[jsherman999]

A quick math : 1TB= 1024 x1024 = 1048576MB , Say 1 RAW file is 18 MB

1048576 / 18 = 58000 RAW files in a disk

Want more secure system? get a 160 USD RAID system with two disks.
150+150+160= 460 USD



No need to do that, SyncToy does all that for you for free, cleans up just directories in back up hard disk, as you whatever did in your computer. Just put the image files under one (or few) directories and back up them to your external hard disk with one click.

.



I can do the math quite well - my point is this: why would you save all those raw files? Do you really intend to go through them - or even a fraction of them - and tweak them in PP to get an extra 5% IQ? 5% invisible outside of pixel peeping?

I'm saying I've come to the conclusion that, no, I'm not going to be doing that, and I don't have to do that, now that jpeg engines are so good. (and jpegs themselves are quite tweakable too - it's a fallacy that they're not.)

Like I said - 10% of the time, I shoot raw, when I really need to. The rest of the time it's unnecessary. That 'raw' button is ingenious!

.

[netuser]

.
...............
I'm saying I've come to the conclusion that, no, I'm not going to be doing that, and I don't have to do that, now that jpeg engines are so good. (and jpegs themselves are quite tweakable too - it's a fallacy that they're not.)

Like I said - 10% of the time, I shoot raw, when I really need to. The rest of the time it's unnecessary. That 'raw' button is ingenious!

.

You have a point there. Only problem is that not all cameras have good jpeg engines.

[jsherman999]

You have a point there. Only problem is that not all cameras have good jpeg engines.

.


Which brings us back to the OP's original point - the K-7's is! (and so is the K20D's and Nikon D90's, I'd maintain.)


.

[knoxploration]

.



I can do the math quite well - my point is this: why would you save all those raw files? Do you really intend to go through them - or even a fraction of them - and tweak them in PP to get an extra 5% IQ? 5% invisible outside of pixel peeping?

Depends what the fix is. Highlights saved in Raw processing can be very easily noticeable even in small prints.

Shoot JPEG, and you lose the potential benefits of Raw. Shoot Raw, you can process the Raw files straight to JPEG and discard the Raws for 95% of your photos if you don't care about ultimate quality, and still have the Raw available to fix the other 5%.

[cbaytan]

.
I can do the math quite well - my point is this: why would you save all those raw files? Do you really intend to go through them - or even a fraction of them - and tweak them in PP to get an extra 5% IQ? 5% invisible outside of pixel peeping?
.

Because:
1- Jpeg is a lossy compression algorithm/method, you loose data with jpeg compression - by description. 8 bit vs 12 bit. Period.
Photo.net - Jpeg Compression by Gordon Richardson
JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
[1] What is JPEG?

2-Yes I do intend to through them in the future, RAW files are my archive-my accumulated work of my life. I don't want any of image files I've taken has any missing data with any compression method like jpegs. If I find any image is not archival, I delete them.

3- BTW I am a member of a local photographical arts association. So I intend/wish to take fine art photos.

4- Do I shoot jpegs only? Yes in fun, family or friends pictures I shoot jpeg, or I delete RAW's. They don't/won't need PP much.

[jsherman999]

Because:
1- Jpeg is a lossy compression method, you loose data with jpeg compression - by description. 8 bit vs 12 bit. Period.
Photo.net - Jpeg Compression by Gordon Richardson
JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
[1] What is JPEG?

Yes, yes, yes, this 'lossy' point is made every time this discussion comes up - problem with that argument is that the 'loss' is going to be barely noticeable outside of pixel-peeping almost all of the time - it's a theoretical difference, effectively, in situations where you don't care about highlight/shadow overhead.

2-Yes I do intend to through them in the future, RAW files are my archive-my accumulated work of my life. I don't want any of image files I've taken has any missing data with any compression method like jpegs. If I find any image is not archival, I delete them.

3- BTW I am a member of a local photographical arts association. So I intend/wish to take fine art photos.

Well, for you then, raw-everything-only makes more sense - but most people are not looking to maintain a huge archive of fine-arts photos.

I know what your argument is - believe me, I used to feel the same way - but I've gone the other way now. My time is incredibly important to me, and I want to take advantage of the impressive advances in in-camera processing that's taken place the last couple years.

In 90% of my shooting, my raw workflow (which can be intense when I'm recovering shadows/highlights or something like that) doesn't end up giving me any better results than the straight jpegs - and I know what I'm doing in PP.

The other 10% of the time, it does - but I'm just not going to fashion my entire workflow and swallow the time/throughput/maintenance overhead just to cater to that 10% of images.

[cbaytan]

Yes, yes, yes, this 'lossy' point is made every time this discussion comes up - problem with that argument is that the 'loss' is going to be barely noticeable outside of pixel-peeping almost all of the time - it's a theoretical difference, effectively, in situations where you don't care about highlight/shadow overhead.

I know what your argument is - believe me, I used to feel the same way - but I've gone the other way now. My time is incredibly important to me, and I want to take advantage of the impressive advances in in-camera processing that's taken place the last couple years.

In 90% of my shooting, my raw workflow (which can be intense when I'm recovering shadows/highlights or something like that) doesn't end up giving me any better results than the straight jpegs - and I know what I'm doing in PP.

The other 10% of the time, it does - but I'm just not going to fashion my entire workflow and swallow the time/throughput/maintenance overhead just to cater to that 10% of images.

Well than, for the sake of the keeping people informed or not to mislead anyone, we should/could both say again, with jpeg compression you loose data for sure, but you save time with jpegs, and jpegs are not much intended for heavy post processing which is nothing I can say about that.

I guess we agree with above claims now.

[snofox]

For what it's worth, I have come to the same conclusion as the OP and jsherman999 just this week. I have always shot RAW with the K200D, and up until this week, with my K20D. I tried RAW+ for the first time on the K20D and I was startled by how beautiful the jpegs were. Even those that I overexposed were easily adjustable in Picasa 3.

From now on, with the K20D, I am shooting jpeg as a matter of course. For those rare occasions where I want some insurance, I will hit the RAW button and shoot RAW+ for one shot. Otherwise, I am going to trust this excellent camera. It ain't a K7, but it's superb nevertheless.

[cbaytan]

From now on, with the K20D, I am shooting jpeg as a matter of course. For those rare occasions where I want some insurance, I will hit the RAW button and shoot RAW+ for one shot. Otherwise, I am going to trust this excellent camera. It ain't a K7, but it's superb nevertheless.

There is a possibility that if you had the K-7 maybe you could prefer RAW's because people finds jpegs out of K-7 is not successful as K20D's, which obviously proves Pentax engineers preferred compression method is different than the K20D.

How about that?

[snofox]

There is a possibility that if you had the K-7 maybe you could prefer RAW's because people finds jpegs out of K-7 is not successful as K20D's, which obviously proves Pentax engineers preferred compression method is different than the K20D.

How about that?

Well, if that is true, then I am not in the market for a new Pentax camera for a loooooong time.

[cbaytan]

There is a possibility that if you had the K-7 maybe you could prefer RAW's because people finds jpegs out of K-7 is not successful as K20D's, which obviously proves Pentax engineers preferred compression method is different than the K20D.

How about that?

Well, if that is true, then I am not in the market for a new Pentax camera for a loooooong time.

But why? if it's true that just doesn't mean K-7 takes pictures inferior than K20D, it!s just a less aggressively implemented compression method you know.

[kittykat46]

Well, if that is true, then I am not in the market for a new Pentax camera for a loooooong time.

The K-7's JPEG output is Very Good, especially up to ISO800.
On top of that, White Balance, which USED to be a primary reason many shot RAW in the past, is better on the K-7 than just about any other camera I've tried - including Canons and Nikons.

For High ISO 1600 and beyond, you get better results in RAW - shooting in RAW gives you more leeway in Post-Processing , and just a light to moderate touch of NR usually cleans up the High-ISO shots nicely.

[knoxploration]

Yes, yes, yes, this 'lossy' point is made every time this discussion comes up - problem with that argument is that the 'loss' is going to be barely noticeable outside of pixel-peeping almost all of the time - it's a theoretical difference, effectively, in situations where you don't care about highlight/shadow overhead.

Depends how much processing you're doing to the photo. With light processing, it's a theoretical difference. With heavy processing, playing with curves, color balance, resampling etc., it can become a very significant difference.

In 90% of my shooting, my raw workflow (which can be intense when I'm recovering shadows/highlights or something like that) doesn't end up giving me any better results than the straight jpegs - and I know what I'm doing in PP.

If you don't get better results recovering shadows and highlights from Raw than you do from JPEG, then you've got something wrong in your workflow. What software are you using? I've seen some that has design flaws which prevent the benefits of Raw coming to fruition.

There is a possibility that if you had the K-7 maybe you could prefer RAW's because people finds jpegs out of K-7 is not successful as K20D's, which obviously proves Pentax engineers preferred compression method is different than the K20D.

How about that?

It's got little to do with compression. The difference between the K-7 and K20D JPEGs comes down to a balance between noise reduction and image detail. The K-7 by default applies less noise reduction processing, retains a bit more detail, but has a bit more luminance noise.

[Rondec]

I shoot in RAW and I guess my perspective is that if a photo isn't worth tweaking a little bit, it isn't worth keeping. It is amazing how applying a little bit of recovery, sharpening and vibrance in RAW can effect a photo. Cropping is just as easy in RAW as in jpeg. I am sure that if I had the K7 and had the option of using lens correction, etc. I might think again, but to me, the best situation would be that that info would be saved and would be useable by ACR.

[newmikey]

I just submitted an image to PPG which was eventually accepted. It was an image I took 3 years ago, shot on the K110D in RAW (PEF). Back then, it was interesting. As time went by, my skills in PP changed (for the better, one might hope) and I went back to the RAW file from 2006. The resulting image was totally different from the initial JPEG I generated 3 years ago.

It's not only the camera, guys: it is yourself and a time machine - allowing you to come back to the same image a few years down the line and, with the much-improved future software, have a second try.

That's why I shoot RAW+ with the K20D, not because the JPEGs are bad - they're not, they are more than excellent! The RAWs are my time machine and allow for exposure-blending/HDR techniques that the JPEGs will not.