There have been a number of discussions on this site discussing the advantages of capturing images as raw files versus JPEG. I've participated in some of them, and a few have become pretty unpleasant or even militant in nature. While I've been focusing on other areas than this forum, I've been reviewing my position on that topic (I added raw/NEF as one of my file formats a year and a half or so ago) and have decided that my choice at that time was suboptimal. The result will be another change in the way I record and save images.

This is a big change, of course, but careful evaluation indicates that it will be better than what I'm doing now in all respects, with only one minor disadvantage. When my D500 is returned from Nikon service in a week or so (it's waiting on parts from Japan right now) and has to be set up again, it will be the first of my cameras which will be exclusively saving images as TIFF files. If there are no snags encountered, the D810 and D850 will follow pretty quickly.

Here's a quick summary of the top reasons for this significant change:

1. File depth will be 16 bits rather than 14.

2. Both uncompressed and lossless compressed formats are available.

3. When using multiple cameras or collaborating with others, all files will be of identical format, other than resolution, which is handled transparently.

4. Anyone will be able to view the files, since TIFF is a universally adopted and available format.

5. All camera setup options (pre-processing) will be immediately visible to whoever views the files.

6. Any editor can be used for post processing. No issue with waiting for new raw formats to be recognized. Movement from one editor/processor to another will be completely transparent.

7. All post processing actions will be incorporated directly into the file. (Yes...a copy will be made for editing and the original retained.)

8. No file conversion will be required for presentation to the printer. File conversion from raw has produced some very problematic results in specific circumstances in the past.

The only disadvantage I have discovered to this point is that none of my camera bodies support saving a second file type along with TIFF files. It is a committed choice. It is possible to save backups to a second memory card in those bodies that support dual cards. But if JPEGs should be needed for some reason, they will have to be created and saved later. Not a big deal, since almost every editor has a "Save As" function.

Individual files will be slightly larger than raw files, but in today's world of low memory prices, that's a pretty weak reason for not choosing this option.

I'll be tracking how this goes. I'm also a little uncertain about whether to make the change on the D300 and D300s. Might not be worth it. I'll have to do a little more experimenting on that part of the puzzle, and might just have one or both of them set up for the times that is known that JPEGs are needed.

Here is the scenario:
1. You are an advanced amateur photographer; some may call you an enthusiast.
2. You frequently take cruises to the Med, Asia, Europe, and South America.
3. You enjoy taking street and travel photos, and sometimes long shots from the cruise ship as it arrives/departs ports.
4. When on "shore excursions", you enjoy being in the cities and restaurants, but not hiking or nature walks or kayaking. Lots of photos inside churches, museums, restaurants, and popular spots in the urbam scene, with an almost even mix of day and night.
5. You don't like rain, hate snow, and prefer temperatures above 50°F.
6. You have a Panasonic GX-9 micro 4/3 camera, a flash that can be used on or off (wifi or bluetooth) camera (GN 127) and a bunch of lenses (see below).
7. You will not have a tripod, but your camera has internal stabilization, as do some of your lenses.

7. THE CHALLENGE:
RANK ALL lenses, In priority order by letter, your choice of lenses to take on your next Mediterranean cruise.
You must choose ONLY from the list, using only the letters, without further comment.
Focal lengths are ALL listed in 35mm equivalent format in order to eliminate confusion. (2x crop factor, etc.)

LENSES:
A. Pany 24mm f1.4
B. Pany 14-28mm f4
C. Pany 24-70mm f2.8
D. Oly 120mm f2.8 macro
E. Pany 85mm f1.2
F. Pany 70-200mm f2.8
G. Pany 200-600mm f3.5-5.6

Your letter ranking should be based on the usefullness for the scenario given, without considering weight or size. You will be taking few, if any, portrait or landscape shots; you will be takimg some food shots in restaurants.

ANSWER EXAMPLE:
C
A
B
F
D
E
G

Can't wait to see the responses to this, especially from those who have lived thru a similar scenario.!!
Thanks for stepping up to the challenge!

I know this post will likely trigger the B&H faithful into attack mode, but I wish to tell my brief story.

Earlier this week, I noticed that one of the rubber feet from my Sirui W-2204 Tripod had somehow shaken loose and had been lost...yes...bad on me.

Precisely because numerous UHH members sing the praises of B&H, and I had purchased the tripod from B&H, and after searching their website without success for Sirui replacement rubber feet, I called-in. I spoke to 'Jacob'. I explained my problem and asked if he might know of a compatible replacement rubber foot.

Before I could even take my next breath, he gruffly responded "You'll have to call Sirui." So what was missing here? Well, no inquiry as to whether I had purchased the item from B&H, no mention of "I'm sorry we can't help you with this matter but...."

Just a gruff "You'll have to call Sirui," after which I politely replied "Thank You" and ended the call.

BTW, I called Sirui USA and was told that I must submit a service request on their website complete with serial number and bill of sale/receipt. I located the information, submitted a request and I haven't heard back from them yet.

Despite my displeasure with B&H, I did order another manufacturer's replacement product from B&H and it is now installed.

So I ask, where's the customer service? Where's the courtesy?

TY

doclrb

A friend of a friend, unbeknownst to me, created a watercolor from one of my photographs. We are having prints (not for sale) made of the watercolor which will be mounted on white stock paper.

My question: How should the piece be signed? The original photograph will not be visible. I was thinking something like "Watercolor by XXXX XXXXXX, inspired by a photograph by XXXX XXXXXXX." I am hung up on the wording. All ideas will be appreciated!

OR, perhaps I should not receive any recognition? In this case, the wording is a moot point.

`

I use both brands but neither of those exact versions.

Amongst my several models are special features that
I value: 6K burst, "one touch" exposure, perspective
correction, focus stacking, HDR, etc, etc. But acoarst
not all features are on every camera.

So, given two outfits of essentially equal basic ability,
maybe it's a specialty feature that will win your wallet
to one kit or the other ?

=============================

In my flock, Olympus has the outstanding specialty
features, but Lumix has the outstanding operational
features. So the Lumix features aid me continuously
altho not adding special imaging abilities, while the
Olympus features are not of continuous use, but do
add special imaging abilities. IOW, Lumix features
are ergonomic conveniences, Olympus features are
actually enabling image making in special situations
[focus stacking, perspective adjusting] ... BUT ! but
becuz you prefer raw files, a few of the Olympus's
imaging features will be denied you :-(

.