easier to size something down than it is to size something up. |
|
nick lovejoy, Photographer
|
hollister | CA | united states | Posted: 5:51 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> I shoot for a daily and have always shot jpeg. Never really thought about changing it, but i thought i would give it a shot. I set my camera to raw took a shot, but my computer couldn't open it. It shot it as a NEF file that my photoshop couldn't open. Any suggestions? |
|
Mario Ruiz, Photographer
|
Orem | UT | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> Nick,
what version of PS are you using? If you have version 7 you're going to have to have an aftermarket RAW processor. If you have CS or CS2 you need to download the latest version of the Adobe Camera RAW plugin and install it in PS. |
|
nick lovejoy, Photographer
|
hollister | CA | united states | Posted: 7:07 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> Thank you Mario |
|
Matthew Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 7:12 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> While at SSA II Ron from Nikon was very enthusiastic about RAWs future possibilities. The reason being that as computers get faster and software gets smarter, future version of say Nikon Capture will be able to reprocess the RAW data from older cameras like a D1 or D1h. This reprocessing will greatly improve the final output quality. As an example, he said Nikon engineers have been able to reprocess the DX rectangular pixels in earlier models into square pixels and gain more resolution. It simpler terms they extracted more detail. If you shoot in JPEG this ability is lost forever. I personally have always had a bug about shooting in RAW. I've never understood taking a super expensive DSLR and shooting it in a mode that throws out a large percentage of waht is captured. If you are working on a Pentium II computer with PS 5 I can understand wanting to shoot in JPEG, but there is a huge benefit to being able to record all the information. |
|
Kevin Kreck, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 9:14 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> Where are you guys storing all these images? We've got 8 shooters, 3 or 4 on a day, 2 or three assignments each a day, anywhere up to 1,000 images an assignment, at 12 megs (or whatever) per image, that's alot of space. I've loved shooting RAW (read: saves my butt alot), but storage is prohibitive. I would like to go to RAW, so thanks for any storage ideas. |
|
Lyle Aspinall, Photographer
|
St. Albert | AB | Canada | Posted: 10:00 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> Having only vaguely experimented with Raw in the past, and inspired by this thread, I did my own quick test to see the difference between Raw and JPEG. The difference was incredible. Here are the results: http://homepage.mac.com/lyleaspinall/PhotoAlbum96.html
I may convert to the 'Raw Side' soon. |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 10:03 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> chalk me up on the L-jpeg's column. i've shot RAW before but never stuck with it. i guess i'm too stingy with my card space like some of the others here.
marc |
|
Wes Hope, Photographer
|
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:13 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> RAW all the way baby!
Kevin, no offense meant, but you and your crew need to shoot less (or edit tighter)!! 1,000 images per assignment?!? Yeah it's great that we're not limited to 37 frames any more with film, but seriously, there's no need for bulk shooting. What's the thinking, that if you motor through the assignment, you won't miss anything? Less is more. Slap your motor over to single shot and shoot RAW for a day. Seek your moments. You'll be glad you did. There's just no need for a staff to shoot that much.
(Of course my comments are null and void if you shoot 100% sports.)
Nikon .NEF, Nikon View and Nikon Capture. I've said it before, but that's the workflow that works great for me. I burn a full DVD every 2 weeks or so. Full time staffer shooting anywhere from 0-6 assignments a day, 5 days a week.
RAW... you'll love it. |
|
Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> Mike
We have shot all raw since October 2001. I think the biggest benefit is the ability to change the color balance before getting the picture to Photoshop, especially in flickering light for available light sports such as hockey. I also find you can work the file harder in Photoshop to save shadow detail for printing on newsprint if you work on the file in 16 bit mode. We still only have D1H bodies so each file is only 4 Mb per image, not so much of a storage problem. Storage is more of an issue with my own Mark II. |
|
Kevin Kreck, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 10:31 PM on 06.27.06 |
| ->> None taken. I didn't mean 1000 per assignment (I did say up to), I was talking sports for the 1,000. But looking beyond the 15 or 20 shot portrait, most events, even trying for the three or four moments for the layout, run into the 100s. Where are you putting all those DVD's? How many staffers have you got? We've got drawers of them as is with jpgs. Finding old shoots isn't too bad if you have the dates, and if they were archived in the correct month. And there's the scary question of what happens, jpgs or raw, when DVDs go the way of Syquest discs or whichever old style you want to pick. |
|
Wes Hope, Photographer
|
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 06.27.06 |
->> I am up to disc 202. Most of that is CD format and the last 15 or so DVD. We're a staff of 2 fool-timers (yeah, I know I misspelled it) and 2 part-timers. Each staffer has a different way of storage and archiving which bites us in the butt occasionally.
Personally, I keep all my discs in envelopes and then in cardboard boxes designed for CDs. They then are kept in my desk and brought out whenever someone needs a needle in the haystack. I keep track of everything the poor man's way... I made a Word file a couple of years ago and update it with disc numbers, dates, and keywords of each assignment. If I'm looking for something in particular, I "ctrl+F" (search), type in the keyword, and it highlights every place (read: disc and date) that keyword appears. 15 minutes later I can turn in the photo of the county budget meeting from August 14, 2003 the reporter is looking for.
We're a small paper with little to no budget. They'll pay for blank discs, but not external hard drives. So if everything disappears someday (as the apocalyptic disc fanatics will have us all believe), it ain't my fault. But I do make an extra copy of the disc to be kept at home and a spare ext. HD to keep my favorites/historic images.
Glad to hear your folks aren't just hammering through every assignment at 8 frames a second. I mean, I've known guys that did that, but it's usually to compensate for their lack of ability to get a decent shot otherwise. And from what I've seen of the Gazette, I knew that couldn't be the case. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 8:38 PM on 12.30.06 |
->> I thought I would resurrect this thread as it almost answers some questions we have at the Sun, namely, how do different papers store outtakes?
We are getting a couple terabytes of external HD's to collectively store our outtakes (rather than individually burning to CD's, DVD's and our personal external HD's) and I wanted to get some feedback on how other papers archive their outtakes. If you do have a setup using HD's, how it it set up as far as the database management, access, etc...
Your help will be appreciated (seriously, it will - if I don't come to the meeting on Wednesday without some research on this I'll be relegated to shooting exclusively for our business weekly for a month).
Sam |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 11:55 PM on 01.01.07 |
| ->> *Bump* Any answers for me, newspaper shooters? |
|
Kirk Mastin, Photographer
|
Coeur D'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 4:07 AM on 01.02.07 |
->> This is my workflow:
I shoot RAW + Medium Jpeg.
That way you have the master RAW file when you need to make something really shine for your portfolio or for stock, a gallery etc. By making a Medium Jpeg at the same time, you have a small, mostly processed file, ready to go at a moment's notice. Newspaper printing is so bad anyways, what's the point of starting from a RAW file? Also you can keep the Jpegs at the office and store the RAW on your laptop to take home to your main computer.
If the paper needs a photo that was exposed poorly (which shouldn't happen if you understand BDE and especailly with the ability to check the histogram on your camera) you can go back to the RAW file and usually adjust about +/- 2 stops of exposure latitude to get a usable image for print.
That is my workflow. BTW I do almost EVERYTHING in Lightroom. That way it doesn't matter what file type I'm starting from, the workflow is the same.
Lightroom is the future. The future is now. Actually Video is the future...whole different story though...
:) |
|
Mark Stewart, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | Australia | Posted: 7:23 AM on 01.02.07 |
->> For the paper, large Jpegs. Generally the lowest compression available on the camera, though on occasion for a sports event that will involve heavy shooting I might knock the compression setting down to 7. This results in considerably smaller files for a very minimal loss in quality.
Occasionally for personal work I'll shoot raw, but it's overkill for the vast majority of press work.
Sam, to answer your question - the original files from a photographers loose edit of every job are burned to multiple copies of DVD's and a copy of each DVD is stored at each of our offices. |
|
Andrew Sullivan, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Kissimmee | FL | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 01.02.07 |
->> Sam,
I have put this to the attention of my higher-ups recently and have come to the conclusion that HD storage doesn't fit a network running multiple operating systems and the complete mixed bag of software we run around here. Just a compatibility issue. You should definitely consider some form of redundancy in your storage (like a RAID array) as a safeguard if there is to be no hard copy of your images though...
Andrew Sullivan
www.picandrew.com |
|
Patrick Smith, Student/Intern, Photo Editor
|
Forest Hill | MD | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 01.02.07 |
->> Sam,
I shoot for a fairly large college paper. All our machines are networked and everything is on one large server. Last time I checked we have stuff from 2004 still backed up on it.
Every month or so I'll go through and back-up our editorial pictures (not originals) on DVDs just to be safe. Every once in a while we will dump some stuff on a certain machines HD, but that is normally if we are pressed for space on the server (aka lots of photo assignments downloading, production taking place.)
As far as shooting, I shoot the JPEG. I shoot way too many assignments myself to be dealing with larger RAW files, plus JPEGs save room on the server. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|