///M5

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal. I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage. That would fill my father's office up with over 2500 dvds rofl. He isn't a hack.

In particular on those train shots. No time to dial everything in and reshoot. Plus my damn screen is so small I can't see shit. Saving in raw means I don't have to.

Yep, if you are a noob, raw ftw. It helps me.

You finish your shoot, rip it on disc and throw away the files. Not a big deal. I shot 1500 or so pics in Europe. No trouble with storage.

You can batch your changes even in shitty free Picasa so it could save your whole wedding shoot if you were off only a little bit.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right? I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe. There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.Tiff? It is jpeg or RAW. Only options. As for no reason, I completely disagree. You and I don't have kids either, but if you have a shot that is over or under exposed, fixing a RAW file is easy peasy. Jpegs not so much. That's a bit odd about only having jpg or raw. Raw maintains all the information from the picture where as jpeg throws some out in compression IIRC, so yeah you can do more adjustment with the raw before the picture starts looking like shit, but the tradeoff vs time/speed and converting everything back to jpg for the end person doesn't always seem worth it to me. I could see if someone took a bunch of pictures and had the exposure way off to begin with that raw would be awesome cause then they could fix it to a better extent in the computer. I'm curious have you ever used up the buffer on your camera from taking too many shots closely timed together with raw, and had to wait? I know that use to be an issue with shooting raw since the files were big and the write speeds couldn't keep up, but I don't know how the newer cameras are. I guess that's my two biggest reasons for not using raw: write speed vs camera buffer (which matters for weddings, events, etc, but for the landscape photographer or taking pictures over vacation it doesn't come into play), and having to convert all the pictures afterwards into a traditional format. But since your camera doesn't shoot in tiff then I could see using raw instead, if write speed isn't an issue. Unless I am shooting rapid back to backs even my cheap ass microSD card keeps up with the Raw + JPG on my 5 year old camera. More than 8 shots in 2 seconds though and you wait, but that is a pretty rare occurence. I am sure my next camera will resolve that as potentially could faster memory or a setting where I could turn the jpg portion off so it doesn't save both.

Is it really that it just degrades it? I don't know enough about the files and the info from the sensor to know why RAW is better. I do know that even with my shifty Canon application, if I adjust a jpeg it's horse shit. But in RAW I can make the image do what I want. I also know with Lightroom, I can make a RAW image dance for me like a trained whore and do my biding without thinking at all. You can make a shit image that has color or balance issues beautiful. RAW has no white balance applied meaning you can choose it

Of course, being more computer literate than I perhaps my info is antiquated.

You can fix the jpg if you don't mind degrading it. At some point of print size any degradation is damaging. I don't see why not shoot raw. It isn't like storage is a concern these days. I took ove 1300 pictures in Scandihoovia and never changed my memory card. Hell only charged my battery once

Hopefully no one as that is a stupid way to set your gains. Of course if you read the thread you'd understand that. Umm, no. It's a POS that does nothing useful. I've even thrown out the challenge to Steve himself to offer up when it could be useful and he ran away and only wanted to discuss where he could edit or remove posts. I had no problems with Steve until he started to profit from misleading noobs. That sucks. Anyone who does that deserves no respect. As for the DD-1, what job is it that it does "well"? Fucking sucks for gain setting. I realize you learn the hard way, but come on. Don't close your eyes to thinking. You can ruin stuff with any settings. Your choices make no sense. Train your ear. It will greatly improve everything. And things can go way wrong before measured distortion too. Amusingly the DD-1 nor a scope can measure distortion. Ok, sure $50k Nicollet scopes can but I don't think we are discussing those here. Your methods lead to the same conclusion. If you don't take the time to train your ear and to actually listen then your shit can fail. Use your ears, teach your ears, enjoy your stuff, don't blindly do something idiotic.

What amount of clipping is important to you? I removed your efficiency comments as they don't make sense and until we conquer the reasons why you are so interested in clipping it is pointless to discuss anything else. i agree its pointless to discuss this any further .So you will come in blazing and attacking and won't answer a very rudimentary question? Even if you don't on the forum you should for yourself. My only goal was to try to make you think of the answer yourself as then you'll actually believe it, but either you did realize that your whole logic is flawed and don't want to post it or you are so brainwashed by the morons on SMD that you won't post. The first is okay, the second really sad.

Both taken at 11mm, 1/250s and therein lies the problem as my F stop was all the way in the 3's on the trees. Just means I can't enlarge that one too much. Wednesday should be fine. I am out doing some consulting at Starkey today.

Get Lightroom. 900 times more useful for us. Nothing to learn, just really easy and helps so much. Your machine shoots in RAW right? I have heard aperture is a good one too, but I tend to trust Adobe. There's really no point in using raw for anything any of us do. Perhaps for a single landscape shot, or the alike, but otherwise tiff would suffice.I could post the non adjusted white balance and you'd change your mind.

Because it's an open space cabin. For Mark's needs perhaps a 6th order, but BP'ing a 4th order would be a waste of wood.

Definitely not great shots, but a good learning experience on how better to do it next time. I'l also travel with my pc though so I can learn as I shoot instead of two weeks later. Hard lesson of needing a tripod and not having one and forcing a shutter speed to be okay with movement and not being able to hold my f stop

Taken with my craptastic 450d

I would have LOVED some blue sky I suppose there is a way to fix that in photoshop, but I pretty much shoot pictures and don't dick with them outside of a white balance fix here and there.

So here is where my family is from. and the "lake" nearby Excuse the photo quality. The first shot is through the glass of a bus window while moving. The second shot was taken at about 50mph on a train. Didn't have a whole lot of time to dial in settings and reshoot anything. Added a little vignette to hide the road

Flash is what you really need and two of them if you don't have real lights. I bought a 430 thinking I'd get a 580 to control it, but wouldn't have used it yet so I haven't gotten the 580.

Huh? Why so fast? If you want the 50, come grab it. Beware the fast lens shooting portraits though. It will easily allow you to have one eye in focus, the other out and the ears uber fuzzy.

What amount of clipping is important to you? I removed your efficiency comments as they don't make sense and until we conquer the reasons why you are so interested in clipping it is pointless to discuss anything else.

What do you mean by most and for what circumstance? If the circumstance is for driving around listening to music, then absolutely by far the ear is best.

While in high school, I would grab a camera every chance I got and snap pictures of my junk. It's a nice funny surprise.I should have borrowed a few teachers' cell phones for that.Cell phones didn't have cameras when I was in HS.Ha, there were no such things as cell phones when I was in HS.Yes there were, just huge and incredibly expensive.If no one in your town has one, I'd say that is akin to no such thing. Hell after college they were still huge and incredibly expensive.

Yes, of course the ear is better than the scope or the dd-1 A couple points. Yes I read the rest of the thread first, but this post highlights the misconception you are having. First, ignore whatever that shop told you. They no jack. Second, if you want to detect a "moderate clip" to use your wording then please tell us why. I guarantee the DD-1 will still NOT be the tool to do so. I am also pretty sure that once you think about it you will realize how absurd it is to even want to, but perhaps you have a reason we haven't thought of and we'd love to hear it. After you express that then share with us how you will detect it on other songs that aren't recorded at the same level of the song you were just listening to that had the "moderate clip". Then perhaps contemplate the answer to the why I had you answer above. DD-1 is absolutely useless. Terrible if you want to compete and absolutely useless for something you just listen to music on. Pretty much means it isn't good for anything that I can think of. Did I miss something? i will use this example my digital designs amp has a clip indicator on the remote and with my naked ear i cant tell soft clip nor moderate clip but full blown i can hear see and smell . yes i know im a noob for using a remote and clipClip indicator doesn't work either. Again, instead of trying to worry so much about determining clipping why don't you tell us why you care.

Same boat here. Done lots of reading and not enough shooting.