RAW only, or RAW and JPEG?

Apretext

Apretext

Messages
161
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently shoot in RAW and JPEG, as obviously it means I can tweak photo's in lightroom. I am beginning to wonder if this is any point in shooting JPEG too, or should I just do everything in RAW only? what is the advantage of JPEG as well?
 
Ive often wondered why anyone would want to shoot both formats at the same time too.
I can only imagine for press photographers or something that want to be able to send off a usable picture straight away but also be able to edit it properly at their leisure later. For most of us RAW or JPEG would be fine Id have thought.
 
I think for those just getting past the point and shoot stage and getting into editing raw images having the safety net of an in camera jpeg can be useful. It provides a target as to what the edited image could look like and also you can still have a usable image if the raw edit goes south. Other than having an image immediately available I can't see a reason to have both. With most Nikon raw files there is an embedded basic jpeg in there anyway, don't know about other camera formats.
 
Raw pretty much most of the time for me,if i am going to tweak photos in LR then just as easy in raw.:)(y)
 
Is there any way to go back to the original RAW on lightroom if you have messed it up?
 
Yes (you can go back), Lightroom provides a history of all the changes. You also won't actually edit the original RAW file as Lightroom imports it into it's library. I'd back up any important RAW files in their original state though, just for safe keeping.

I'm no expert on every aspect of LR so others may add or amend what I've stated above.
 
PaulButler said:
I think for those just getting past the point and shoot stage and getting into editing raw images having the safety net of an in camera jpeg can be useful. It provides a target as to what the edited image could look like and also you can still have a usable image if the raw edit goes south.
Click to expand...

:agree:
I am just getting started so shoot with both kind of as a safety net. When I get more confident, I imagine I will only shoot RAW, but whilst i'm near the bottom of the learning curve, i'll play safe!
 
Your only safety net, no matter which format you shoot is backup, backup and more backup.
 
Georges said:
Your only safety net, no matter which format you shoot is backup, backup and more backup.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Just a quick point on Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor - what that means is it never changes the original file, raw or jpeg or any of the other formats it supports. It creates a list of actions that are always applied to the file when viewing or exporting. If you cock it up in Lightroom, you can just reset or go back a few steps to recover.
 
It's not just about safety net. Sometimes friends and family want to have the shot straight away, so just hand them the SD card they'll copy the JPG out of the camera, easy.

I shoot full sized 21MP RAW and 5MP JPG. The latter is only 1.5MB compared to 25MB of RAW, doesn't waste much card space.

Even the 5MP JPG is still miles better than any 8MP phone pictures or 10MP compact pictures. As we all know, it's all about the lens.
 
A feature I like (depending on the camera) is shooting raw to one card and jpeg to the other. You can at least fire through the jpegs to decide which raw files are worth progressing with.
 
wuyanxu said:
It's not just about safety net. Sometimes friends and family want to have the shot straight away, so just hand them the SD card they'll copy the JPG out of the camera, easy.

I shoot full sized 21MP RAW and 5MP JPG. The latter is only 1.5MB compared to 25MB of RAW, doesn't waste much card space.

Even the 5MP JPG is still miles better than any 8MP phone pictures or 10MP compact pictures. As we all know, it's all about the lens.
Click to expand...

Meh, they can wait... ;) I just seem to always use lightroom exports rather than the original JPEGS anyway, I was just wondering whether the JPEG's contained any different data than the RAW image.
 
I shoot RAW + JPEG - I use the JPEGs to decide which photos are keepers, and then edit the RAWs that I decide to keep.

For the size the JPEGs take up I think this is worth doing.
 
I've only ever really shot in raw, it was one of the first things I did when I got my camera. That and learn how to shoot in manual.

I guess there are some advantages of shooting in JPEG too like others have said but most of the time they're not going to get used :) The biggest advantage would probably be people wanting their images straight away, they may not always be how you want them that way though
 
Apretext said:
I currently shoot in RAW and JPEG, as obviously it means I can tweak photo's in lightroom. I am beginning to wonder if this is any point in shooting JPEG too, or should I just do everything in RAW only? what is the advantage of JPEG as well?
Click to expand...

I always shoot both.

Aim to get it right in jpg, if I need the extra raw data for recovery then its there. I don't buy the card memory 'space' reason for not shooting both, if you can't afford a second or bigger card then photography is the wrong hobby - ask my credit card :LOL:

If you always intend to edit then you may aswell just shoot raw, but the jpg takes up relatively little space and if its good enough without processing then you have used the camera too its full potential and saved yourself time. You don't need to process it or extract with some other program - time is money!
 
Both for me too... Jpg for reference and quick view, then RAW for recovery/alterations.

with a 32gb card, 1100+ photos is enough for me... even an 8gb card is penuts nowadays, so I keep one if those spare.
 
I tend to just shoot RAW and pull everything in to Photoshop, unless I know I'm not going to be near my PC for a while in which case I'll do RAW + JPEG to view them on other PCs.

Only time it's really a benefit is if I know I'm going to be shooting off a lot of shots in quick succession, in which case the JPEG copies mean additional space used in the buffer and time writing to the card.
 
driver_wedge said:
You also won't actually edit the original RAW file as Lightroom imports it into it's library.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you meant to type the above but LR doesn't import the physical image into it's library. What it does do is maintain a database of information about each file and what you do to it in LR - that's all the library is.

I agree with your other point about making back-ups though ... at least two copies of each original unedited files :D
 
Both here as well - I also prefer to quickly review the JPEG files before firing up Lightroom !
 
Last edited:
Apretext said:
Is there any way to go back to the original RAW on lightroom if you have messed it up?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify what happens:
Lightroom's "Library" function is to act as a database for your images.
So when you import them, you tell Lightroom where you want the original files to be stored.
You can also tell it to make a back-up copy in another location at the time of import. So you can have them on your hard disk, with a copy of all the images on an external drive.
So long as you only use lightroom for this, and not windows explorer for example, Lightroom always knows where your images are.

When you open an imported image into the "Develop" module in Lightroom, the image opens up, and you can adjust to your heart's content.
You could, for example make 6 "virtual copies" of an image, and process it in 6 different ways.
When you make any changes to an image, the original doesn't actually get changed at all. Instead, Lightroom keeps track of any changes you make in a small "sidecar " file, which it also stores with the image info. So when you re-open the image in the future, Lightroom opens the image, then reads the sidecar file, and applies any changes it recorded to the image.
So at any time you can not only undo the changes one by one to eventually end up with the original, but you can press a reset button, to undo everything if you really screw things up.

Hope this doesn't sound patronising, it certainly is not intended to be, instead I hope it helps with your understanding.

Cheers,
Gary
 
DorsetDude said:
Ive often wondered why anyone would want to shoot both formats at the same time too.
I can only imagine for press photographers
Click to expand...

When taking underwater photos of divers where they have to be on display for sale within 10 mins of getting back to base otherwise they bugger off without looking. That means a JPG with no processing.
RAW at the same time because if something else worth adding to a portfolio or stock is there you can fine tune and edit the RAW to improve it after the event.

Pretty much RAW+JPG whenever theres a chance someone will want/need the photos fast. If they don't i just use RAW only.
 
I shoot in RAW almost exclusively, occasionally in JPEG but never in both. I just don't have the capacity or need.

I've heard some people have set-ups where they have the RAW go to their main card and then the jpeg copy go to a second card either for backup or to be displayed on a screen via built-in wifi if they are shooting an event.

Another reason you might store both RAW and JPEG is if you want the ability to edit the images but might be fine leaving them as they are. In which case you're saving time and effort of having to batch process all those RAWs.
 
I was at a Golden Wedding party the other week and shot in Jpeg and raw. Out of the 166 shots I've kept 107 have been converted from raw files and the rest have just been left in Jpeg as I'm more than happy with the results.

It was dark so I was shooting with flash and with the converted raw files I found they needed a couple of tweaks to get the brightness and WB right, although it was set to flash the photos looked a little bit too warm for my liking.
 
Biggest advantage of JPEGs is the image is finished straight out of the camera. You don't need a computer at all (though you can tweak JPEGs more than some folks think if needs be). But if you are using a computer anyway, then Raw is just as easy and gives you more scope - in particular, there's about one stop more headroom on the highlights that are simply chopped off and lost with JPEGs.

The other upside of JPEGs is the files are much smaller, so for example a pro shooting football can transmit finished images instantly to the newspaper.
 
mike_6480 said:
I shoot RAW + JPEG - I use the JPEGs to decide which photos are keepers, and then edit the RAWs that I decide to keep.

For the size the JPEGs take up I think this is worth doing.
Click to expand...

Same, takes a few mins to look at the JPEG and you can see what shot if any you don't need, delete them then work on the ones you do. I shoot the smallest JPEG i can.
 
JPEG only. I don't need the flexibility or rescue latitude that raw would give and I hate PP! Raw has been compared to slide file with JPEGs being analagous with print but as Hoppy's pointed out, JPEGs are closer to slides (they're a finished product with [marginally] less adjustment available) while raw allows far more tweaking (if necessary and some always is!).

I always shoot large, fine JPEGs to get as much detail and as little JPEG artefaction as possible and on the extremely rare occasions when I do do any PP, I do everything that's needed in one session to avoid multiple save/open cycles which can eventually cause problems. If for any reason a PP session is interupted, any save will be as a PS native file to retain any layers etc and avoid any image deterioration.

Having recently gone the Windows8 route, I now have an App to do any resizing - all I need to do is enter the source folder and a destination, copy/paste the files for resizing into said folder then hit the resize button. Hey, presto, a moment or 2 later and there's a folder full of 800x533px JPEGs at under 200kB. To keep the magic word theme, "and that's magic!"
 
mike_6480 said:
I shoot RAW + JPEG - I use the JPEGs to decide which photos are keepers, and then edit the RAWs that I decide to keep.
Click to expand...

I shoot raw only. I use FastStone to decide which photos are keepers. FastStone displays the embedded jpeg - which is a full-size image processed by the camera just as it would have done for an ordinary jpeg. All the advantages of shooting raw+jpeg, but smaller files and no complicated juggling of different file types.

So you look at a jpeg, decide the image needs deleting, delete the jpeg, find the equivalent raw file and delete that, then find the next jpeg. I display the raw file and press the delete key.
 
Apretext said:
I currently shoot in RAW and JPEG, as obviously it means I can tweak photo's in lightroom. I am beginning to wonder if this is any point in shooting JPEG too, or should I just do everything in RAW only? what is the advantage of JPEG as well?
Click to expand...

No real point really, unless there are time constraints *I.e PA tog at a football match or something)
 
I just do RAW. There aren't alot of situations where you are going to need a JPEG straight out of the camera unless you are a press photographer or something and RAW allows you to get the exact picture you want and then make it a JPEG.

Editing a JPEG is like trying to redecorate a half eaten cake.
 
Well, I've decided to go RAW only, as I tend to use lightroom to sift through all my photo's anyway, and any photo's I like, I always see if a quick tweek will improve them at all
 
Apretext said:
Well, I've decided to go RAW only, as I tend to use lightroom to sift through all my photo's anyway, and any photo's I like, I always see if a quick tweek will improve them at all
Click to expand...

If that's your preferred work flow, then there's literally no point in shooting JPEG in my opinion. You can just export your images as such if you need one for posting online.
 
Exactly why I shoot only raw with DSLR. All my photos go straight into iPhoto which deals with raw exactly as it deals with jpegs (no additional messing around). Any that I like get a bit of a tweak and the exported as a jpeg.
I just use jpeg on my compact but follow the same process and still tweak the jpegs usually so makes no difference in time spent.
 
I only use RAW now, one of the reasons for me was that when importing into iPhoto I could never find a way to just view the RAW or JPEG files so would end up having to look at two copies of each one.
 
Nowadays, I only shoot RAW - a few years ago I shot RAW + Jpeg because the viewing package I was using (I forget which one) wouldn't show me the RAW image, so it was necessary to have the jpeg image to see if the shot was a keeper. With newer versions of Lightroom, Aperture etc there is no need to shoot + JPEG because the RAW images load (fairly) quickly anyway - although I'd use Bridge or preferably Photomechanic (really quick) to decide the keepers rather than putting the whole shoot into Lightroom at the start. Hope this makes sense.
 
FWIW, I only shoot RAW now. Everything I need to do goes into Lightroom anyway for me to look at, and I end up exporting out those that I like and delete those I don't like. Saves time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top