Double files on sd card

dbay

dbay

Messages
344
Name
David Bayley
Edit My Images
Yes
When I download the files from my sd card it gives me two files for one picture. One has the picture and the other one is blank.
Is this because I shoot in raw + jpeg?
 
dbay said:
When I download the files from my sd card it gives me two files for one picture. One has the picture and the other one is blank.
Is this because I shoot in raw + jpeg?
Click to expand...
What are the file types? If you shoot raw and jpeg there would be one raw files and one jpeg file for every image.
 
Yes. You haven't said how you're downloading the files but Windows Explorer, for example, has no way of interpreting the RAW files so can only show a blank.
 
dbay said:
When I download the files from my sd card it gives me two files for one picture. One has the picture and the other one is blank.
Is this because I shoot in raw + jpeg?
Click to expand...

Your profile say

Main Camera: yet to purchase

So on that basis I don't understand how you can even use an SD card ;) Unless you hire or borrow a camera.:runaway:
 
Last edited:
Aah, the blank must be the raw file as I don't have the software to view the raw I presume. I was tempted to delete them but glad I didn't now.

Camera is a nikon d5600 btw, purchased and owned by myself.
 
Using adobe bridge instead of windows explorer will show you both JPEG and NEF. Easier to check for doubles
 
Yes, you shoot NEF+JPG the camera will save one of each to the SD card.
NEF files aren't directly viewable by windows etc like a jpg, you will need a piece of viewing software to decode them.
NEF or 'Nikon-Extended-Format', like most 'Raw' formats actually isn't all that 'raw' as in base sensor data; it's actually based on a a JPG algorithm, and contains a JPG file in the data-code, but with an extended file-set to say what choices the 'electrickery' made to create the viewable image that lights pixels on a screen for you to see.

The "Real Photographers shoot RAW' mantra, annoys me. you do NOT have to shoot raw, and all you get for it is some extra post-process diddle-ability, and mostly limited to contrast, brightness and curves, which you have, with a jpg anyway. You cannot use a raw format to change lens, focus, shutter-speed, or aperture, or what you actually pointed the camera at. It's a step down the computer-geekery road that begs you HAVE to start post-processing as a matter of course, just to lift a generically view-able image format, usually JPG anyway, from what you shot.

The JPG algorithm the camera would use to make a jpg format file, is well constructed, and rather like the "Go Manual" mantra, and insistence 'Real Photographers shoot manual'... usually manual exposure.... often not an awful help to any-one other than to make more of a faff of the job.

Modern electric-picture-makers have a lot of automation; it's just easy to spot the rather obviouse exposure mode marked 'manual' to use. There's also the auto-focus system, that can also be over-ridden, and of the cameras automation, that is probably the one the camera is less good at! But, manual-exposure... rather then letting the cameras computer, look at the through-taking-lens light-meter reading, and making best guesses at what the most appropriate ISO/Aperture/Shutter setting combination may be, and in an instant, set them for you.... going 'manual' you have to manually look at the through-taking-lens meter in the view-finder; decide what ISO/Aperture/Shutter combination to set, set them, and then take your photo..... A-N-D working to the same view-finder meter indication as the electrickery... balance the meter, at BEST all you will do is what the camera would do for you, just take more time about it, whilst at worst, you have that much more opportunity to get it oh-so-wrong!
The only real reason to use over-rides to the cameras automation is when you KNOW that the automation wont make the best choices for the situation, and YOU genuinely know better than all the cameras experts polled by the programmers, what WILL....
Otherwise, leaving the ruddy thing on 'auto' and letting the camera deal with the stuff it probably knows better than you how to do, lets you deal with the stuff that the camera cant do a dang thing about.... finding stuff to point the camera at, getting the best composition of it, and knowing when to press the shutter.

Worry about the craft, and spending your time looking THROUGH the camera, not AT the camera....

As to format and post-process....
Merits of shooting NEF, as said, are not as great as often acclaimed, and using it does beg an extra layer of 'faff' to mess with your pictures in post process.. and likely not do any better than the programming to make a JPG format in camera would.....
Merits of shooting JPG, are often derided for little other reason than its all 'consumer' cameras can do, and supposedly better 'ameteur' DSLR's dont have to use it, there's this easy to find 'RAW' format. A-N-D merit that it's a 'standard' and the processing can be fast, and the format widely view-able, rather forgotten....

A-N-D if you have got it 'Clean-In-Camera' to start with, paying more attention to looking 'through' than 'at', you probably wont get any better picture to look at anyway..... so where it works? Like green-box auto metering, why make life hard for yourself? Only real reason to go RAW is when you KNOW that you will have or want to post-process, a-n-d do domething both different and better than all these expert programmers 'best guess' in the standard programming... and in the mean-time... save yourself faff, save SD card space, a-n-d the camera processing power and effort trying to write a heavy file with everything plus the kitchen sink in it, rather than just the pair of scissors from the draw you actually only need.

NEF+JPG... is even more 'heavy' than just shooting NEF, and is packing even more into the suitcase, making even more work for the camera, making it even slower and taking up more SD card space.... all so that you still get the 'standard' JPG that are immediately view-able and shareable, that you could get just from the NEF, exporting as JPG from ViewNX or whatever..... it's belt and braces, plus a bit of string, and a apre belt in your pocket wayz about things, 'just' to cover all the bases... so that when you really don't know what you really want or need.... you can decide later..... maybe.... IF later you do realise what you want or need, and do make a decission.... meanwhile...... 99% of digital-picture makers are camera phones and the like, and they deliver standard JPG's and avoid the issue..... and folk manage to take wonderful photo's without the issue ever being encountered, let alone dealt with.

My advice, then is to shoot JPG... Keep-it-Simple-Silly... don't make life any harder for yourself, until you know that you will get something worthwhile for that extra effort......

Cue rants about the merits of RAW and the necessity of post-process, and how shooting RAW from the off means you have 'all' the data and can return to 'old' photo's and start diddling with them on a lap-top!

Remember KISS... Keep-It-Simple-Silly! Dont make work for yourself, or the camera you dont need... and a back catalogue of 'old' NEFS is likely to make work you dont need, begging idea you HAVE to go back and diddle!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Yes, you shoot NEF+JPG the camera will save one of each to the SD card.
NEF files aren't directly viewable by windows etc like a jpg, you will need a piece of viewing software to decode them.
NEF or 'Nikon-Extended-Format', like most 'Raw' formats actually isn't all that 'raw' as in base sensor data; it's actually based on a a JPG algorithm, and contains a JPG file in the data-code, but with an extended file-set to say what choices the 'electrickery' made to create the viewable image that lights pixels on a screen for you to see.

The "Real Photographers shoot RAW' mantra, annoys me. you do NOT have to shoot raw, and all you get for it is some extra post-process diddle-ability, and mostly limited to contrast, brightness and curves, which you have, with a jpg anyway. You cannot use a raw format to change lens, focus, shutter-speed, or aperture, or what you actually pointed the camera at. It's a step down the computer-geekery road that begs you HAVE to start post-processing as a matter of course, just to lift a generically view-able image format, usually JPG anyway, from what you shot.

The JPG algorithm the camera would use to make a jpg format file, is well constructed, and rather like the "Go Manual" mantra, and insistence 'Real Photographers shoot manual'... usually manual exposure.... often not an awful help to any-one other than to make more of a faff of the job.

Modern electric-picture-makers have a lot of automation; it's just easy to spot the rather obviouse exposure mode marked 'manual' to use. There's also the auto-focus system, that can also be over-ridden, and of the cameras automation, that is probably the one the camera is less good at! But, manual-exposure... rather then letting the cameras computer, look at the through-taking-lens light-meter reading, and making best guesses at what the most appropriate ISO/Aperture/Shutter setting combination may be, and in an instant, set them for you.... going 'manual' you have to manually look at the through-taking-lens meter in the view-finder; decide what ISO/Aperture/Shutter combination to set, set them, and then take your photo..... A-N-D working to the same view-finder meter indication as the electrickery... balance the meter, at BEST all you will do is what the camera would do for you, just take more time about it, whilst at worst, you have that much more opportunity to get it oh-so-wrong!
The only real reason to use over-rides to the cameras automation is when you KNOW that the automation wont make the best choices for the situation, and YOU genuinely know better than all the cameras experts polled by the programmers, what WILL....
Otherwise, leaving the ruddy thing on 'auto' and letting the camera deal with the stuff it probably knows better than you how to do, lets you deal with the stuff that the camera cant do a dang thing about.... finding stuff to point the camera at, getting the best composition of it, and knowing when to press the shutter.

Worry about the craft, and spending your time looking THROUGH the camera, not AT the camera....

As to format and post-process....
Merits of shooting NEF, as said, are not as great as often acclaimed, and using it does beg an extra layer of 'faff' to mess with your pictures in post process.. and likely not do any better than the programming to make a JPG format in camera would.....
Merits of shooting JPG, are often derided for little other reason than its all 'consumer' cameras can do, and supposedly better 'ameteur' DSLR's dont have to use it, there's this easy to find 'RAW' format. A-N-D merit that it's a 'standard' and the processing can be fast, and the format widely view-able, rather forgotten....

A-N-D if you have got it 'Clean-In-Camera' to start with, paying more attention to looking 'through' than 'at', you probably wont get any better picture to look at anyway..... so where it works? Like green-box auto metering, why make life hard for yourself? Only real reason to go RAW is when you KNOW that you will have or want to post-process, a-n-d do domething both different and better than all these expert programmers 'best guess' in the standard programming... and in the mean-time... save yourself faff, save SD card space, a-n-d the camera processing power and effort trying to write a heavy file with everything plus the kitchen sink in it, rather than just the pair of scissors from the draw you actually only need.

NEF+JPG... is even more 'heavy' than just shooting NEF, and is packing even more into the suitcase, making even more work for the camera, making it even slower and taking up more SD card space.... all so that you still get the 'standard' JPG that are immediately view-able and shareable, that you could get just from the NEF, exporting as JPG from ViewNX or whatever..... it's belt and braces, plus a bit of string, and a apre belt in your pocket wayz about things, 'just' to cover all the bases... so that when you really don't know what you really want or need.... you can decide later..... maybe.... IF later you do realise what you want or need, and do make a decission.... meanwhile...... 99% of digital-picture makers are camera phones and the like, and they deliver standard JPG's and avoid the issue..... and folk manage to take wonderful photo's without the issue ever being encountered, let alone dealt with.

My advice, then is to shoot JPG... Keep-it-Simple-Silly... don't make life any harder for yourself, until you know that you will get something worthwhile for that extra effort......

Cue rants about the merits of RAW and the necessity of post-process, and how shooting RAW from the off means you have 'all' the data and can return to 'old' photo's and start diddling with them on a lap-top!

Remember KISS... Keep-It-Simple-Silly! Dont make work for yourself, or the camera you dont need... and a back catalogue of 'old' NEFS is likely to make work you dont need, begging idea you HAVE to go back and diddle!
Click to expand...
So then, if shooting in RAW is not a great improvement over jpeg on most of our shots, why use a DSLR instead of a point an shoot? We’re taking about the same slight improvement.
I also think RAW might not be always needed but it comes down to every use case, not to the generalisation you just did.
 
MarcHT said:
So then, if shooting in RAW is not a great improvement over jpeg on most of our shots, why use a DSLR instead of a point an shoot? We’re taking about the same slight improvement.
I also think RAW might not be always needed but it comes down to every use case, not to the generalisation you just did.
Click to expand...
The proportion of my photos for which I need a macro lens is very small, definitely way less than 1%. But even if I only ever used two lenses, one being a macro, I would definitely want an exchangeable lens camera for those very occasional macro shots. In fact I actually have three macro lenses, and use all of them.

I also shoot RAW+JPEG, even though for around 98% of my shots I never bother with the RAW. The reason is that I often don't know when shooting whether I'll want to process the RAW or not.
 
MarcHT said:
So then, if shooting in RAW is not a great improvement over jpeg on most of our shots, why use a DSLR instead of a point an shoot? We’re taking about the same slight improvement.
I also think RAW might not be always needed but it comes down to every use case, not to the generalisation you just did.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Most people on this site care about the little improvements and they all add up... and some of the advantages of shooting raw aren't all that little at all :D IMO.

Personally I shoot raw unless there's a specific reason for doing otherwise. JPEG's have their advantages but the main two I can think of are that you have the picture as soon as you download it onto your pc and you can apply fancy in camera effects such as film types etc. Other than that and for many reasons I think that raws are the best way forward.
 
chris malcolm said:
The proportion of my photos for which I need a macro lens is very small, definitely way less than 1%. But even if I only ever used two lenses, one being a macro, I would definitely want an exchangeable lens camera for those very occasional macro shots. In fact I actually have three macro lenses, and use all of them.

I also shoot RAW+JPEG, even though for around 98% of my shots I never bother with the RAW. The reason is that I often don't know when shooting whether I'll want to process the RAW or not.
Click to expand...

Very sensible.
 
woof woof said:
Yup.

Most people on this site care about the little improvements and they all add up... and some of the advantages of shooting raw aren't all that little at all :D IMO.

Personally I shoot raw unless there's a specific reason for doing otherwise. JPEG's have their advantages but the main two I can think of are that you have the picture as soon as you download it onto your pc and you can apply fancy in camera effects such as film types etc. Other than that and for many reasons I think that raws are the best way forward.
Click to expand...

Of course every little thing adds up, that's why we are discussing this! I do also use RAW unless some reason requires not to. Given the storage prices being so low and the amount of tools (free or paid) we have to get the most of our RAW files I don't see any reason for not use them, other than ease of use.

chris malcolm said:
The proportion of my photos for which I need a macro lens is very small, definitely way less than 1%. But even if I only ever used two lenses, one being a macro, I would definitely want an exchangeable lens camera for those very occasional macro shots. In fact I actually have three macro lenses, and use all of them.

I also shoot RAW+JPEG, even though for around 98% of my shots I never bother with the RAW. The reason is that I often don't know when shooting whether I'll want to process the RAW or not.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to push the comparison a bit further, for me this 1% of times where you need something else is also enough to justify having a DSLR.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Cue rants about the merits of RAW and the necessity of post-process, and how shooting RAW from the off means you have 'all' the data and can return to 'old' photo's and start diddling with them on a lap-top!
Click to expand...

It's not so much a rant as a fact. If you shoot in raw you have all of the data captured by the camera's image sensor, rather than a jpg which is a very compressed, lossy file format where you lose huge amounts of image data. I can't agree with "leave the camera on auto and don't process your images". That's basically turning your DSLR into a glorified point and shoot where you have very little control over the final image. You're literally pointing the camera at things and pushing the button, that's it.

Processing your images is a hugely important step, and is often the difference between a good photo and a great photo. Just taking the straight out of camera jpegs and calling it a day is missing out a massive part of the creative process. And it's not a new thing with digital photography either, in the film days post processing was still very important, and people would develop their film in a certain way to get the look they were after.

To return to the OPs point, you're shooting raw + jpeg which is largely overkill. Personally I shoot raw only to save on card space and improve speed. If you take the raw files and spend a lot of time learning how to process them and develop your own style, you'll find your photography improves immensely. I know when I started taking my processing seriously and experimenting with different things I saw a big jump in how satisfied I was with my images. And with software like Lightroom, all of the edits are non-destructive, so your original file is never actually altered in any way. You can go back and re-visit your old work as you learn new techniques to improve your processing.
 
Last edited:
RichardC27 said:
I can't agree with "leave the camera on auto and don't process your images". That's basically turning your DSLR into a glorified point and shoot where you have very little control over the final image..
Click to expand...
Yes you do, the image is significantly in what you point the camera at, not what you prod on the camera.....

SMILE! SAY 'Cheese'!​

Long LONG before you press the shutter, long long before you ponder file formats, let alone what adjustments or enhancements you may make in 'Post-Process'... you have control! LOADS of it... to choose the scene you point the camera at, to influence that scene before you snap it.. there's just no convenient button. slider or insta-filter to help you, or make it obvious.... BUT.... just asking a subject to look your way, to pose, or even just 'Say-Cheese' IS taking control, effecting influence YOU have, to 'make' the photo you take... and so much of it, and ALL without touching a button...

So, in this quest to 'take control'... tell me, how much you do,? do you for instance ever re-arrange furniture? Asked any-one to move an inconvenient car or flower-pot? Do you carry a duster or bin-bag to tidy up the scene before you shoot it? Do you ever use a reflector to adjust lighting of your scene? Do you ever bend inconvenient tree-branches out of the way, or sweep over tracks or footprints in your shot?

Or do you believe that ALL the control you have is in spending ages deliberating over focus scemes, metering modes, and what settings to choose? Then in post process, playing with sliders and insta-filters?

Personally I did not spent upmety thousand quids on auto-everything electric-picture-maker, to turn all that automation 'off' and have to focus by eye, and faff with a hand-held light meter and exposure calculator and dial in aperture and shutter settings, like I did my all-clock-work Zenit film camera!

Nor do I miss all that faff, and feel compelled to re-involve myself with the minutia of the job doing stuff I really don't have to, kidding myself its 'taking control', or making oh-so-much difference...faffing in photo-shop, convinced that I am turning a sows ear into a silk-purse, like I did in my dark-room mixing chemicals, and pigging about trying to load film by ''feel', wasting umprty sheets of print-paper to get the most pleasant contrast grade, or dodging and burning to even out high-lights and shaddows, or tilting the base-board to correct converging verticals, etc etc etc..... ESPECIALLY if some gidgemo of automation will do as good a job as I might, in a fraction of the time, with a fraction of the effort., and none of the cost.. Spending that time I might selecting the best image file, and faffing with sliders, could, and likely much more efficaciously be spent doing 'something' in the scene to start with, moving an ash-tray, or wiping a table, or asking them to 'Say-Cheese'....

Its ALL control, and the first control is in setting the scene before you press the shutter... spurn that control, no matter what you try and convince yourself you are doing with buttons or sliders on the camera or computer, you are NOT taking full control of your picture.

DSLR as a Glorified Point and Press? Absolutely! THAT's the whole 'point'!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
So, in this quest to 'take control'... tell me, how much you do,? do you for instance ever re-arrange furniture? Asked any-one to move an inconvenient car or flower-pot? Do you carry a duster or bin-bag to tidy up the scene before you shoot it? Do you ever use a reflector to adjust lighting of your scene? Do you ever bend inconvenient tree-branches out of the way, or sweep over tracks or footprints in your shot?

Or do you believe that ALL the control you have is in spending ages deliberating over focus scemes, metering modes, and what settings to choose? Then in post process, playing with sliders and insta-filters?

Personally I did not spent upmety thousand quids on auto-everything electric-picture-maker, to turn all that automation 'off' and have to focus by eye, and faff with a hand-held light meter and exposure calculator and dial in aperture and shutter settings, like I did my all-clock-work Zenit film camera!

Its ALL control, and the first control is in setting the scene before you press the shutter... spurn that control, no matter what you try and convince yourself you are doing with buttons or sliders on the camera or computer, you are NOT taking full control of your picture.

DSLR as a Glorified Point and Press? Absolutely! THAT's the whole 'point'!
Click to expand...


Since I largely shoot motorsport I have very little control over the scene in front of me, my job is to capture the action in an aesthetically pleasing way. Rather than argue the point I'll just throw two images up to illustrate what I mean. This photo could not have been taken with the camera in auto mode. The camera would have picked a shutter speed several stops higher than I did, as it would be trying to freeze the fast moving car. However, because as I stood there trackside I had already planned out how I wanted this image to appear, I chose a shutter speed of 1/160th of a second, to give the image some motion and give an impression of speed. I have to be in manual mode to do this. the camera doesn't know I want to blur the background and wheels but keep the car sharp. And, since apparently post processing is unnecessary, image 1 is the unprocessed raw straight out of camera, and image 2 is the one I will be publishing this evening. I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide whether PP was necessary in this image. I know which I prefer. By the way processing this took about 10 seconds, it's not exactly a huge involved job to move a few sliders to get the image looking exactly as you want. I can't get the look straight out of the camera no matter what jpeg settings I apply.

1


2
 
Last edited:
RichardC27 said:
It's not so much a rant as a fact. If you shoot in raw you have all of the data captured by the camera's image sensor, rather than a jpg which is a very compressed, lossy file format where you lose huge amounts of image data. I can't agree with "leave the camera on auto and don't process your images". That's basically turning your DSLR into a glorified point and shoot where you have very little control over the final image. You're literally pointing the camera at things and pushing the button, that's it.

Processing your images is a hugely important step, and is often the difference between a good photo and a great photo. Just taking the straight out of camera jpegs and calling it a day is missing out a massive part of the creative process. And it's not a new thing with digital photography either, in the film days post processing was still very important, and people would develop their film in a certain way to get the look they were after.

To return to the OPs point, you're shooting raw + jpeg which is largely overkill. Personally I shoot raw only to save on card space and improve speed. If you take the raw files and spend a lot of time learning how to process them and develop your own style, you'll find your photography improves immensely. I know when I started taking my processing seriously and experimenting with different things I saw a big jump in how satisfied I was with my images. And with software like Lightroom, all of the edits are non-destructive, so your original file is never actually altered in any way. You can go back and re-visit your old work as you learn new techniques to improve your processing.
Click to expand...
But many of us preferred to use slide film so we had virtually no way of altering the final result after pressing the shutter release. I don't remember those who preferred negative film and print-making saying slide users were turning their cameras into 'glorified point and shoot' so I think your attitude is simply elitism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top