Aperture 2.0, the Nikon D300 and RAW compression settings

Hello,

I just received my copy of Aperture 2.0. Upgraded it to the latest version (forget which). And will be shooting in RAW for the first time. And would like to know which compression setting I should set my D300 to to work with the Aperture 2.0 RAW converter. As I was told not all modes in all DSLR's work with all converters.

The D300, as D300 users should know, has 3 options. "Lossless" (loose 20-40% of data with no loss in image quality, the default), "compressed" (loose 40-50% with noticeable loss in image quality) and "uncompressed" (no compression at all, RAW file saved in it's entirety as it was shot).

Recommendations? Thanks!!

I shoot uncompressed, works fine in Aperture 2. I really don't see a lot of need for compression with the availability of CF storage in multi-GB ranges.

Dysfunction said:

I shoot uncompressed, works fine in Aperture 2. I really don't see a lot of need for compression with the availability of CF storage in multi-GB ranges.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

I take it you're a D300 owner too. Roughly how big are the file sizes uncompressed? And have you tried "lossless" while using Aperture 2.0? Why aren't you shooting in "lossless"?

I shoot RAW with my canon 20D and the RAW files are about 9MB, using Lightroom to import and edit

I would shoot in RAW if I could notice any difference!

i dont think that you notice a difference, but it is easier to edit and manipulate to your standards and how you like things. there is an advantage over JPEG

I haven't shot in RAW yet but supposedly you DO see a difference in detail and color range in prints. You (we) probably wouldn't see much if any difference on the monitor. Though I wonder...if we properly calibrate our monitors (most of us don't) would we not see a difference? Hmmm...

Any how if one poster says he can use "uncompressed" with Aperture 2.0 without problems then it's likely there would be no problems in the "lossless" setting. Has this been your experience too? Any one can comment of course.

You WONT see a difference by shooting RAW, but dang there is a massive difference when it comes to post processing them, RAW is much more forgiving allowing you to rescue files that would otherwise be deleted.

For a real world example of what i mean see this thread in my blog.
http://derekclegg.net/blog/?cat=8

Del said:

You WONT see a difference by shooting RAW, but dang there is a massive difference when it comes to post processing them, RAW is much more forgiving allowing you to rescue files that would otherwise be deleted.

For a real world example of what i mean see this thread in my blog.
http://derekclegg.net/blog/?cat=8

Click to expand...

hmmm, that was very clarifying, thanks!
i have yet to shoot in raw (i have yet to shoot at all, actually), and i was wondering if i was going to notice any difference...

Usually I won't see any difference between Raw and shooting Jpg but if I look closely in my highlights I do see color aberrations more in the Jpgs.