Why both raw and .jpg?

[WishfulThinker]

During an upcoming trip to Alaska, I want to be sure I am maximizing my chances of returning with outstanding shots, especially glaciers. I am packing a ton of memory (at least I think I am) and plan to shoot raw images. However, I see a lot of references to shooting a combination of raw and top quality .jpg on the same exposure. My DSLR gives me that option, but I am wondering about the advantages of doing so. It would consume additional memory and what does it really gain to do so? Incidentally, I have found these discussions to be superb, better than most of the photo journals I see. Thanks to everyone who contributes!

[pierces]

I have found the need for RAW to be diminishing for me lately. With Lightroom able to treat JPEGs like RAW with the adjustments and corrections and the camera's sensors and JPEG engines constantly improving, the marginal chance of RAW providing an improvement over JPEG fine just hasn't been worth the overhead. I also find myself using Sweep Panorama mode, multishot noise reduction and in-camera HDR quite a bit and none of those functions are available with RAW.

 

Enough of the editorial...

 

The main reasons to shoot Raw + JPEG is so you can easily review the images on devices like tablets that usually don't support RAW or if you want to print something while travelling since most kiosks and mini-labs work with JPEG only. Another reason might be to use RAW purely as backup in case of a white balance or severe exposure issue and simply delete them en masse when you have ok'd all the JPEGS.

 

If you are the photog that usually shots RAW and obsessively adjusts each and every image, skip the JPEG and just shoot the RAW.

 

My 2¢...

 

Enjoy your trip!

 

Dave

[Marinerbaby]

I always shoot RAW but when I am doing commercial work there are occasions I shoot both because I am using both the CF and SD cards. I shoot RAW to one and jpg to the other just in case of card failure.

[awboater]

I don't always shoot RAW+JPG but when I do it is to retain an editable copy. When I get home from a cruise and look at the photos on a big screen, if the JPG is good enough, I'll delete the RAW files.

 

But if I find I need to edit a photo - I will use the RAW file rather than the JPG.

 

My camera has two SD cards and I can assign JPG to one and RAW to the other. Of course, the RAW card fills up faster, but it is an easy way to organize everything.

[cisobe]

I shoot raw primarily, however I recently picked up an eye-fi card for my second slot in my 5d3 and I've been shooting raw to my cf and small jpg to the eye-fi. Use the jpgs to upload to Facebook or to share via email.

 

I shoot raw because it gives you a very flexible file that you can nondestructively edit and adjust. If you shoot a jpg you're stuck with the exposure and white balance you shot at the time. Yes you can adjust the jpg but the jpg will degrade every time you save as it is compressed and not a lossless file format.

[pierces]

Yes you can adjust the jpg but the jpg will degrade every time you save as it is compressed and not a lossless file format.

 

That is why you save an edited copy, leaving the original JPEG pristine....opening, editing, saving a copy and simply closing the original without saving performs no additional compression on the file no matter how many times you do it.

 

Also, for simple edits and corrections, Lightroom (and even Picasa) offers the same non-destructive process as it uses on RAW.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

I am a semi-pro shooter - most of my shooting is fun, and for me, with occasional prints sold, and a small portion of my shooting is event-related, where I'm hired. When shooting for fun, I always shoot JPG - I enjoy the process of setting the shot and settings in the camera, and adjusting the camera's JPG parameters, to deliver the look I want so I don't have to post-process much, as I'd rather spend my time shooting than sitting at a computer processing. This is completely up to the person - some LOVE post processing, some are OK with it, and some hate it. I'm in the middle - I can do it, I'm OK with it, but I'd much rather be shooting and viewing than processing. As Dave mentioned, I simply don't really need or want RAW much anymore, as I can do minor tweaks to a JPG if needed, and work hard to get the JPG right from the outset to minimize processing time. And as Dave mentioned, I always leave the original JPG straight from the camera - all edits are done and saved as a separate file to avoid lowering the quality of the original. I also save JPGs at minimal compression settings of 1 out of 12 (default compression on JPGs is often around 10-12% on most software)...so my processed JPGs can even stand quite a few resaves if I wanted/needed to - though I've always got the original, just in case.

 

When I shoot for hire, it's no longer just me who is relying on the photos I take - I have a client, and getting the shot right is crucial as often these are live events with only one chance to get it - I'm confident enough in my experience and skill to feel I'll get the shot right 99% of the time, but not so confident to shoot only JPG because of the risk that the 1% I might get wrong end up being the most important moment to capture. So I shoot RAW + JPG. This allows me to shoot an event, and during processing, I can use the JPG result virtually all the time...but if I come upon a shot I missed exposure on, or messed up a setting, there's significantly more latitude in the RAW file to 'save' it through post processing. While JPGs remain very editable, more than some people probably realize, RAW files do have significantly more unused information which allows them to withstand fairly absurd levels of adjustment without destruction, edging out JPGs in how many stops of highlights you can pull back, and fairly importantly, allowing complete white balance setting, rather than adjusting an existing white balance on a JPG, which can save some bad indoor lighting mistakes. In an event shoot, I may end up using all JPGs and not needing the RAW at all - or I may end up using 5-10 RAWs, and the rest I was able to use the JPG. The RAW acts as insurance for me.

 

But when the shooting is purely for pleasure and personal pursuits, I much prefer JPG because it just lets me relax and enjoy the shooting, and not dread the hours upon hours of processing when I come home with 1,000 shots!

[havoc315]

Quite simply, RAW images give you a bit more flexibility in post-processing. Easier to fix "mistakes." Easier to fine tune the images to your precise liking.

The downside being -- You really MUST do some post processing. You generally can't just use the images straight out of the camera.

 

As discussed by others -- the reason to shoot both is so that you might primarily use the jpegs.... But you have a RAW back-up in case you want to fix major errors. For example, if a face is completed covered in shadow, the RAW file might allow you to really bring the face out of the shadow.

Also easier to fix white balance on a RAW image, as another example.

 

I go back and forth in how I shoot, depending on the importance of the images, and whether I want to spend the time in post processing.

But when I do shoot both --- While many jpegs are often "adequate" -- I find I prefer a RAW image that I process, over the jpeg image most of the time. Granted, many of the same adjustments can be made simply to the jpeg file.

[WishfulThinker]

Thanks for all the input. I am grateful. I believe I will go with shooting in both .jpg and raw because of the safety factor: it would give me a back-up should I screw up the exposures, and these shots are too critical to take a chance on messing up. In anticipation of doing a bit of computer work, I have begun experimenting with a merger of a .jpg image and a raw image. The former is of the family and the latter is a better sky than what we had at the beach. So far, I am lost so I need to do more studying. I cannot get both images in the editor window at the same time on Photoshop Elements 11. I'll get there....!

[pierces]

Thanks for all the input. I am grateful. I believe I will go with shooting in both .jpg and raw because of the safety factor: it would give me a back-up should I screw up the exposures, and these shots are too critical to take a chance on messing up. In anticipation of doing a bit of computer work, I have begun experimenting with a merger of a .jpg image and a raw image. The former is of the family and the latter is a better sky than what we had at the beach. So far, I am lost so I need to do more studying. I cannot get both images in the editor window at the same time on Photoshop Elements 11. I'll get there....!

 

Balance your RAW sky and save as a jpeg. Open the jpeg of the sky and you will be able to drag it over and drop it on the family jpeg since they will both be the same type and have the same color depth.

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

RAW versus JPG :eek:

 

If you have never shoting raw its like asking should I start developing my own film.

 

The overhead of doing both is small if you have a camera that dumps to two cards, raw on one and JPG on another.

 

For outdoor shooting or where you think you'll really might blow your exposure then RAW has real advantages. In this day and age of 24Megpixle, unless one has the very very best lenses, best technique and shoot with the lenses and camera at perfect settings this RAW versus JPG is a theoritical argument versus a real real practical debate. Again if shooting pictures where you might really blow exposure by a stop, or have huge DR and or WB issues JPG will work 99.9% of the time. Of course if you have hours to burn at the computer, gigbytes of storage and terabytes of HDD and then go for it :D

[c141heaven]

If you don't have Photoshop or another photo editor capable of deal with RAW it's pointless, but if you do and you really want the best you can get out of your images, shoot RAW.

 

For quick shots you just want to share in an email or on Facebook or elsewhere the JPG will usually suffice.

 

These days I always shoot both. For quite a long time I shot only JPG because I just didn't know what could be done with a poorly exposed shot if I had it in RAW and memory was pretty expensive in those early days. Once I gave RAW an honest try I never looked back.

 

Memory cards are plenty cheap these days ... I just got a 32gb class 10 card on Amazon for $21. Usually I prefer smaller cards (8 or 16gb) so I don't get too much on one card in case of loss or theft or a camera malfunction (or a simple mind-fart). However, I carry a netbook with me and copy everything to it every night. Once a card is full I put it in a safe place and start a fresh one so I should have two copies of everything at the end of trip. If I have decent internet access (speedy AND affordable) I also upload to a web based storage service as well.

[Grey Pilgrim]

Lots of good advice given above.

 

I used to use my dual card set up in the camera to hold RAW on one and JPG on the other. This past year doing a commissioned shoot of a B&B in North Carolina, I switched to RAW on one card, and a complete RAW copy on the other. Same photo copied to two cards.

 

Boy am I glad I did that. I uploaded to Lightroom, and then accidentally deleted my RAW files by a failed syncronization process. :eek: Then those RAW files were deleted off my memory card. The complete back up on the second card saved the day!

 

Have fun shooting !

[c141heaven]

Lots of good advice given above.

 

I used to use my dual card set up in the camera to hold RAW on one and JPG on the other. This past year doing a commissioned shoot of a B&B in North Carolina, I switched to RAW on one card, and a complete RAW copy on the other. Same photo copied to two cards.

 

Boy am I glad I did that. I uploaded to Lightroom, and then accidentally deleted my RAW files by a failed syncronization process. :eek: Then those RAW files were deleted off my memory card. The complete back up on the second card saved the day!

 

Have fun shooting !

 

There's a free program (PC only) called RECUVA ... can often resurrect deleted images from a memory card. Worth checking before giving up hope.

 

http://www.piriform.com/recuva

[Grey Pilgrim]

There's a free program (PC only) called RECUVA ... can often resurrect deleted images from a memory card. Worth checking before giving up hope.

 

http://www.piriform.com/recuva

 

------------------------------------------------

That is a super suggestion @c141heaven!

 

I'll download this tonight.