Settings lossless uncompressed or compressed

[cindygillespie]

<p>Can someone please explain to me the difference of this?<br>

I shoot raw... and have Lightroom and PSE...<br>

What should I set the camera to? 12 or 14bit? Lossless compressed raw or compressed raw?</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I shoot 12 bit RAW and loss-less compressed. The cameras I use have a substantial hit in performance when shooting 14 bit. And having done some side by side tests for my use there was no noticeable difference in print quality.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Which camera do you have?</p>

<p>My philosophy is that I try to capture and retain as much information as possible. Therefore, I prefer to use lossless compressed and 14 bit, and that is my setting on my D700. However, my experience is that the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit capture is very small; at least I have a hard time telling the difference. The same is true for lossless and lossey RAW compression. Nikon trys to compress the highlight area that is difficult for humans to descern any difference. That is also my setting when I use the D3 and D3S.</p>

<p>However, on the D300 and D300S, they can capture 6 to 8 frames/sec in the 12-bit mode only. In the 14-bit mode, the maximum frame rate drops to 2.5 frames/sec. Therefore, on my D300, I set it to 12 bit and lossless compressed. This is also true for the D3X.</p>

<p>On my D7000, there is little difference between 12-bit and 14-bit capture; it can do either at 6 frames/sec. However, the D7000 is considerably slower saving those larger lossless compressed RAW files. File size is reduced by about 50% in the lossy compressed mode, and the D7000 can save one file to SD cards in 1 second instead of 2 seconds for lossless compressed. Therefore, on the D7000, I use 14 bit and lossy compressed. If I use lossless compressed on the D7000, I can fill the buffer very easily and will endure periods that I cannot shoot.</p>

<p>Your preference may vary; that is why Nikon provides all of thsoe options for you to choose. My way is merley my way; your way may well be different.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>14-bit files are larger and take longer to write to the memory and storage in your camera, but they contain somewhat more data, and will give you more latitude in post production. If you're not in tricky light, and have the need for a higher frame rate, 12-bit files will still do you nicely.<br /><br />Compressed files take up less space on your card and on whatever disk drives you dump them to ... but something has to give. Some detail is being thrown out while using lossy compression in order to make those files smaller. Generally, you won't see much of a difference. But you <em>can</em> see it on some files. With memory cards and disk drives now officially Stupidly Inexpensive, I can't see too much reason to risk losing details with lossy compression. But I can see reasons to choose 12-bit over 14-bit.<br /><br />I was out shooting working dogs in the field yesterday. Most of the time, I was in 12-bit RAW mode (always no-loss mode!) so that I could get high frame rates while shooting action. But for a few brief stretches I was shooting something you'd think of more as portraiture. I switched over to 14-bit for that. Didn't need the extra speed, but wanted to be able to have maximum options with those images after the fact.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If you don't need the FPS, have enough buffer and CPU power, why not shoot 14bit? But 99% of the time, it won't matter much, if at all. Some pros even shoot just jpegs...</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Shun and Matt.......<br>

Thank you once again ! I am trying to set up the D700... having a hard time waiting to play with it (I really wanted to wait until my grip and strap arrive tomorrow). I like the WOW factor of it all together before I really play...haha<br>

Leslie... there are times that I set it to raw and jpeg. Some portraits it's just not worth the extra work to do them raw when Mom and Dad only want at tops a 5x7. I have at times edited just a jpeg. But even shooting raw with lightroom or PSE my total edit skin and all is down to about 2 minutes or less a image and they can all go 100%. I am a horrible pixel peeper.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Yeah, do what you feel best. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just as an example of my thought process. One dog I was working with yesterday was almost entirely white, and running in and out of a shaded tree line and a sunny field. Maddening! But as I was shooting, I realized that in this particular case, the dog's handler was going to be more interested in showing off the Setter's athleticism. <br /><br />So, that means fast bursts while shooting a running dog (to get the gate and leg position just ... <em>so</em>). And that meant that for that part of the work, I was definitely in 12-bit mode to allow for maximum frame rate and buffer flushing. 14-bit files would have been nice, to help preserve more details in the dog's white coat as it when dashing into sunny areas, but it was more important to be able to sustain high frame rates. It's always a trade-off.</p><div></div>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Matt..<br>

May have been a bother.. but as ALWAYS a wonderful image ! Well worth the frustration I am sure.<br>

Thank you all once again !</p>

<p>If there are any other tips on setting up the 700 please, please feel free to fill me in. </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>On the D700, I would highly recommend shooting 14-bit and lossless compressed RAW, and perhaps RAW + JPEG. Memory cards are cheap in these days. I prefer to have the RAW file around; if you don't need it 95% of the time, it is easy to delete them afterwards.</p>

<p>Again, I try to retain as much information as possible at the time I press the shutter release. It is easy to delete whatever I don't need later on. If you choose to throw away data at the time of capture, you will never get them back.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Michael B - Thank you for your comment, but let me make a suggestion: Think about the huge range in different types of photography and in different types and ages of cameras before offering a anecdote which might only apply to your specific circumstances, but yet you don't even state the type of photography you do. </p>

<p>For example, given the info contained in her first post, the OP could very well be a landscape photographer using a modern camera. In such a case, she wouldn't give a hoot if going from 12 bit to 14 bit NEFs caused her "performance" (ie, maximum frames per second) to drop from, say, 6 per second to 4 per second. OTOH, the most important thing to her would likely be to keep the image quality as high as possible and have the maximum flexibility to use lots of heavy post processing to tease out subtle nuances in color and tonality, and hence, she would derive a major benefit from using 14 bit uncompressed files.</p>

<p>In contrast, for all we know, your recommendation could have been based on your own (hypothetically limited) experience as a local news photographer who shoots local sports using a slightly older model camera that has a slower processor. You know that your pix are going to wind up being printed by a low quality press at most a couple of inches in size, but you also know that if you miss a sports shot and the competitor gets it, you may be out of a job. You don't do any postprocessing at a game, you just put your card in your laptop, quickly cull the rejects, and send everything else to your editor. In the above hypothetical case, to maximize the number of frames per second, and size of the large number of files to be uploaded, you and your editor would probably be happy with 2000pixel JPGs just to be sure your frame rate and data transmission rates are maximized.</p>

<p>I know your comment was made with the best of intentions, so please don't take this as unnecessary harshness, but the bottom line is that comments such as yours are essentially useless unless they come with info about your own shooting needs and whether they match up with the needs of the OP.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Tom<br>

I based my comment on my experience of making my living for the last 15 years as a photographer and on the lack of information given in the OP.<br>

I shoot sports to pay my bills and use D300 and D300s cameras. being a fairly modern design they still take a hit when switched to 14bit mode as does the D700 that the OP mentioned using in a later post.<br>

I sell everything from web sized for facebook usage to 20X30 mounted prints and have yet to have anyone complain that I am only shooting 12 bit RAW. And you know the magazines that use my work don't really care about how the image was captured. They just want to be sure that there is enough resolution for the cover.<br>

With the kind of work I do (Nationally and internationally ranked Dressage competitions) I have to deal with high contrast subjects and very contrastie lighting.Having an eye for composition, conformation as well as having exquisite timing are requirements for being able to survive in this business.<br>

And you are right I do not do any post-processing at the shows. There isn't time I start shooting at 8:00am and stop shooting after the last horse has left the ring. Editing is done at home on a I7 computer with 16Gb of RAM. You need the speed when you are batch processing 50 to 100 images at a time.<br>

I try to not jump to conclusions about the quality of someones work when I have not seen it<br>

And I take your comment not so much as being harsh but as being pompous</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Michael - From your comment about "performance" (ie, frames per second), I guessed that you shot sports, and I was correct. From the photos posted in the OP's gallery, it appears she has no interest in sport photography.</p>

<p>Hence, I stand by my comment about your implicit recommendation that the "substantial hit in performance" should be an important consideration for her. Frames per second appears to be completely irrelevant to her type of shooting, hence it shouldn't constrain the choice of bit depth, compressed or uncompressed RAW files, etc.</p>

<p>OTOH, your latter comment that you see no difference in IQ between the different bit depths, compression, etc. is indeed relevant to her. A discussion of FPS-related issues just muddies the waters. That's all I was trying to get across.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot sports to pay my bills and use D300 and D300s cameras. being a fairly modern design they still take a hit when switched to 14bit mode as does the D700 that the OP mentioned using in a later post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, as soon as I read your earlier post, I realized that you were referring to the D300 and/or D300S, as they drop to 2.5 frames/sec in the 14-bit mode. (The D3X has the same issue, but I didn't think you had a D3X.)</p>

<p>However, the D700 has no such issue at all. The D700 is based on the D3's electronics. The D3 and D3S can capture at their max 9 frames/sec under either 12-bit or 14-bit mode as I mentioned ealrier. The D700 maxes out at 5 frames/sec native and 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 grip and appropriate batteries, both in 12 or 14-bit mode. Therefore, the OP has no such concerns at all with her D700. That is why I suggest sticking with the 14-bit mode and lossless compressed RAW on the D700. Please re-read my earlier post at 1:21pm.</p>

<p>Recall that the first question I asked was which camera model we were talking about.</p>

<p>P.S. Based on my discussion with Nikon, both the D4 and D800 can achieve their max frame rate in the 14-bit mode, but obviously I haven't tested those cameras yet. Hopefully the frame rate drop in 14-bit mode is now a thing of the past.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Unless you're shooting sports or are a paparazzi snapper you'll hardly notice the difference in speed shooting 12 or 14 bit RAW, and unless for some reason you <em>really</em> need to conserve card space the saving between lossy and lossless is hardly worth bothering about. So if quality is important to you, go with the absolute best your camera can give you, which is 14 bit & lossless compression. It seems a waste to do otherwise to me. The bit depth will affect the available dynamic range of the camera, so if you're shooting HDR or sometimes want to squeeze the last ounce of shadow detail from your pictures, then the use of 14 bits is a no-brainer.</p>

<p>I routinely shoot 14 bit RAW lossless compressed + JPEG files, and very rarely notice any slowing down of the camera (D700). I also get more than enough shots on 8 or 16 Gigabyte cards. As someone else mentioned, card space is ludricrously cheap and if you fill a card up it's the work of seconds to change it. It's also the work of seconds to change the camera's file format BTW, so if the need arises you can quickly switch between RAW + JPEG and JPEG only. It's not like you can't mix and match on the fly, so I don't know why people are so strongly arguing about <em>either/or </em>as if you had to sign up to one format for life.</p>