New RD-1s user: Jpeg or RAW?

carlosecpf

carlosecpf

Member
Local time
3:57 PM
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
17
Hey Guys,

I've been more passive than active in this forum, mainly because I've never used a rangefinder camera before. Nevertheless, I've always appreciated the highly informative threads at RFF.

I finally jumped into the "manual" Rangefinder wagon (I had a Contax G2 before, but that's an AF camera) and bought a RD-1s in great shape last week from a RFF member. I am really happy with the camera so far. My first lens is a Rokkor 40mm f/2 and I love the colors and OOF its produce.

Because the RD-1s does not support SD cards bigger than 2GB I was wondering if you guys shoot High-quality Jpegs or RAW. I also have a Digilux 2 and at ISO 100 there is almost no difference between JPEG and RAW. I was wondering if the same happens with the RD-1 files across the ISO range or not.

Is there an optimal setting for RD-1s jpegs?

Thanks in advance,
Carlos
 
i only shoot raw and pretty much have done so from the beginning.

the rd1 is a great image maker, hope you enjoy it.
 
RAW. If you really want JPEG as well, you can still do RAW+JPEG, but that's gonna use more space with, IMHO, very little gain.

(I don't have a RD-1 unfortunately even though I have been able to try it)
 
I use Raw+Jpeg (B&W) all the time. The film discipline is in me so I don't really waste too many shots on a given day. The 2 Gb is just enough for me but I do carry a spare SD for those rare times that I will shoot more than 100 images.
 
I can put ~130 RAW+Jpeg into 2GB. (~200 for RAW only)
The in-cam B/W convertion from "standard" setting is decent for web use and thus I save time from "printing" through Epson PhotoRAW (But PhotoRAW works like I'm back to darkroom: Full of fun.)
 
Since I started shooting RAW I can't even remember what the jpegs from the RD1 were like. I now shooot RAW only and use LR3 to PP the shots. The tiny Rokkor lens you have will give great results and it's one of the lenses I regret having sold.
Certainly give RAW a try and use a good editing program and you may just find you'll never look back.
 
I use RAW, and only RAW. At home I process the RAW file to TIFF file and keep the RAW as negative in a different folder. (I like sometimes to re-edit older RAW files)
 
I think almost everyone here will tell you to shoot RAW. It adds a bit of time to your work flow but it is worth it in the long run. Good luck!
 
JPEG can be quite nice specially if you get it all right in camera. The just as with film, digi rarely makes a file that can not be improved right up tru my Nikon D3, D700.

So for my artsy shots, it is NEF or raw all the way. JPEG is for never post processing at all. It is not harder to to process raw as compared to JPEG with PS or NX2 ( Nikons program) and in fact if I wanted to process a JPEG, I would process it in the raw processor 0f photoshop, ACR. PS can be set for JPEG or TIFF to open in raw as default rather than PS directly, but you can then move to PS from ACR.

Just bought three LaCie external drives, one terabite each, for $85 each at Micro Center.
They hold thousands of images. Two are double back ups and one is used as a working drive so I do not store a significant number of images on my computer hard drive, just very current stuff and applications.

If you are a sports photog or wedding guy who makes a lot of party pics and do not want to edit them, JPEG is perfect for you.

The thing to remember is JPEG is compressed and opening, editing, saving again will eventually cause digital artifacts. RAW does not do this, so I work raw, save as TIFF or PS, and save them as a master from which JPEGS are made for final application.
 
The unsung beauty of RAW if that if someone, sometime, invents a better mousetrap/RAW decoder you can go back and reprocess your old RAW files with better results than the first time. (Yes, Lightroom 3, I'm looking at you...)
 
RAW is the way to go, but only if you are into post-processing. RAW images look quite dull out of camera. The conversions done in the Epson software are quite nice. Especially for the B&W images. But if you don't plan to edit your images, you can get nice jpgs using the in-camera 'film' settings.
 
I shoot raw + jpeg. I am often surprised by how good the jpegs are. Nevertheless, raw gives me the option of processing in colour or black and white, and also allows for some highlight recovery. I don't find the 2 gb limit limiting; especially given the battery life :)
 
Guys,

Thank you so much for the great suggestions you have shared with me here. I use Aperture 3 (but I have licensed copies of C1 and LR3) to manage my photo library and I am starting playing with RAW. I will play around with the other 2 RAW softwares and see if I like their results better than Aperture's. I believe I will shoot RAW only for a week and see if I like the results.

So far I am having a blast with this camera! I am starting to feel the urge of buying a faster glass, but I will explore the capabilities of my Rokkor 40mm before spending more money on glass.

Here are some samples of my very first day with my RD-1s:

5095187323_60b6c969b7_b.jpg


5095785664_24dc6eb606_b.jpg


5095186579_27095ea77f_b.jpg


5095785208_656966b4a5_b.jpg
 
RAW and convert to .dng at import into LR.
After all, who's going to be able to read a .ERF file in 2050?
 
I don't know about converting in Aperture as I've never used it, but you can use the Adobe DNG Convertor, it's a free download from the Adobe site here

Once converted, Aperture will be able to read your .dng files

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom