Re: non-full RAW files

[Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx>]

but for a sports portaight or school portraight company that know they won't every print bigger then 11x14 or 8x10 even its a lot of wasted space and time saved in those types of industries.   I would never do it and most people won't but event shooters doing 500+ shots a night might.

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:08 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2012-10-21 11:57, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hmm. Based on
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/eos_qt_small_raw_images_article.shtml,
it looks like the other RAW modes are simply not using all the pixels of
the sensor. I cannot think of any reason you'd want to do this; if you
bought a camera at a specific resolution, you'd want to use all the pixels
you paid for. If you want a smaller file for a given session that isn't as
important, don't shoot RAW, and shoot in jpg mode instead.

I can imagine wanting to shoot for web use only, but still wanting the post-production flexibility of RAW (especially for adjusting color balance).  I don't have a camera with such options, so it's all theoretical to me, though.

In the real world, I find that uses for pictures change behind my back over time, so plans made that are too dependent on the use aren't safe in the long run.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info