mike_sea

After some minor keyboard rage..not really...I have done some digging into .DNG files. I felt it right to share some of what I have found in case there are some others who are reading this thread.

The reason the files are much smaller isn't because data is being stripped in terms of the pixels and information within the pixels. The "RAW" pixel data is not changed in any way but happy to be corrected.

My understanding is that each company has their own RAW format for the metadata on the images. It is all the same information however the format and order etc is different. Somehow in my case, this account for about 5Mb of data when my RAW images are converted to a .DNG file.

1. I will get into the book you suggest but being profoundly dyslexic (I can type the english word and apparently well but struggle to read - and very slowly and with difficulty comprehending) it will be a chore similar to pulling teeth. Its mainly through YouTube university that I have been able to deep dive into what .DNG actually is.

I am still on the hunt though.

2. This may be an option but a horrible workflow

3. For the newspapers, jpg is perfect however, for example, I am going to Antarctica again early next year and want every single piece of data I can get through the lens in digital format.

4. I just spent $15,000 on upgrading to the D5 (and three pro lenses) given the D5s isn't going to happen I had no choice. I still also shoot with a D3s which I love but that is my backup.

Thanks for all the help here and hope my few words can help someone else.

Mike

Hey All,

Despite the journey it seems it is all for zero. One of the main reasons for the purchase was because I couldn't get Nikon D5 RAW images open in CS5. I went through the who DNG converter but discovered my 23Mb images came out to 18 Mb. I just didn't like the idea of losing about 1/4 of my data...it can't be a good thing. Hence the journey to Lightroom that I believed would open my RAW files.

I bought Lr, installed Bridge (latest version) and did the appropriate updates etc. Bridge can clearly see the RAW images but still refuses to open the RAW files. Apparently, after putting my money down on the table and doing all the right things, I still don't have a "QUALIFYING PRODUCT" that will open RAW.

I am so confused at this point that I don't know if I an stupid, been conned by Adobe, they have done this to their long time clients before, and this is their was them softly extorting you into their subscription package or that I have missed some minor point. I carry around $20k worth of equipment, I assure you that I am not being a cheapskate by wanting a simple licence.

From happiness to frustration.

Is what I am asking for a bridge (pun intended too far)?

I have bitten the bullet so to speak, Lr is installed on both my main computers. Trying to import just a single folder will be a challenge because it seems to want to work to the beat of its own drum. with 352,926 images...I really don't want to troll through that huge pointer file every time I open it up.

It was the confidence offered and insights from here that got this sale for Adobe, not that they would even care.

I got some lightning today so am trying to get them in ...now to see how it handles D5 RAW images..

The adventure continues.

With help from some friends.

Thanks to all and I hope this helps others.

Mike

UNBELIEVABLE INFORMATION...MANY THANKS TO YOU ALL!!!!

I feel like a kid on his first assignment again, lots of enthusiasm and no idea what I am doing.

I have in the order of 300k images (I really don't actually know but in that neighborhood). I store them externally with live back up etc in a central HDD multiple bay using sync toy in a simple raid configuration. I can use two different computers to access these images if needed.

For current work however, I can be on either computer depending on the type of job it is. As a result, I often have images in two or three different places and during the back up process multiple duplicates before the client gets their work and I clear out the local computers files.

Does this mean:

1. I will have 300,000 error messages each time I log in when the back up system is not connected of switched on?

2. given the number of images will 2 x 300,000 images struggle with regards to running Lr?

3. If I go the Lr way, should I give up on my 2 decade workflow that has NEVER failed me?

4. Given the knowledge base here, is there anything else I should consider?

Thank again

Hi All,

I have been a long time Photoshop user and recently I have seen a couple of things in Lightroom that may have convinced me to finally get a copy.

One of my concerns is that I have a very long standing and robust filing system going back more than a decade with the only updates coming from new cameras in my stable. I have been told (possibly incorrectly) that Lightroom MUST take over my whole filing systems of images. Given the TerraBytes of images I have that would need to be catalogued this would be enourmus, I would like to stay with my old system and bring images or folders into LR for working on and saving them back with my system in place.

Is this a dream or do I have incorrect information in this regard?

Thanks in Advance

Mike

<p>Wow,<br>

We are passionate about our cards.<br>

I have both ends of the boot. At home I have what I tested...at work (photojournalist) I have "the system" to contend with. There, no matter how fast my cards are, the slowest common denominator is saving to the network...which is my ONLY option...AND it can be even slower if we are on deadline and lots of throughput (not bandwidth - this is the wrong term) is lagging the system.<br>

To give you an idea, the other day, I shot 1.2GB. It took 55 minutes to upload those images. At my home office, I can hardly go to the bathroom to transfer that data.</p>

<p>I am interested in testing the buffer speed though...RAW images on a d3s could be interesting...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Shooters,<br>

ADMIN NOTE: Please move this posting if a better place exists...this looked the best fit.<br>

Firstly, this is not aimed at being a definitive test to determine what card to buy. It was simply me comparing a Sandisk card v a newer faster Lexar card. There are a number of faults in the testing procedure, (not the least being comparing apples with oranges) but designed to give some readers something to think about...nothing more.<br>

<br />NOTE that speeds expected were in line with expectations however, there were a couple of LARGE surprises.<br>

Computer: Asus G74S<br>

Card reader: Lexar USB 3.0 (25 card reader)<br>

Cards<br>

Sandisk UDMA - 60MB/s (8GB)<br>

Lexar UDMA 7 - 1000x (16GB)<br>

Data transferred - 411 544 950 bytes</p>

<p>RESULTS<br>

Upload of files (from computer to Card)<br>

....................USB 3...................USB 2<br>

Sandisk...1 min 50 sec.........3 min 11 sec<br>

Lexar.......1 min 47 sec.........3 min 41 sec</p>

<p>Interesting result...I had to repeat them!!! This does not contain a typo.</p>

<p>Dowload of files (from card to computer)</p>

<p>.....................USB 3...................USB 2<br>

Sandsk......2 min 10 sec ........3 min 11 sec<br>

Lexar........1 min 27 sec.........2 min 31 sec<br>

These numbers have been checked, there are no typos.<br>

I wont draw any conclusions but am interested in thoughts and other shooters results.</p>

<p>Mike Sea</p>

<p>Guys,</p>

<p>THANK YOU ALL for your feedback - it has been of great value. In fact you all have good ideas that I will use depending on the client. The logic and reasoning offered which makes sense and has moved me away from what I had in the back of my mind.</p>

<p>Again, thanks a bundle...if you ever find your way Down Under...say g'day.</p>

<p>Mike Sea</p>

<p>Note sure if this is in the right place...admin please move it for best response.</p>

<p>I currently shoot with a D3s. I am a photo journalist who also does more than my fair share of sport as part of the assignment list. Generally speaking, I shoot Med-fine but on occasion I do go for larger sized files.</p>

<p>In the camera I always have 2x 8Gib. I will assume readers will know of the different "Raid" set ups that can be used.</p>

<p>Given 8Gig will normally last at least a week of regular assignments, how (and why) would you guys use the slots?</p>

<p>Mike Sea</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

I am going through exactly the same issue in developing a new website.</p>

<p>The issues I am specifically concerned about is that of protecting the images from those less scrupulous viewers of my work. It is this same reason that I only ever post also ran images on this site.<br>

I have been toying with the idea of photo videos. If you don't look at the undeveloped site, there is an example here.<br>

lightningboltphotography.com<br>

Not being a tech head, what are the chances that someone could take a usable image off a photo-video like this is another question I am interested in hearing opinions about.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thread and I look forward to following it.</p>

<p>Mike Sea</p>

<p> </p>

Thank you very much Raine and Peter.

My friend will at least know why it doesn't work and that there is no fix for the issue.

Mike Sea

Hi All,

I think we have all been through this scenario...because we shoot for a living we are considered experts on every

camera ever made - especially with regards to digital cameras.

A friend gave me her Kodak 7440 easyshare camera and said the new Sandisk 4 GB card wouldn't format. the card

was tried in another camera and worked perfectly. In the 7440 however, it says the cards needs ti be formatted.

When I went through the process the menu would then loop back to format card again.

My suspicion is that this cameras memory mapping cannot handle a 4GB card but even the Kodak pages and

specifications on this camera that I have searched do not mention anything except the 32mb internal memory storage.

Sorry to put this onto your guys and gals out there, I hope there is a little empathy in my plight.

Thanks in advance

Mike Sea

G'day Karen - All,

Like above, I have only read the first third of the responses and am amazed. For the record, I feel you answered

your own question wonderfully in your response earlier. I have enjoyed your raising of this issue and the many

replies.

I guess I have have a couple of feelings on this one and imagine my answer will paraphrase the postings here.

In one way I feel that you can tell anyone the numbers but if they don't have a true feel for the shot then it

will mean nothing to them. Mind you, if they are the pro they proclaim to be then surely they should be expected

to know the numbers by now. Therefore, tell them as much as you want and they will only value your work even

more when they still can't reproduce your results. I will never forget a shoot at a wrestling show where a second

photographer from the same paper arrived argumentatively (but wrongly) saying it was their job. She made a goose

of herself publically and again argued when I suggested we both shoot it and log our work. Bottom line - 4 shots

were selected for this two page feature - ALL MINE. She just didn't have a feel for the shot or what was

happening in the room.

Secondly, as mentioned above, any person of rudimentary knowledge of photography and photoshop will generally

recognise the techniques being used to get a particular result. If they don't or can't, then they can pay for

this knowledge - I think this comes under the title of pain for your craft. I share your laziness and it

generally extends to my PS work. Simple layers for levels, brightness/contrast, colour and saturation is all I

tend to use.

Thirdly, a fellow photographer and I occasionally go out shooting when the light is "just right" on those rare

but perfect days where the it would be a sin to not use the quality of light available. My opinion of Aaron is

that he has forgotten more about shooting then I will ever know...but when we shoot a location, the only

discussion is on where we will go..Once there two people go about their business as individuals but music comes

from both...just like the way many individual raindrops all work together to wet a path. Our own eyes dictate the

way we represent the shot and how you could give advice or even want it is beyond me here.

I like this site as a place to place my "also-ran" shots. Shots that I felt for different reasons should have

worked but have not. I hope that they are viewed with a critical eye and genuinely criticisms...again it is the

pain of learning that makes us better. Perhaps you could suggest they place some shots here...but not offer your

learning without them paying for the pleasure.

My two cents worth.

Mike Sea

PS I have not proof read this reply and apologise for its length.

t

Onother

Hey all,

What a stimulating discussion and one that has taught me two things. 1. gel filters 2. cross polarisers.

Maybe we should think about a line that shares some lost ideas or techniques.

I know that I still use hyperfocal distance readings in certain circumstances but aagree you really don't need to understand it to get "The Shot".

Thanks for your wide, honest and thought provoking responses.

Mike

Hi All,

How fast is too fast for low ISO.

In recent times, I have wanted to take a photo outdoors (one of a blurred champion bike rider. After stacking on

three ND filters (ND4 and 2x ND2's) I finally reached the speed I was after for the results I was trying to create.

With a minimum ISO setting of ISO 200 I am wondering if other people feel that the rise in low end ISO is

something we ALL want?

Don't get me wrong, I love the speed of the latest Nikon's and have hand held sunset shots that were

inconceivable prior to the D3 [D300]. I also shoot sports in what can only be described as atrocious light...the

latest jump has been a quantum leap to me.

Are there any other areas that some feel we are going too far in or taking away from our skills as technology

develops?

Mike Sea

Dan that sounds great to me.

In fact, it is much the same as my suggestion to the engineers. They have been talking about using a 4/3" sensor. Mind you, the one they are using is a linear sensor 2048 pixels wide for this particular application, not sure if that can translate into a 4/3".

As for a center filter. that sounds a great idea. I will have to do some research into a small one like that.

Along you lines this is what I wrote...does it make sense?

"Vignetting is not really a measurable trait of a lens even thought certain lenses in the trade off have more or less apparent vignetting. Normally the lens will be made with NIL vignetting and it is things like filters etc that are the real cause for this to happen. In our case, it could be that our barrel in these situations is too long. Maybe, if we have variable sized screw on heads this could solve the problem instantly."

Dan, thank you for your ear and knowledge in this issue for me (us).

Mike Sea

I am using them on a purpose made industrial machine vision camera.

we are having some problems with vignetting OR lighting dropping off at the end of the lens on a linear sensor. I was wondering if it is a lighting issue or perhaps it may be a DoF issue and therefore wanted accurate calculations so we can measure it up.

The circle of confusion issue is one that I understand changes with the mounting but thats where it goes beyond my knowledge.

Dan, if you have any knowledge/thoughts etc I would be greatfull

Mike Sea

- Buy the best glass you can get your hands on.

- ensure you use the reciprocal shutter speed to focal length

- avoid hand holding whenever practicle

Mike Sea

Hi all,

NOTE TO MODERATOR. I AM HAPPY FOR YOU TO MOVE THIS TO A MORE APPROPRIATE SECTION

I have tried searching the site for specific information but am not too good at

using the right search words.

I am looking for a DoF calculator to be used with c mount lenses...6mm to about

50mm. Most work using 8, 12.5 and 25mm focal length.

Can I use a standard FREEWARE calculator off the net? It seems there are other

variables that are beyond my little brain.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Mike Sea

I can't seem to get out of my head your issue of weight and awkwardness.

"SB800 to brightening things up but its heavy and awkward"

The D70 is only 600 grams...this compares to the D300 at 825g and the D3 at 1125g

If you are after and easy to carry and non awkward camera doing away with an awesome flash in the D800 is not my suggestion. If you just want the best then you won't get any better then the D3 untill the D3x (D4) 24 Mega Pixel camera is released.

I was lucky enough to be the first to take a D3 down to Antarctica with thanks to Nikon Australia and I have never used anything like it.

It will be interesting to see if nikon bleed their loyal high end users dry by releasing an 18 meg camera,

Just my thoughts

Mike Sea

Just my thoughts.

Not withstanding the advice here, I was lucky enough to have a quick play with a D60 at nikon (Australia) the other day. Assuming you can't afford the D200 etc. The D60 is a mucch better option.

It has Auto focus and the software which in my opinion these days is 1/3 of an image these days. The other the lens and the camera. The Developments of this fun camera is incredible for the money.

Just my thoughts

Mike Sea

Hi all,

I am in a bind. Too much work, not enough time.

I am working on a project over the next 6 months that will give a new person to

the industry a great opportunity to get paid work, something for their resume

and coal face experience.

Essentially it will be 1-3 days work each week with deadlines and will be paid

work.

What you need:

1. Your own professional equipment (no snappy snappy's please) including car

2. Ability to produce a regular invoice with ABN.

3. Understanding of deadlines and ability to meet them

4. Motivation/enthusiasm

5. Simple resume/portfolio. I understand as a new person this may not be fully

developed as yet but I am looking particularly in your ability to capture

something special in a simple portrait

6. Ability to work very fast and think on your feet. There will not be any

elaborate flash set ups for this project but you will need to use an on camera

flash properly.

For the person selected, I will go out on the first day and show you the ropes

and explain fully what is expected of you so you won't be flying blindly. I will

also write an appropriate reference for the right person.

If you are temperamental then this is not the opportunity for you.

Please use the photo.net link to my email address to contact me as the project

has already started and I am keen to move forward.

Speak soon

Mike Sea

Seems to me they just turned themselves in to No-Mooresville.

We should be charging them for taking such photos and selling them because people look at our work and often will be influenced to going to a place they have seen represented on film (digital). This will clearly leave a vacuum where No-Moorsville used to be...never to exist again in the public realm.

In a sarcastic note, I wonder if the income generated could be even remotely close to the media costs to get that sort of passive attention?

I thought you Americans had freedom...your anthem includes the words "...in the land of the free...". Seems to me No-Mooresville is making the United States of America a laughing stock. That is a criticism I hope is read by the good folk at No-Mooresville as they make it less likely for me to make another journey to your otherwise great Country. I have already made the jounrey 5 times to your country all the way from Down Under but wonder if there will be a sixth?

Forgive my ignorance. What law has precedence...that of taking photos in public places (of public buildings in this case) or some crack pot filled local bureaucracy?

I really like Brian's suggestion and if I were the the States I would attend that protest - my first ever...on principle.

Mike Sea

that makes sense to me.

I have an HSM sigma - never dropped and find I have the same problem with a D200 but never with my d2x. I was told to expect that from the sigma lens.

I am not sure if the two issues are connected but it adds more info to the pie.

It is too late to get the lens out and see if it has two or three contacts. Josephs info was great. I wish we could see more of this sort of thing from these pages instead of the "what lens should I get questions"

Mike Sea

David Chu's point was the one I started to write as I read down the page.

The only possible use would be if perhaps u used two 32 gig cars and wrote to both [concurrently] in the D3.

Mike Sea