Processing RAW or JPG files?

Messages
2,837
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I am wondering if I am NOW doing things in a similar way to most others? That is I was looking at my camera settings recently and wondered why I saved both RAW and JPG files if I didn't actually use the JPG files. So I changed the setting to only take RAW - and now I am wondering why folk would keep both? Surely the JPG just take up storage space? Is there another reason? What have I missed?

Grateful for your musings.
 
For times where speed is worth more than storage space. I'll often shoot RAW + JPG and do initial work with the low resolution files because its quicker when working in the field with reduced load on laptop power. When i'm back at home without demands on time / battery I'll work with the bigger files.
 
When you shoot raw images, what you see on the camera's LCD is a processed image that is pretty much the same as what you would see if you were shooting jpeg. Many cameras have settings where you can have basic processing applied to this image, which have names like Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait, Landscape, and so on. These won't affect the saved raw image but will be applied to produce the jpeg. Some photographers have used this to get a ball-park idea of how the raw image will look after it has had basic processing applied. In extreme cases it can even help you decide whether to keep the image or delete it. This can be handy if you're shooting a great many photos and only have a small amount of space left on your memory card.

I've used this technique to shoot mono images. There's no such thing as a mono raw image, so I set my in-camera processing to B/W but only shoot raw. I get a basic idea of how the image will look after processing and whether it even works in mono, but still have the ability to choose whether it ends up in mono or colour when I get home and run it through post-processing.
 
Another thing to consider is the specific raw processor you are using. The camera maker's own raw processing package is usually tuned to give you results that are, by default, close to an in-camera jpeg, but this may not be true for third party converters. Both the camera itself and the maker's own software package will use the maker's carefully calibrated baseline colour profiles, and their software will generally also be able to apply settings like 'Vivid' during conversion (which are stored in the raw file when shooting in raw mode, but typically ignored by third party converters). Sometimes you might prefer the in-camera jpegs to what a third party converter gives you without spending time on further adjustments. In this case, it can make sense to shoot raw + jpeg, but the obvious alternative is to have the maker's converter in your toolbox. Then, assuming the output of the maker's raw converter closely matches an in-camera jpeg, there's not much to be gained from shooting jpeg except speed. I would suggest shooting some images in raw+jpeg mode and comparing the jpeg with the output of your favourite converter and with the manufacturer's converter, with or without in-camera settings like 'Vivid'. Things like skin tones and even primary colours can be surprisingly different, even with neutral camera settings.
 
I record both. Ostensibly to have an easy access to all the pics in iPhoto, as a kind of 'library', without having to go into LR to view all images, but I'm really not sure this is worth doing tbh. I spose it's ok to quickly browse through hundreds of images, as it's quicker (on my computer at least) than using LR. Make a note of the ones I want to use. It's not very practical though and I'm sure I could probably configure LR to do exactly the same thing. I suppose also it's about having at least a usable copy of an image if the RAW files went wrong. I dunno. I started off initially using just JPEGs for images, then switched to using RAW files, but never bothered not recording the JPEGs. I spose iPhoto is just like having all the contact sheets of film that I'd get; I'd either print up or mount the negs/slides as I wanted.

Really not sure why I keep doing it tbh.
 
I record both. Ostensibly to have an easy access to all the pics in iPhoto, as a kind of 'library', without having to go into LR to view all images, but I'm really not sure this is worth doing tbh. I spose it's ok to quickly browse through hundreds of images, as it's quicker (on my computer at least) than using LR. Make a note of the ones I want to use. It's not very practical though and I'm sure I could probably configure LR to do exactly the same thing. I suppose also it's about having at least a usable copy of an image if the RAW files went wrong. I dunno. I started off initially using just JPEGs for images, then switched to using RAW files, but never bothered not recording the JPEGs. I spose iPhoto is just like having all the contact sheets of film that I'd get; I'd either print up or mount the negs/slides as I wanted.

Really not sure why I keep doing it tbh.

I think that was what I was doing and then purchased Photomechanic 6 and that made life so much easier - especially as I properly started using tags when ingesting.
 
Thanks Gary - I can see that mono would be useful to preview. Something that I need to try.

I just remembered that there might be a drawback to this method. When I was shooting raw + mono jpeg, there was a short period where ON1 Photo Raw was showing me my raw images in mono as it was reading information from the file header that said that I'd chosen the mono picture style. IMO, it should have shown the image in colour but given me the opportunity to use the in-camera mono setting if I wanted to. I seem to recall that it stopped doing this after one particular update.

I only mention it in case there is other processing software that might do the same.
 
I just remembered that there might be a drawback to this method. When I was shooting raw + mono jpeg, there was a short period where ON1 Photo Raw was showing me my raw images in mono as it was reading information from the file header that said that I'd chosen the mono picture style. IMO, it should have shown the image in colour but given me the opportunity to use the in-camera mono setting if I wanted to. I seem to recall that it stopped doing this after one particular update.

I only mention it in case there is other processing software that might do the same.
I wonder if, rather than reading the picture style, it was simply displaying the preview jpeg typically embedded in a raw file?:

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/extract-jpg-raw-2/

I think it would be unusual (but certainly not impossible) for a third party raw processor to read and interpret a proprietary image style tag, though the camera maker's own software will usually do so and use it as the default (with the option to change it before conversion).
 
Raw for me, too much bother to remember to switch it back and forth.
besides I see no point in doing PP to both when Raw will always give you more head room to work with.

If I needed instant Jpegs to transmit to a third party while in the field, I would shoot both.
But I do not have that need.
As it is, if I want a jpeg for display on the web, It is easy enough to output the file as one.
 
I just remembered that there might be a drawback to this method. When I was shooting raw + mono jpeg, there was a short period where ON1 Photo Raw was showing me my raw images in mono as it was reading information from the file header that said that I'd chosen the mono picture style. IMO, it should have shown the image in colour but given me the opportunity to use the in-camera mono setting if I wanted to. I seem to recall that it stopped doing this after one particular update.

I only mention it in case there is other processing software that might do the same.
Lightroom does - at least Lightroom 6.14 does. I have the aspect ratio set on my camera (Canon EOS 80D) and the develop module automatically crops to this set ratio. Nothing permanent and on the odd occasions when I want a different ratio it is easily over-ridden. I seem to remember it doing the same when I set the camera to mono - file was still colour but Ligthroom's display was initially mono.
 
Lightroom does - at least Lightroom 6.14 does. I have the aspect ratio set on my camera (Canon EOS 80D) and the develop module automatically crops to this set ratio. Nothing permanent and on the odd occasions when I want a different ratio it is easily over-ridden. I seem to remember it doing the same when I set the camera to mono - file was still colour but Ligthroom's display was initially mono.

Yes lightroom reads the camera settings in the exiff data. and uses them as the starting point.
 
If I shot millions on shots on burst mode or only shot for art/money then perhaps RAW alone would make sense, but not to me as I use my camera.
I shoot RAW+JPG. Anything I really like is processed from the RAW, but as I'm mainly taking family and travel pictures there are lots of occasions where I've taken a snap of something that I'm not particularly excited by but the memory is worth keeping.
I wouldn't want to import everything into Lightroom just to export "record shots" out again. In the long run I suspect viewing JPG will be supported for many many years - Olympus .ORF, perhaps not.
Having the JPG on the SD card also gives me more options sharing from the camera over WiFi to my phone or sticking the SD card in a laptop to share the Faceberk.
My camera only has a 16mpx sensor and storage is ever cheaper so I don't see a downside.
 
I used to shoot RAW + jpg but I have always renamed files to give them a more meaningful name to find them easily in windows file explorer. This made keeping them in sync tricky.

Dropped the in camera jpg to solve rhe name sync issue. All was well till my new camera, it produces CR3 RAW and windows file explorer does not have a codec, MS not interested in writing one and neither is Canon. I now need to use something like LR or Luminar 3 to view the files on disk This means a meaningful name is far less important and shooting only RAW is ideal unless it is a 'throwaway shoot' ie.the need for top quality isn't there and the image may not even be kept after one use.

I just need to figure out the best way to name them and just a number may now be enough.
 
I have used RAW once in the last ten yrs.. I had a job where the customer wanted the file to make a full size wall poster. (as in taking up the full wall).......... Otherwise never use RAW.. Don't see the point with a 1dxII as the JPGs are pretty awesome with not much need for anything other than standard processing :)
 
I have used RAW once in the last ten yrs.. I had a job where the customer wanted the file to make a full size wall poster. (as in taking up the full wall).......... Otherwise never use RAW.. Don't see the point with a 1dxII as the JPGs are pretty awesome with not much need for anything other than standard processing :)

I'm pretty new at this. I'm trying to figure out digital so I'm looking for education. Be gentle with me.

I shoot with both. I shoot raw because I've been told I'm supposed to, but really, I shoot jpg. I come from a film background. I shoot digital like I shot chrome. I do that because I can. Chrome looked so cool, and I can do that on digital.

With chrome, you got one shot at it. Kodachrome was different from Ektachrome was different from Fujichrome. You knew that and either lived with it or exposed for it. From what I've learned, different cameras have different jpg converters [is that the word?]. Shooting jpg makes you beholding to those. I basically shoot with one camera now and I'm learning how to expose to its jpg converter. I could expose a pretty good slide, and I can expose a pretty good jpg.

I work with Photoshop Elements. I play with raw files now and then. And, hey, that's nice. But it's an extra step. And the files are big and slow. The only time I ever need to use it is if I botch the exposure. And the more I use that camera, the less that happens.

My pictures get shown on screens exclusively. PSE Editor with a properly exposed jpg file works for me for that. I'm not a pro. I don't do volume or display art. I don't have deadlines. I'm having a hard time seeing where a good jpg and PSE wouldn't be enough.

IMG_0795_web-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was wondering also if raw is overkill as the file sizes are much larger, then I decided that storage is cheap so why worry. I wonder if my initial question needs to come back to the age old “should I shoot in raw or jpeg”.
 
I work with Photoshop Elements. I play with raw files now and then. And, hey, that's nice. But it's an extra step. And the files are big and slow. The only time I ever need to use it is if I botch the exposure. And the more I use that camera, the less that happens.

Shooting raw and jpeg can be a good failsafe for some people and in some light conditions. Process the jpegs for speed, process the raw if you misjudged the light.

I wonder if my initial question needs to come back to the age old “should I shoot in raw or jpeg”.

Yes, you definitely should. ;)
 
There are a few reasons, but basically normally in a situation two different people or situations need two different versions.

For example. I sometimes have clients abroad who want to preview images as they are being shot. So the .jpgs go to them as I shoot, the RAWs are obviously for me to process afterwards.
 
I used to shoot RAW + jpg but I have always renamed files to give them a more meaningful name to find them easily in windows file explorer. This made keeping them in sync tricky.

Dropped the in camera jpg to solve rhe name sync issue. All was well till my new camera, it produces CR3 RAW and windows file explorer does not have a codec, MS not interested in writing one and neither is Canon. I now need to use something like LR or Luminar 3 to view the files on disk This means a meaningful name is far less important and shooting only RAW is ideal unless it is a 'throwaway shoot' ie.the need for top quality isn't there and the image may not even be kept after one use.

I just need to figure out the best way to name them and just a number may now be enough.

Have you looked recently?

Description

THIS VERSION OF RAW IMAGE EXTENSION INCLUDES SUPPORT FOR CR3 FILES IN ADDITION TO OTHER BUG FIXES! Thanks for your interest in the Raw Image Extension. You can acquire the extension to install on your devices, but Windows 10 May 2019 Update (version number 1903) is required to install the extension.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/raw-image-extension/9nctdw2w1bh8?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

This App was released that allowed W10 to see my Olympus ORF files in Explorer etc. - earlier cameras were supported by the Win8 Codec pack but not later ones -this fixes that issue.
My only gripe with it is if you have a slow machine and a lot of RAW files it takes a while generating thumbnails even if you've set the view to details with no thumbnail.
 
When I first owned a DSLR I set it to Raw + JPEG but after the first month realised that I did not use or need the JPEG files so have only captured Raw in all my cameras since. I am an amateur primarily taking shots for competitions so no need to process any quickly. I can see that there are a number of scenarios where it would make sense to capture both. For me, I only consider Jpeg files as temporary. My final edited images are normally TIFF or PSD and I produce Jpeg's from these for projection or web as required but do not keep the Jpegs long term.

Dave
 
Have you looked recently?

I contacted canon recently and basically their reply was ' we will not be supplying a codec, use DPP'. Several searches turned up information that MS would not be creating a codec, never found anything to the contrary


I did have a reply from someone on the MS support forum whatever it's called and he said no codec was available. I have just followed your link, installed the extension and my CR3 files now work. Thank you for that. I only got the camera back end of 2019, long after the May 2019 #1903 update and keep searching every few weeks.

Viewing CR3 and reading the EXIF in file explorer, 2 things I have dreamed of doing for months There is a god after all :)

Doesn't take too long to generate thumbs on my (quite old) pc but then they are approx 36 meg + and once generated they show almost instantly when changing directory viewed. It will seriously speed up my workflow. Looks like it's only the PSD files that I don't get thumbs for now. (unless you know differently lol.
 
Strictly speaking it looks like neither Microsoft nor Canon are directly involved in the RAW image extension...

"This package is made possible thanks to libraw open source project (http://www.libraw.org). Check out https://www.libraw.org/supported-cameras for a list of supported cameras. Libraw library is licensed under COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENCE Version 1.0 (CDDL-1.0) "
 
Strictly speaking it looks like neither Microsoft nor Canon are directly involved in the RAW image extension...

That's what I found but whoever sorted it then good on them.

Incidentally Sage Thumbs can add thumbnails for PSD files and for the time being I am using it. That extension as you say can slow things down with Sage Thumbs installed but then I think is is more to do with Sage Thumbs.
 
Strictly speaking it looks like neither Microsoft nor Canon are directly involved in the RAW image extension...

"This package is made possible thanks to libraw open source project (http://www.libraw.org). Check out https://www.libraw.org/supported-cameras for a list of supported cameras. Libraw library is licensed under COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENCE Version 1.0 (CDDL-1.0) "
I don't think that's quite fair on MS - they certainly depend on that library and which cameras it supports, but they went to the trouble of writing a Windows extension based on it. Lots of applications that do raw conversion use libraw (e.g. Affinity Photo) or dcraw (e.g. Photoshop's ACR, at least in early versions) rather than reinventing the wheel.
 
I wasn't clear in what I wrote - I meant MS and Canon hadn't directly supported CR3 etc. in Windows, it is the developers of the Open Source library who've done that.
I'm not knocking the work MS did in wrapping the library, slotting it into W10 and putting it in the Store for nothing - it works with Explorer but also Windows Photo Viewer etc. it's nicely done and very handy.
The support (or lack there of) for ORF Olympus files was a source of much moaning over at e-group with no one seeming to understand that MS supporting Olympus's proprietary format wasn't really their job and Olympus fairly reasonably pointing out that they provide Olympus Viewer/Workspace free.
 
[QUOTE="AMcUK, post: 8703149, member: 86358]Strictly speaking it looks like neither Microsoft nor Canon are directly involved in the RAW image extension..."[/QUOTE]

I thought I read a long time ago that .RAW was the original image format used by Canon before they updated it to .CR2. And it's why I point out now and again that you don't have to SHOUT when talking about raw files. Unless you're actually talking about .RAW files. A .RAW file is a raw file, but a raw file isn't necessarily a .RAW file.
 
[QUOTE="AMcUK, post: 8703149, member: 86358]Strictly speaking it looks like neither Microsoft nor Canon are directly involved in the RAW image extension..."

I thought I read a long time ago that .RAW was the original image format used by Canon before they updated it to .CR2. And it's why I point out now and again that you don't have to SHOUT when talking about raw files. Unless you're actually talking about .RAW files. A .RAW file is a raw file, but a raw file isn't necessarily a .RAW file.[/QUOTE]

I tend to write RAW as many windows programs have the habit of using uppercase for the file extension. I didn't know Canon called their raw files RAW (did I get that right? lol)
 
I shoot RAW+jpg most of the time as it means I can hand the wife the card with the jpg's on for her to do her anti-social media thing with and I can take my time to edit the RAW's the way I want them when I want to. A happy wife makes for a happy Togger :)
 
Back
Top