how many pictures should I plan on taking?!

[KelseyLaPerle]

I'm travelling with two kids and my Mother for 7 days. I typically take lots of photographs and I know I will take even more while at Disney. I don't want to run out of memory card space, and I don't want to pay to get the cards put on cd while down there. I also don't want to bring "too many" memory cards. Realistically, how many photos would you expect a 1st time (1st time with kids, anyway) visitor to take? Does anyone keep track of how many they take per trip?

[ukcatfan]

I could probably rack up 3-4K in a week if shooting shows while there. Without them, probably 1.5-2K. A lot depends on how big your files are. Are you shooting JPG or RAW? What MP is your camera? What cards to you already have? With cards being so cheap, why not go ahead and buy some more? Also, do you have a laptop that you can bring?

[KelseyLaPerle]

I could probably rack up 3-4K in a week if shooting shows while there. Without them, probably 1.5-2K. A lot depends on how big your files are. Are you shooting JPG or RAW? What MP is your camera? What cards to you already have? With cards being so cheap, why not go ahead and buy some more? Also, do you have a laptop that you can bring?

I have a Nikon D3000 and typically shoot in JPG - the camera is 10.2 MP. I have two cards, both 2GB. I do have a laptop, but wanted to avoid bringing it unless we have to. I should just get more cards, but I get nervous about losing them since they're so tiny. The camera is new so I don't know how many photos one card will hold, etc. I know I will go crazy with it....but we will also have my Mom's D50 and a smaller sony point & shoot. Any ideas? Thanks! You really sound like you're an expert!

[annnewjerz]

I have a Nikon D3000 and typically shoot in JPG - the camera is 10.2 MP. I have two cards, both 2GB. I do have a laptop, but wanted to avoid bringing it unless we have to. I should just get more cards, but I get nervous about losing them since they're so tiny. The camera is new so I don't know how many photos one card will hold, etc. I know I will go crazy with it....but we will also have my Mom's D50 and a smaller sony point & shoot. Any ideas? Thanks! You really sound like you're an expert!



I'd make sure you have much more than 4GB if you plan on using the camera everyday for a week. I just got back from a 3-day trip and didn't really go "photo heavy" and probably took around 800 shots, which is about 8GB of memory---but I shoot RAW, so you'll be able to fit more JPGs on each card.

You can get Kingston memory cards on Buy.com for cheap, I'd pick up another couple 4GB cards. Better safe than sorry!! :thumbsup2

[KelseyLaPerle]

I'd make sure you have much more than 4GB if you plan on using the camera everyday for a week. I just got back from a 3-day trip and didn't really go "photo heavy" and probably took around 800 shots, which is about 8GB of memory---but I shoot RAW, so you'll be able to fit more JPGs on each card.

You can get Kingston memory cards on Buy.com for cheap, I'd pick up another couple 4GB cards. Better safe than sorry!! :thumbsup2

Thanks for the tip....I'll get more cards.

And, we also use Smugmug - don't you LOVE them?!

[spinetnglr]

I just got back from a week at Disney World and I took about 3000 raw photos. I didnt have anyone with me and I was having such a good time just being able to do what I wanted that alot of the time I forgot about taking pictures. With 2 kids and a mom in tow I am sure you will have many times you will want to take people pics in addition to all the other usual "scenery", character, parade, fireworks, etc shots. I took my laptop with me and did transfer some pics to dvds to free up memory cards. I had 2 - 2gb 2-4gb and 2 8gb cards with me. I came home with 3 dvds full and all but the 2 - 2gb cards full. I would definately pick up some more memory or have a way to empty the ones you have so you can reuse them. Shooting in jpeg will definately increase the number of shots you can take but 4gb is not much when you are talking about a whole weeks worth of shooting. I wouldn't go with any less than a 2gb memory card for each day you are going to be in a park. Somedays you might shoot more and some days less. I just checked with my D40 (6 mp) what a 2gb card will hold shooting in jpeg fine and it will hold a little over 550 images. Your D3000 should be probably close to 500 but I would check an empty 2gb card with the camera and see what you have room for on a single card and go from there.

[gokenin]

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

[annnewjerz]

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

I think it's easy to take so many shots total if you are doing things like shooting fireworks, dark rides, low-light shows, etc. I have only been on one weekend trip to The World with my dSLR, but I can see how these "difficult to photograph" things would quickly result in a lot of pictures, a lot of which would be tossed in the digital trash can when you get home. Plus, some people on these boards (like me) do food reviews from their trips, which result in a bunch of pictures the average person may not take (taking a picure of every app/entree/dessert/snack/drink/menu/etc.).

I think if I were just walking around WDW taking shots of signs/buildings/outdoor performers I'd still take more than 400 shots, but probably not nearly as many as if I go through Haunted Mansion three times in a row trying to nail a shot of Madame Leota.

It probably also depends on how often you go. Someone who only goes every few years and has an interest in photography probably wants to fit as much shooting into a week as possible.

[ukcatfan]

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

Sometimes I will take multiple exposures of the same shot so I can decide what I liked the best after the fact. I also take multiples of portraits so I minimize the eyes closed, red eye, not smiling, etc. When it comes to shows, it is a "machine gun" style on many cases.

[disneyboy2003]

Sounds like you already admit that you "typically take lots of photographs", so I'm kind of worried about your two 2GB memory cards.

First, you can estimate how many pictures each 2GB memory card will hold. My camera typically produces JPEGs that are 2-3MB in size (for JPEGs, I typically shoot Large Fine JPEGs). If yours is the same, then you can expect to fit less than 1000 images per memory card.

Second, I would recommend that you go with one or two 8GB memory cards. At the very minimum, you should go with 4GB memory cards. I think your 2GB cards are pretty small, and you'll easily fill them up. Memory cards are relatively cheap, and it's not like you won't be able to use them in the future.

I personally brought my laptop and a portable hard drive to download my memory card(s) every night. I was afraid that my laptop's hard drive might be too small to hold all the pictures from my trip (especially since I began shooting RAW), so that's why I also brought a portable hard drive. You can get these for about $100 for a 500GB drive. This also helped to make sure I always had empty memory cards for each day of the vacation.

Why do I take 1000s of pictures instead of hundreds? I don't have any kids, so a great, great majority of my pictures were of the parades, fireworks, shows, or safari. I also have dozens and dozens of pictures of Cinderella's Castle, especially at night. It's not that I need dozens of pictures of the Castle, but I might try / experiment with different settings or take several pictures just to make sure that I have at least one that's not blurry (night photography with slow shutter speed and no tripod) and properly exposed.

Just some things that work for me. Of course, YMMV. :)

[diputs]

I am still trying to figure it all out, but I have a photography trip coming up over Thanksgiving. I haven't been since 1991, I am going solo, and the #1 intention of the trip is to take pictures.

My plan as of today.
40gb of Memory cards, 3-8gb & 1-16gb cards
(6) batteries with battery grip - no point in having memory if the batteries are dead.
(3) sets of batteries for external flash
(2) 320gb external hard drives(make two copies of photos)
Borrowing a netbook(small computer to copy from sd card to harddrives)
Tripod, battery chargers, lenses, etc... (I wish I had a second body)

Reasoning...
40gb should get me about 1800 shots
40gb x 7 days is 280gb, so i am bringing (2) 320gb drives so i can transfer all the photos to (2) drives. The memory and storage is cheap. Running out of memory or batteries means not being able to shoot. Having a harddrive crash on my trip would be sad.

I specifically called Disney about what I could or could not bring into the park, and they told me there are not an rules regarding photography equipment. My biggest concern is being denied entrance to a park because of my equipment. I mostly plan to shoot wide angle on a tripod. What I have heard is that most places ban long lenses, so my telephoto probably won't live in my bag.

[boBQuincy]

...snip...
Reasoning...
40gb should get me about 1800 shots
40gb x 7 days is 280gb, so i am bringing (2) 320gb drives so i can transfer all the photos to (2) drives. The memory and storage is cheap. Running out of memory or batteries means not being able to shoot. Having a harddrive crash on my trip would be sad.
...snip...

Not to hijack the thread too badly, but your ideas of redundant storage may be of interest to some. The idea is sound and the resulting reliability is found by multiplying the unreliabilities of the systems. For this we might assume 99.9% reliability for flash memory and 99% for hard drives (this is actually much lower than reality but shows the idea).

Multiplying the unreliability of 0.1% by 1% gives a composite unreliability of 0.00001 or .001%, for a reliability of 99.999%. Pretty good! ;) Adding the second hard drive makes it even better.

Back to the original thread, I had a solo photo trip to WDW in February and took about 1200 photos in 2-1/2 days. This was not shotgunning since it included a lot of night photos with a tripod and also many HDR sets. Our 2-1/2 day trip in September had just about the same results so I figure I am good for about 500 photos per day!

[Chikabowa]

We usually go for about a week to 10 days. I shoot around 1000 shots during that time. Memory is cheap. Even if you don't use it, buy some more, and take it. You'll appreciate the peace of mind.

[diputs]

For this we might assume 99.9% reliability for flash memory and 99% for hard drives (this is actually much lower than reality but shows the idea).

Your post comes off as a jab at backing up my photos while on a photography specific trip. To me, not doing the backup would be like not backing up all of your files from your home computer. (1) local backup, and (1) off-site backup.

I have experienced way too many hard drive failures to believe that a portable hard drive is 99% reliable. YMMV

For me it is a low cost solution to guarantee that I might come back with all of the pictures that I take.

[spinetnglr]

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

I went October 18-25 on a solo trip and came home with just under 3000 photos. I am still sorting, deleting and processing those pics and am hoping to come up with maybe 150-200 keepers that I really like to make a Disney gallery on smugmug. The rest will more than likely be deleted (50% for sure will be deleted) and those I am on the fence about I will keep on my EHD for future reprocessing as I improve my post processing skills. I try to think too before shooting still objects such as buildings and such, but also when shooting parades, shows, fireworks etc I like to shoot in continuous mode because many times if not using a tripod its the 2nd or 3rd shot in the series that turns out the best. The rest just get deleted. I would rather have the opportunity to delete than to not have a shot I am pleased with.

[boBQuincy]

Your post comes off as a jab at backing up my photos while on a photography specific trip.

It was not meant that way, it was only to show the level of improvement from redundancy.

[YesDear]

I just got back from a nine day trip to China. I had a D700 and a D300 that I carried everday all day. I took a little over 5000 pictures shooting in raw. I also took a Wolverine hard drive and a netbook to back up. I also burned dvd's each night. I have since backed everything on to two 1tb hard drive. I used photo mechanic to organize and rename on the trip but did no editing.

I probably could have doubled that amount but went with a group and we were not give a great deal of time just to roam around. As an example I went to the Temple of heavan, Emperor's Tomb and The Great Wall in a day so I felt much more like a photo journalist than a travel photograher.

I am soo glad I shot in RAW. The polution in China is horrible. Worse than anywhere in the US. The two pictures I posted of the Temple of Heaven did not have blue sky! I was able to pull it out using Capture NX 2.

[dmccarty]

I thought I took too many photos. :rotfl2:

I ONLY took 1200 photos on our last trip. :confused3 :)

The camera is a D700 and I shoot only RAW with photo sizes roughly around 15MB-20MB. I had 3 8GB and 2 4GB cards. I was still on the third 8GB card on the day we left.

Sandisk had a special last spring were the 8GB cards were really cheap. I think I noticed a special at Best Buy this weekend. Would not heard to check out Best Buy, NewEgg, Amazon, and B&H. The cards I bought were from B&H. Not all places had the rebate.

Many of my photos are almost dupes from fireworks or the kids on rides. I have not processed the fireworks photos yet but there will be a fair number of throw aways. The kids photos are usually pretty good with quite a few worth printing. If I went alone I would likely get more photos. I was hoping to get over to AK at night but I got sick the day I planed to go. Oh well. Next trip. :)

After the spring trip I tried a few photo slide show software packages and bought the one I liked best. Creating a DVD of the kids and important family events on the trips can use up lots of photos for the slide show. We lucked out and saw the Kodo drummers at Japan on the spring trip so I used so Kodo music off a CD I had for that portion of the slide show. The rest of the slide shows used Disney Music. :)

Still working on the fall trip and kids soccer photos for more DVD slide shows. :)

Later,
Dan

[WillowBelle]

Not meaning to completely hijack the thread but, dmccarty - which slideshow software did you purchase? I'm very interested in creating these and haven't the slightest idea where to begin.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic......


As for how many pictures you'll take, I took over 4 gigs of photos (in jpg) on our trip this summer. This was trip #19 for me (with one planned, if DH will conquer, in 10/2010) - I had my two DDs with me, so was limited as to how often I could slow us down to take pictures. We were only there for 5 full days.

I, like annewjerz wrote, also took lots of photos of food and restaurant areas for trip reports that I have written.

[saturndb]

The DW and I came back from our trip from September and I took just over a 1000 pictures, I would have taken more but the DW said I was spending to much time behind the camera. Also since I have her carry my camera bag, I did not want to upset her to much. After all why should I carry my own bag? That bag gets heavy, you throw in 3, 4 maybe 5 lenses, the camera body, extra batteries, memory cards, Travel tripod,etc and it adds up.
That, after all is one of the reasons why I got married and a happy DW is a DW who carries your camera bag :thumbsup2


Dave pirate:

[DisneyFairytale]

I have an AP and able to make it down there 2-4 times a year. Everytime I go, I take aroung 600-1,000/day. Not all photos always turn out so I always take a lot more.
Because it's going to be such a special trip for you guys, I would honestly pack more memory cards than you think you might need. Memory cards weight nothing so just keep them in a secure place. You will kill yourself if you realized you ran out of space and you have nothing to back yourself up.

[KelseyLaPerle]

I just got back from a week at Disney World and I took about 3000 raw photos. I didnt have anyone with me and I was having such a good time just being able to do what I wanted that alot of the time I forgot about taking pictures. With 2 kids and a mom in tow I am sure you will have many times you will want to take people pics in addition to all the other usual "scenery", character, parade, fireworks, etc shots. I took my laptop with me and did transfer some pics to dvds to free up memory cards. I had 2 - 2gb 2-4gb and 2 8gb cards with me. I came home with 3 dvds full and all but the 2 - 2gb cards full. I would definately pick up some more memory or have a way to empty the ones you have so you can reuse them. Shooting in jpeg will definately increase the number of shots you can take but 4gb is not much when you are talking about a whole weeks worth of shooting. I wouldn't go with any less than a 2gb memory card for each day you are going to be in a park. Somedays you might shoot more and some days less. I just checked with my D40 (6 mp) what a 2gb card will hold shooting in jpeg fine and it will hold a little over 550 images. Your D3000 should be probably close to 500 but I would check an empty 2gb card with the camera and see what you have room for on a single card and go from there.

I know I can find the answer somewhere else and I probably won't have time to learn before our trip anyway.....but what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG? Is it only that the photos are higher quality?
thanks!

[annnewjerz]

I know I can find the answer somewhere else and I probably won't have time to learn before our trip anyway.....but what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG? Is it only that the photos are higher quality?
thanks!

The main appeal of shooting in RAW over JPG (for most) is that RAW files are more forgiving for post-processing. If you completely blow a highlight or need to restore some light in the shadows of a photo, you have much more room to do so with a RAW file versus a JPG.

RAW is also a lossless format in terms of photo editing. Each time you save/edit a JPG, the file loses a bit of quality/gets compressed whereas you can edit and save a RAW file as much as you'd like without altering the quality of the file. Once you're all done editing, convert to a high-quality JPG and you're set. RAW will take up a bit more memory in the end, but if you are interested in processing your photos, it's the better (not the only) way to go.

HTH!
Ann

[mrodgers]

I know I can find the answer somewhere else and I probably won't have time to learn before our trip anyway.....but what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG? Is it only that the photos are higher quality?
thanks!
No offense but, if you have to ask that, you shouldn't shoot RAW.

RAW is completely unprocessed and uncompressed data straight from the sensor. When shooting JPEG, the camera decides the amount of sharpening, contrast, and other variables that go into "developing" the digital image, then compresses it into the JPEG format.

With RAW, you do all the sharpening, contrast enhancement, basically "digital developing" or as it is called, post-processing of the images. It gives you more data and more detail to work with.

You must use a RAW converter or application such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop to get yourself a displayable / printable image. If you are not going to sit down in front of a computer and selectively process your shots, but will just allow the RAW converter to automatically make the adjustments, then you may as well just shoot JPEG to begin with.

That's just a little tidbit of what the RAW vs. JPEG is all about.

[spinetnglr]

The main appeal of shooting in RAW over JPG (for most) is that RAW files are more forgiving for post-processing. If you completely blow a highlight or need to restore some light in the shadows of a photo, you have much more room to do so with a RAW file versus a JPG.

RAW is also a lossless format in terms of photo editing. Each time you save/edit a JPG, the file loses a bit of quality/gets compressed whereas you can edit and save a RAW file as much as you'd like without altering the quality of the file. Once you're all done editing, convert to a high-quality JPG and you're set. RAW will take up a bit more memory in the end, but if you are interested in processing your photos, it's the better (not the only) way to go.

HTH!
Ann

What Ann said ^^^^^

The raw files give you much more flexibililty in processing. If you spend any amount of time at all processing your pictures before you post or print them you will soon find yourself curious as to what you can do with pictures when you have the greater control that raw files allows you to have.

[boBQuincy]

I know I can find the answer somewhere else and I probably won't have time to learn before our trip anyway.....but what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG? Is it only that the photos are higher quality?
thanks!

Higher quality, yes!
Simply put, when the camera creates a JPG from it's RAW it *permanently* throws away a lot of the data that was captured. The decisions the camera makes about white balance, contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. are then irreversible.

When I started with a dSLR I did not have enough memory cards to use RAW for most photos but I sure wish I did so I could go back and create better versions of some of the photos. I now encourage others to use RAW for all their photos and avoid the mistake I made!

[annnewjerz]

What Ann said ^^^^^


Speaking of processing...pictures?? popcorn:: :rotfl:

[Gdad]

Memory is cheap- so take plenty. I have my memory cards in a little folding Velcro wallet and labeled 'A' thru 'J' or whatever I'm up to now. That way if I am doing a lot of shooting I use them in sequence and know I will not get in a hurry and accidentally erase a full one or something. This also helps when I move them to my computer for use, backup, etc.

[WillowBelle]

Memory is cheap- so take plenty. I have my memory cards in a little folding Velcro wallet and labeled 'A' thru 'J' or whatever I'm up to now. That way if I am doing a lot of shooting I use them in sequence and know I will not get in a hurry and accidentally erase a full one or something. This also helps when I move them to my computer for use, backup, etc.

Brilliant Idea!!!! One that I will definately be stealing.....:goodvibes

[Twoboysnmygirl]

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

We just got back from our Oct. 19-27th trip and I took over 3300 shots...and 1 day I didn't use it at all b/c we were at the waterpark. This was a family of 8 trip and I wanted to get lots of shots, but I don't feel like I was shooting all the time, at all. I did have fireworks and 3 different parades and tend to take a handful of the same thing so I can pick the best shot, especially if it's low light and I didn't have the lens I wanted. Still, I didn't feel like I was spending my whole vacation taking pictures, I could have taken more! :laughing:

[mrodgers]

What Ann said ^^^^^
Not exactly.... RAW is not a "format". RAW is the, well, the raw data. You can not view a RAW file. RAW files from the camera have to be processed into an image format before viewing. This is what your RAW converter is doing. You can convert into a JPEG with compression (throwing away data) or to something like a TIFF, which would be the lossless format.

When you preview a shot taken in RAW on the camera's LCD screen, you are not seeing the RAW data. You are seeing an image format that the camera is converting to before displaying.

Just wanted to make that more clear. If you wanted to look at a RAW file, it would look something like this:

klajdt[ugoqrn ognriojhfgoipeqo iroiejhqroid nfoehqfih
jhekjfnhodnnqvq43u5847qiht5io54yq908u7t4389045

... for pages and pages, ie. a bunch of googly goop with random characters, not an image. RAW must be post processed, whether you do default settings in the converter or you do custom processing. As I said, if you do the default processing, you may as well just shoot JPEG to begin with. But if you post process yourself with something such as Aperture or Lightroom, then you can apply things like white balance correction, color correction, selective sharpening, exposure correction, and other such "developing" stuff.

[dmccarty]

Not meaning to completely hijack the thread but, dmccarty - which slideshow software did you purchase? I'm very interested in creating these and haven't the slightest idea where to begin.


I bought Pro Show Gold from Photodex. I used a few packages via trial downloads and Pro Show was the easiest for me to use. The others I tried just did not work they way I would expect things to work. Other packages would produce a decent DVD slide show but Pro Show worked the way I expect things to work.

The only problem I have had is in the DVDs. I burned quite a few of them to give to family and I had high failure rates, 30-50%, when viewed on our various DVD players. I blame that on the media and not on Pro Show. I bought a different brand of DVD's that I will try to see if that makes a difference.

Later,
Dan

[dmccarty]

I know I can find the answer somewhere else and I probably won't have time to learn before our trip anyway.....but what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG? Is it only that the photos are higher quality?
thanks!

Depending on your camera you can have the a photo saved as both a JPEG and RAW file. I think this is wasteful of space and I think it can slow down your the number of frames you can shoot in a given time frame which may or may not be important to you. For me it important to maximize space and keep my frame rate up but that might not be important to you. I don't save both formats anymore but I did for awhile before I was comfortable with processing RAW files.

I used NX2 to process RAW/NEF files. NEFs are Nikon's version of the RAW file format. My two cents, well it cost more than two cents to buy NX2, ;), is that Nikon does a bit better job with NX processing NEF files. I was able to improve my photos compared to the JPEGs pretty quickly. Then I got smart and bought a couple of books and viewlets for NX2. That really helped me improve the photos. What I learned in the books/viewlets allowed me to "save" some photos that where taken in some very bad light conditions.

I kick myself for not buying the books and viewlets earlier. :confused3:rotfl2:

At this point it takes me about 30-60 seconds to do my usual processing steps. About 5-10 seconds is just saving the file. Once the RAW/NEF file is processed creating a JPEG or TIFF can be done via a batch process. The process can be setup and off it goes while you go to bed, watch TV, or read the DIS boards. :rotfl:

Regardless of what processing software is used on the RAW/NEF file, taking RAW and doing the processing is well worth it. It forces you to really look at your photos which can impact HOW you take photos.

On the other hand if someone want to use their DSLR to take JPEGS and NOT doing any processing that is OK too. It really gets down to how much time, effort and money YOU want to invest or can invest in the photos.

Later,
Dan

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm travelling with two kids and my Mother for 7 days. I typically take lots of photographs and I know I will take even more while at Disney. I don't want to run out of memory card space, and I don't want to pay to get the cards put on cd while down there. I also don't want to bring "too many" memory cards. Realistically, how many photos would you expect a 1st time (1st time with kids, anyway) visitor to take? Does anyone keep track of how many they take per trip?

Memory is cheap. Buy twice as much as you think you'll need so that you don't have to worry about it. It is hard for anyone to tell you how much you'll need. Some people shoot a handful of carefully planned shots a day while others fire off hundreds or even thousands of shots in a day. I think an estimate of 300 shots per day would be a good, conservative place to start.

I have to admit these threads always amaze me, how or why are people taking 3000 plus pictures while on vacation? I know that I must be a little strange but I have only come out with about 400 pictures when I go for a week. I wonder is it that people are just "machine gun" style shooters when it comes to their DSLR's ? Maybe its the influence of still using film but I tend to think before I shot and look for a shot which may be why I tend to have so few shots? So am just curious why so many people are taking so many shots?

It varies for me. There are some scenarios in which I take a few carefully set up shots. In other cases, I fire like mad and hope. I tend to do the latter when I can't control some variables. I usally fire a short burst when taking shots of people to get a selection of expressions and eye positions. On rides and during shows, I'll often take a hundred pictures hoping for a handful of good shots.

Not meaning to completely hijack the thread but, dmccarty - which slideshow software did you purchase? I'm very interested in creating these and haven't the slightest idea where to begin.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic......


I use two sets of slideshow software. I use Pro Show Gold for making slideshows designed to be viewed on a DVD or Blu-ray player or for those designed to be streamed over the Net. I use Pictures2Exe for creating slideshows designed to be downloaded and watched on a Windows PC. The latter have much better picture quality because instead of converting the pictures to video, it just stores the jpg files and displays them. If you look here, you'll find examples of both (http://photos.barbierifamily.org/Slideshows/Vacations/4978695_gxH3d#298235417_EPujq). The ones that say Windows Only were done with Pictures2Exe and the ones that say Streaming Video were done with Pro Show Gold.

Pro Show Gold can create executable slideshows, but it appears to do it by generating video and adding a video player rather than just storing the picture files. The result is that you have the same quality loss as if you had made a video file. My suggestion is that you first decide how you want to distribute your videos (DVDs, Blu-ray, streaming video sites vs executable files) and then pick the best software for that choice.

The main appeal of shooting in RAW over JPG (for most) is that RAW files are more forgiving for post-processing. If you completely blow a highlight or need to restore some light in the shadows of a photo, you have much more room to do so with a RAW file versus a JPG.

RAW is also a lossless format in terms of photo editing. Each time you save/edit a JPG, the file loses a bit of quality/gets compressed whereas you can edit and save a RAW file as much as you'd like without altering the quality of the file. Once you're all done editing, convert to a high-quality JPG and you're set. RAW will take up a bit more memory in the end, but if you are interested in processing your photos, it's the better (not the only) way to go.


I agree with this in general. I just want to add that if you do shoot JPG and you want to edit your pictures, you can save your edits in a different format. For example, if you use Photoshop, you can open your jpg, edit it, and save it as a PSD file. In that case, you can edit it as many times as you'd like without continuing to lose quality.

No offense but, if you have to ask that, you shouldn't shoot RAW.

RAW is completely unprocessed and uncompressed data straight from the sensor. When shooting JPEG, the camera decides the amount of sharpening, contrast, and other variables that go into "developing" the digital image, then compresses it into the JPEG format.


I don't agree. If you are interested in improving your post-production work or you think that you will someday try to improve your post-production work, it is worthwhile to shoot in RAW or RAW+JPG. There are tremendous advantages to working with RAW files, so don't write it off. Memory is cheap. At least consider switching to RAW+JPG for the shots that are important to you.

Not exactly.... RAW is not a "format". RAW is the, well, the raw data. You can not view a RAW file. RAW files from the camera have to be processed into an image format before viewing. This is what your RAW converter is doing. You can convert into a JPEG with compression (throwing away data) or to something like a TIFF, which would be the lossless format.

When you preview a shot taken in RAW on the camera's LCD screen, you are not seeing the RAW data. You are seeing an image format that the camera is converting to before displaying.

Just wanted to make that more clear. If you wanted to look at a RAW file, it would look something like this:

klajdt[ugoqrn ognriojhfgoipeqo iroiejhqroid nfoehqfih
jhekjfnhodnnqvq43u5847qiht5io54yq908u7t4389045

... for pages and pages, ie. a bunch of googly goop with random characters, not an image. RAW must be post processed, whether you do default settings in the converter or you do custom processing. As I said, if you do the default processing, you may as well just shoot JPEG to begin with. But if you post process yourself with something such as Aperture or Lightroom, then you can apply things like white balance correction, color correction, selective sharpening, exposure correction, and other such "developing" stuff.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Neither RAW nor JPG is a picture. In both cases, they are bits of data that need to be translated to color and brightness values for display purposes. JPG is a standard, widely supported format whereas RAW is a proprietary (except DNG) format that is much less widely supported.

Incidentally, even a RAW file isn't just the direct sensor data. It's as close as you'll get, but some processing occurs before it the RAW file is written. That usually includes some noise reduction and sharpening. The camera makers are rather secretive about what processing is done between the sensor and the generation of a RAW file.

As for looking at a RAW file on the LCD screen, that raises an interesting point. In the Canon world (and I think the others, but I'm not sure), the image you see on the display is the RAW file as it would look using the camera's current image processing settings. In other words, you are effectively looking at what a JPG would have looked like. Why does that matter? If your white balance is way off, it could throw off your histogram, misleading you about clipped channels. So even when you shoot RAW, it makes sense to try to get your white balance at least reasonably correct.

Another frequent memory question is "one big card or several small cards?" Should you buy a 64 gig card and not worry about space or should you buy eight 8 gig cards? With one big card, all of your eggs are in one basket and sometimes that basket gets into trouble. With lots of smaller cards, you make more frequent card changes, each of which risks dropping or losing a card. You also run a bigger risk of missing shots because you filled your card and had to swap if you use smaller cards. My personal preference is fewer, bigger cards and redudant backups to a pair of 2.5" external hard drives each night.

One other thing to consider is video. Video sucks up memory like there is not tomorrow. If you plan to shoot video, adjust your memory expecations accordingly.

[disneyboy2003]

what is the benefit to shooting RAW vs. JPEG?

Believe it or not, your "RAW vs. Jpeg" question sparks heated debates among digital photographers. Do a simple Google search to see what comes up.

If you're a glutton for punishment, other hot topics you can also bring up in digital photography include:

UV filter vs. lens hood
Lightroom vs. Aperture
Canon vs. Nikon
Mac vs. PC
...among others.

RAW is the original image data captured by your camera's sensor. If you shoot JPEG, your camera takes the original RAW data and throws away about 7/8 of that data to produce the final JPEG image. (I'm not sure about the exact fraction, but that's how it was explained to me by a professional photographer)

If you shoot JPEG, you're letting the camera's on-board computer decide how to convert the RAW file to JPEG. On the other hand, if you shoot RAW, you get to control how you want to process the RAW file into your final JPEG image. In addition, your own home computer has tons more processing power than the little computer in your camera.

Warning: Nerdy math stuff ahead:

If you shoot JPEG, it's an 8-bit image. What does this mean? Each image is composed of different shades of red, green, and blue (hence, RGB). The term "8 bits" refers to 2^8 (2 to the 8th power) = 256. This means you get 256 shades of red, 256 shades of green, and 256 shades of blue. That sounds like a lot! And when you combine these different shades of colors, you can potentially create 16.8 million colors in an 8-bit JPEG file (here's the math: 256 red x 256 green x 256 blue = 16.8 million possible colors). That, too, sounds like a lot of colors!

If you shoot RAW, it's likely a 14-bit image. "14 bits" refers to 2^14 (2 to the 14th power) = 16,384. That's 16,384 shades of red; 16,384 shades of green; and 16,384 shades of blue! And combined together, you can potentially create 4.4 trillion colors (16,384 red x 16,384 green x 16,384 blue)!

Why is this important? Any time you do any image processing on your computer, you'll end up changing the tones of the image. Because JPEG images have relatively fewer tones / colors, you may run the risk of "posterization", which are abrupt (often ugly) changes in tone. Here's an example of posterization in the sky:

http://images.brighthub.com/2B/8/2B89347333689797CE19A3E6178B6338C31C3936_large.jpg

If you shoot in RAW and you make adjustments to your images, you have much less risk of posterization since you've got so much data you're working with. As a result, your final images will have much smoother tonal gradations.

Whew!

Oh, and 1 more thing. If you decide to shoot in RAW, sometimes there's extra information hidden in parts of the image that appear "blown out". For example, if you took a picture of a forest and the sky appears way too bright (or, "blown out"), sometimes, you can actually "recover" some of the image from the blown-out areas, resulting in a more realistic-looking sky. You can sometimes do the same thing with dark shadow areas, too. However, if you shoot JPEG, you'll have less success recovering details from the bright highlights and shadows.



Why doesn't everyone just shoot RAW? There are some advantages to shooting JPEG:

It's a standard format, so my JPEG image can be viewed on anyone's computer and can be printed on any printer.
A JPEG file is lots smaller than a RAW file, so you can fit TONS more JPEG images on your memory card.
If you're a sports photographer, you can shoot a HUGE burst of JPEG shots before the camera's buffer gets overwhelmed (whereas, if you shoot RAW, you can maybe shoot a dozen RAW photos before your camera freezes painfully for several seconds).
If you don't care to do any processing of your images, then your JPEG images are ready to be used right away (ie. you can upload them immediately to your Flickr account, burn them onto a disk, e-mail them to family, post them on Disboards, etc).


If you do decide to shoot RAW, you'll need a special program that'll allow you to open the RAW files, process the RAW images, and then convert them to JPEGs. Your DSLR camera should have already come with a CD that provides a RAW processing program for free. For example, Canon provides its Digital Photo Professional (DPP) on a CD.

Other popular programs for processing RAW files include Apple's Aperture, Adobe Photoshop & Photoshop Elements (both of which include Adobe Camera Raw), and Adobe Lightroom. (there are many others, but these are probably the most popular)


Okay, this post ended up being way too long and probably way too technical. Hope I didn't bore you with all this. I guess that's why "RAW vs. JPEG" stirs up such heated debate.

[Shutterbug]

I want to jump in on the Raw vs Jpeg part of the discussion.

For me it all depends on the subject matter. When I am doing the photography work for my autox club I usually shoot completely in jpeg. I typical shoot at least 300 shots during an event. Shooting in jpeg lets me get them right onto the server so they can be viewed as soon as people get home. If I have to convert them from Raw thats another process thats gonna take time.

Now if I am doing my own personal shooting its mostly landscape and often in tricky lighting situations. I shoot in raw that way I can tinker more with the lighting possibly bringing back blown out highlights.