Does anyone like this idea

[Wes Peterson]

HE is cool, ? will it reduce buffer demand, streaming demand, camera processing demand, reduce costs, etc etc ? or is it just another option.

HE creates smaller files than JPEG FINE, and HE* creates files smaller than JPEG FINE* all with the full flexibility expected of RAW 14 bit

 

[EricKlees]

We can see what you wrote

That had to be auto corrected form INTERNAL storage, not Internet because I've said in multiple posts and multiple threads that i don't beliebe in cloud based storage. Don't trust it, it cost more than a NAS long term.

 

[EricKlees]

I believe he meant “off-site” to be a physical drive stored away from the main photo-editing station, like at a relative’s or even a vault. I’d call Internet-based storage “cloud storage”, though technically it IS off-site.

No that was auto correct from my phone, that was meant to be INTERNAL storage not Internet storage. Don't believe in close storage.

And there is no interpretation. The definition of off-site storage is that it's in a physically different location not on the same property so that would be cloud storage or backing up to other servers at a different address

 

[O]

HE creates smaller files than JPEG FINE, and HE* creates files smaller than JPEG FINE* all with the full flexibility expected of RAW 14 bit

Now that's amazing to know, thank you. My head is either RAW Tiff or JPEG Fine, but HE sounds beneficial, very interesting, i will now look into it more as to how best capitalize on its benefits.

 

[MMoretti]

Adobe’s DNG is another format to keep your eyes on. It’s better than JPG for retaining image quality (lossless, I believe), though I think it strips exif and can be larger than JPG. I’ve read it can also embed the full RAW source file, though that would clearly be contraindicative to one‘s desire to conserve storage space. If one is concerned about long-term compatibility/editability, it may be a good solution. For web applications, I prefer it over JPG.

 

[JoelKlein]

I shoot JPEG fine 99% of the time and i use and respect RAW the other 1% of times.

Based on the out comes, results, i have never had an issue, complaint be it clients or competitions, nor had anyone be able to tell if Raw or JPEG was used in the original capture.

I fully respect the benefits of RAW, but only if its really needed.

In competitions my entries have always been JPEGS be the awards Gold, Silver, or honorably mention.

Studio model shoots all JPEGS, never an issue.

Totally respect RAW and its benefits, or even TIFF i used in my D3X a lot.

Today the JPEGS coming out of the Z9, D850 especially, even my D3X are just so good.

Nikon Image files have always been very very good, plus i like to tune and tweak the saturation contrast in camera on many occasions, the more you practice the better you get.

During shooting an event, i hand the card over every 10 minutes, images are streamed with in less than 5 minutes of being taken, something video capture and newer cameras will do automatically eventually.

HE is cool, ? will it reduce buffer demand, streaming demand, camera processing demand, reduce costs, etc etc ? or is it just another option.

Could it be manufactures will move away from RAW eventually as they have TIFF, also cameras as we know it are becoming more and more video cameras, and there is tremendous pressure to align with the internet agenda of video, so is HE just ushering or a option to get us off RAW eventually, who knows.

Even images in JPEGs are being replaced with GIFF for certain web site building demands.

All together, RAW is excellent and the best, as was TIFF, use what works best for you while you can, RAW defiantly allows more capability to correct recover enhance an image, i have no experience with HE, its a tool like RAW i don't really need.

Can you imagine if cameras only shot quality files in JPEG fine what that would do to the bottom line and future designs ?

A well shot in camera JPEG fine photo that requires little to no work most of the time is sweet fruit.

ONLY an opinion

It takes guts to write this, and I admire your wisdom. Getting all JPEGs right in camera on the fly, requires skill and the right conditions.

 

[abc123brian]

I am betting on Nikon Lossless being readably by any software I'm using 10 years from now; not so with proprietary file types, so going with a non-standard file type doesn't appeal to me. With a gazillion lossless Nikon files out there, I can count on them being supported for decades. HE* not so much.

I don’t think it will be of any concern. The software has to include support for each camera‘s RAW already and support for these files has already been included so I don’t see it being dropped. Considering Nikon is using this in all their recent release cameras I see it as even less of a concern.

 

[O]

It takes guts to write this, and I admire your wisdom. Getting all JPEGs right in camera on the fly, requires skill and the right conditions.

I am a bit of a Ken Rockwell shooter fan and get criticized by the purists for it LOL, i think he is very smart.

JPEG fine seems to meet most of my needs LOL

Today's JPEGS can tolerate surprisingly more than a moderate amount of simple editing very well.

Manual, floating the iso, -07ev as a base, 3200 ss F2.8 F4 F5.6, matrix, then a tweak to suite the light, example +3 sharpening, +2 contrast +2 saturation, if not Vivid depending on shoots and how much pop i want, but i avoid Vivid at night with High ISO it brings in artifacts as i don't want or need editing to much so i avoid it unless i can keep the ISO down somewhat.

It sounds complicated but actually with time and practice it can be good, not many people like it.

My way is not for everyone.

As to editing, as i said outsourcing is cool, but if i want to do a little my self, i like NIK using Pro contrast, or Auto in Raw Editor often works well but not always.
I don't want to invest in latest software and the gear to run it or get into hands on printing............


Its not everyone's journey understandably, on the occasion where i am shooting low light very hi ISO i hit RAW and JPEG Fine, review the JPEG Fine if there is to much noise, work over the RAW version but the driver or reviewer is JPEG.

Raw is King, but hey, as my girlfriend says its nice to dine with the King from time to time but i love to dine with the prince every night LOL.

If its really important a quick ok in the menu and i record RAW and JPEG Fine, outsource heavy or super careful editing needed, life is about working smarter not harder LOL.

Light is my greatest friend and other than my Push Pull 200-500 that almost eliminates total cropping especially when in DX mode for some sports action, i use only F2.8 glass (Wholly Trio) and rent any exotics if needed.

I enjoy what i do that way, but yes RAW is not out of the question for really critical moments etc.

I now will look into HE that sounds interesting.

 

[JoelKlein]

I am a bit of a Ken Rockwell shooter fan and get criticized by the purists for it LOL, i think he is very smart.

JPEG fine seems to meet most of my needs LOL

Today's JPEGS can tolerate surprisingly more than a moderate amount of simple editing very well.

Manual, floating the iso, -07ev as a base, 3200 ss F2.8 F4 F5.6, matrix, then a tweak to suite the light, example +3 sharpening, +2 contrast +2 saturation, if not Vivid depending on shoots and how much pop i want, but i avoid Vivid at night with High ISO it brings in artifacts as i don't want or need editing to much so i avoid it unless i can keep the ISO down somewhat.

It sounds complicated but actually with time and practice it can be good, not many people like it.

My way is not for everyone.

As to editing, as i said outsourcing is cool, but if i want to do a little my self, i like NIK using Pro contrast, or Auto in Raw Editor often works well but not always.
I don't want to invest in latest software and the gear to run it or get into hands on printing............


Its not everyone's journey understandably, on the occasion where i am shooting low light very hi ISO i hit RAW and JPEG Fine, review the JPEG Fine if there is to much noise, work over the RAW version but the driver or reviewer is JPEG.

Raw is King, but hey, as my girlfriend says its nice to dine with the King from time to time but i love to dine with the prince every night LOL.

If its really important a quick ok in the menu and i record RAW and JPEG Fine, outsource heavy or super careful editing needed, life is about working smarter not harder LOL.

Light is my greatest friend and other than my Push Pull 200-500 that almost eliminates total cropping especially when in DX mode for some sports action, i use only F2.8 glass (Wholly Trio) and rent any exotics if needed.

I enjoy what i do that way, but yes RAW is not out of the question for really critical moments etc.

I now will look into HE that sounds interesting.

Thanks, informative information.
I had some events where I shot RAW + JPEG fine, with a touch of Nikon’s D Light, just to waste time editing the RAW’s which didn’t produce better results from the out of camera JPEGs, and ended up in the local news paper. Gray paper and ugly… at least the online version of the paper looked better.

I get it, Sometimes extra work isn’t needed. I admit that Nikon’s JPEGs are pretty good. (Including their noise resolution)

 

[O]

Thanks, informative information.
I had some events where I shot RAW + JPEG fine, with a touch of Nikon’s D Light, just to waste time editing the RAW’s which didn’t produce better results from the out of camera JPEGs, and ended up in the local news paper. Gray paper and ugly… at least the online version of the paper looked better.

I get it, Sometimes extra work isn’t needed. I admit that Nikon’s JPEGs are pretty good. (Including their noise resolution)

Yes agree with your comments widely.