Advice to shoot RAW + JPG?

dmcaloney

dmcaloney

Messages
289
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Seems to be the general opinion from tutorials I have read to date, but why?

Surely if shooting RAW then the jpg must (in most cases) become redundant?

Or am I wrong to assume that every pic shot in RAW is post processed?

Thanks in advance,
 
I used to shoot RAW + JPEG but was finding that I wasn't even using the the JPEG's, they were just taking up space and I was still editing up the RAW's regardless of having the JPEG's. So now I shoot just RAW...
Not sure if it's the 'correct' way, but it works for me!
 
Cheers Mike, thats my opinion too, but was wondering if it was just me!
 
I'm with Mike as well. RAW files actually contain an embedded JPEG anyway, so unless you need instant access to the files without specialist software there's not much point in RAW+JPEG.
 
I shoot in RAW and JPEG, but rarely post process. I have the RAW there just in case.

Mostly I will use the JPEGS for whatever I need to do with them.
 
I had never thought of it before but I never do anything with the JPGs.

RAW only coming up I think, can squeeze a few more on the card that way. Everything goes through lightroom hence can very quickly get JPGs if the need arrises, as opposed to the normal tinkered JPGs that I export.
 
The RAW & JPEG option is primarily there for those who need to wi-fi images as they take them but have to retain a RAW file for later processing...
If you're a hobbyist photographer there's really no need unless you're so utterly idle that you can't be bothered to process your RAW files...

Typical user is someone shooting both for a newspaper or wire service that requires fast and dirty images for immediate transmission and for an Image Library that requires meticulously-processed large file sizes at a later date.
 
Another vote for shooting RAW only.

The only reason I can think of for shooting RAW + JPG together is if you needed to download the JPGs on the spot, e.g. if someone else wanted copies.

I shot RAW and JPG together when I first got my 5D a couple of years ago, but quickly realised that it was a bit of a pointless exercise. I've shot RAW only ever since.

A.
 
For most things I shoot RAW.

However if it's something where I know I'm not going to need to touch the expose then I'll shoot jpg.
 
This is a topic where everyone will have an opinion and all of them will probably be different and correct at the same time.

My take on this is it depends on a number of things including;

What you are photographing
Where you are photographing
What purpose you are photographing (pleasure, for work, to submit to libraries etc)
How good you are at getting everything right at the time of taking the picture
How much you rely on post processing
How big a file you need to end up with

For instance - if I'm on holiday I shoot RAW + JPG and almost always use the jpg only. I have the RAW files if there's a particularly good shot I want to process and keep, but mostly the JPG's are good enough.

When I take pictures of bands at gigs I don't do much post processing and I only need relatively small files when I'm done so I use JPG's and don't even bother with RAW files. For images I put on a website and ones which will never be enlarged above A4 I don't mind processing a copy of the original JPG as the result is always more than enough in terms of quality and file size.

When I take portraits I shoot in RAW as all files that make the grade get processed to some degree. I only bother shooting RAW + JPG for portraits when I want to show instantly on a laptop at the time of creation, but this is rare.

To sum up, shooting RAW + JPG is a good standard to adopt as you will always have the RAW files and an instant JPG which should be good enough for most uses if you are competant with your camera. Hope this helps but do remember that this is just my opinion...
 
I mainly shoot and process RAW, however. I have a backup card that I records simultaneous JPG's at a slightly lower quality, but enough to submit use for my purposes. If one card does become corrupt, I've got a backup. I almost needed it last night as well.
 
I admit that I'm utterly bewildered as to how to edit in RAW - I am running CS4 and can do anything at all with JPEG files, but at present I cannot find the familiar tools in Camera RAW that are available for processing JPEG. I shoot RAW + JPEG and archive the RAW against the day when I can.

For instance, the most common tool I use for editing JPEGs is the Shadows/Highlights tool for which Camera RAW has only a "Fill Light" tool for shadow detail but apparently no way to balance the Highlights. Until I can figure that, RAW file processing will remain a mystery.
 
mark greenhill said:
I admit that I'm utterly bewildered as to how to edit in RAW - I am running CS4 and can do anything at all with JPEG files, but at present I cannot find the familiar tools in Camera RAW that are available for processing JPEG. I shoot RAW + JPEG and archive the RAW against the day when I can.

For instance, the most common tool I use for editing JPEGs is the Shadows/Highlights tool for which Camera RAW has only a "Fill Light" tool for shadow detail but apparently no way to balance the Highlights. Until I can figure that, RAW file processing will remain a mystery.
Click to expand...

Err...
Open it in ACR from Bridge...check the colour-temp...maybe the exposure if you're unsure you got it right in the 'basic' section.
Maybe add some vignetting...click on 'open' - edit as normal in Photoshop, 'save as', close.

it doesn't get much simpler...
 
DazzGreen said:
For instance - if I'm on holiday I shoot RAW + JPG and almost always use the jpg only. I have the RAW files if there's a particularly good shot I want to process and keep, but mostly the JPG's are good enough.

When I take pictures of bands at gigs I don't do much post processing and I only need relatively small files when I'm done so I use JPG's and don't even bother with RAW files. For images I put on a website and ones which will never be enlarged above A4 I don't mind processing a copy of the original JPG as the result is always more than enough in terms of quality and file size.

When I take portraits I shoot in RAW as all files that make the grade get processed to some degree. I only bother shooting RAW + JPG for portraits when I want to show instantly on a laptop at the time of creation, but this is rare.

To sum up, shooting RAW + JPG is a good standard to adopt as you will always have the RAW files and an instant JPG which should be good enough for most uses if you are competant with your camera. Hope this helps but do remember that this is just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Thats a really good guide, thanks.
 
Arkady said:
Err...
Open it in ACR from Bridge...check the colour-temp...maybe the exposure if you're unsure you got it right in the 'basic' section.
Maybe add some vignetting...click on 'open' - edit as normal in Photoshop, 'save as', close.

it doesn't get much simpler...
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob, You just opened a RAW door for me and I had a breakthrough! :thumbs:
From this ...
Chiltern-1.jpg

to this ...
Chiltern-2.jpg

By no means brilliant but at least I think I understand that it allows you to edit the RAW file in CS4
just as you would a JPEG, but it isn't converted to JPEG until you Save it, right?​
 
mark greenhill said:

By no means brilliant but at least I think I understand that it allows you to edit the RAW file in CS4

just as you would a JPEG, but it isn't converted to JPEG until you Save it, right?​
Click to expand...


Correct - and you can save it as anything you like - the original RAW file is unaffected (Bridge 'saves' the settings you applied for preview purposes, but the file itself isn't affected).
 
Excellent - I have just entered a new phase in my learning curve. Thanks again, Rob. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top