Why shoot in JPG + RAW?

G

GEH007

Messages
279
Edit My Images
No
I have started shooting more and more in RAW as I appreciate the benfiits of being able to retro fix in processing. I still sometimes shoot in jpg if just snapping.

What I still cant really work out is why would anyone shoot in JPG + RAW mode? RAW's become jpg anyway and if I just want jpg I will shoot jpg.

What's the point in shooting both together, please enlighten me.
 
I used to shoot both when I wasnt very confident. My PP skills were non existant, and I could save any JPEGS to a folder without opening them in CS3 first etc etc...

Each to their own though! But I shoot only RAW now I feel more confident.
 
I suppose the reason it could be done is so that you could quickly present the images to a client for proofing purposes and then PP the images they want in RAW later on.
The jpegs are fail safe and anyone can open them whereas you need software to view the RAW files, just saves you batch converting I suppose.
 
Same as Betty and Graham.
Silly thing is that the RAW embeds a JPEG, you can get filejuicer and it gets it out for you.
 
Only time I ever shoot both is when a client wants the pics at a live event for a slide show, they go straight out of the camera onto a projector and I cringe at the back of the hall...
 
good question, but I don't know why either
I was shooting just Raw now I shoot raw+jpeg but to be honest I can't really see the point and will most likely go back to just shooting raw:)
 
Betty said:
I used to shoot both when I wasnt very confident. My PP skills were non existant, and I could save any JPEGS to a folder without opening them in CS3 first etc etc...

Each to their own though! But I shoot only RAW now I feel more confident.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head there! :)
 
Funnily enough I've never shot in RAW + JPEG ever. At first I shot JPEG only and did a bit of PP. Then after further reading I shot in RAW only and have only done so since then. I can see the benefit of having JPEGs for flicking through your shots real quick but I've never really had that requirement.
 
I shoot in both so that:
- The JPEG I can review in work/on the go where I have no PS/Bridge/RAW converter.
- Snaps of the kids I dont have to faf with editing I can simply email to the rellies
- RAW gets used for any of the shots that need some sort of edditing.
 
I shoot in both, because the 400D doesn't seem to have the option of shooting in just RAW. Having said that I do find the Jpegs useful to review shots before processing the RAWs. What would be good is if you could have the option for RAW and small jpeg, which you can't on the 400D.
 
Betty said:
Each to their own though! But I shoot only RAW now I feel more confident.
Click to expand...

Noooo :eek: If you're really 100% confident, then just the opposite should be the case. If you know exactly what the camera JPEG is going to be like (and you're absolutely happy with that) then JPEG-only is the way to go. That's what I do ;) Why waste memory space?

I only shoot Raw when I'm not confident, and need a little insurance. Which happens quite often :D

Richard.
 
Amp34 said:
the 400D doesn't seem to have the option of shooting in just RAW.
Click to expand...

Huh? It does... I used to shoot RAW only on my 400D.
 
okay I feel weird now.... i ONLY shoot in JPEG, used to shoot in both, but then just didnt see the point. Is there really alot more P.P. that can be done when in RAW that JPEGS can't have done to?
 
I use both RAW + Jpeg Fine reasons below

I copy them over to PC and then run a process batch to resize them all to web with my logo and border on, i then go through them all and pick out the keepers. once i have done this i add them onto the web (usually within 30 mins of me getting home)

If anyone ever wanted a print or i want to go into more detail and look at the PP side i can then open the RAW and work on that to make what i would class as "ok" images that bit better

Hope this clears it slightly as to my ways of it
 
The reason I shoot RAW is because of information I learnt on this forum. Jpeg is compressed so already lost some quality. To process this and then save again as a jpeg degrades the quality further.

This is right, yeah?
 
I don't do it, but here's a great idea for using it in the future:

If you're into converting to black and white then shoot RAW + JPG (with the jpg output set to monochrome)

This will give you an instant idea of how your photograph looks in black and white, without having to wait for post processing
 
HoppyUK said:
Noooo :eek: If you're really 100% confident, then just the opposite should be the case. If you know exactly what the camera JPEG is going to be like (and you're absolutely happy with that) then JPEG-only is the way to go. That's what I do ;) Why waste memory space?

I only shoot Raw when I'm not confident, and need a little insurance. Which happens quite often :D

Richard.
Click to expand...

Eh, what has more processing power and tools a computer or camera? That is why I shoot RAW and then do editing in a computer.
 
I only shoot raw.

But I thought the benefits of raw+jpeg were so that you could quickly see the keepers from the binners without having to load them into something.
also if there were any snaps you didn't have to convert them.

I use raw not because i'm not confident, but because I like the power I have over the image. The ability to regain nearly blown highlights, change the colour temperature with ease, etc etc.
 
all raw files can be copied as jpeg files,so you can get a jpeg at any time, to send to friends etc. raw files contain more info so are better for pp work . hth
 
I've never shot R+jpg, it used to irk me having to open raws with software to quick glance if they were good enough, but not that much.
These days, I can see the thumbnails in explorer, and open them individually with windows raw viewer in exactly the same way windows opens a jpg.
 
HoppyUK said:
Noooo :eek: If you're really 100% confident, then just the opposite should be the case. If you know exactly what the camera JPEG is going to be like (and you're absolutely happy with that) then JPEG-only is the way to go. That's what I do ;) Why waste memory space?

I only shoot Raw when I'm not confident, and need a little insurance. Which happens quite often :D

Richard.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking! Seems odd to commit to a relatively limited format for editing if you're unsure of the outcome! :thinking:
 
if i have ever needed to tweak/edit anything, I find it can be done just fine as a jpeg in photoshop. I mean, main things you may want to tweak are colour temp, highlights/shadows, and this is achieveable in CS4 as a jpeg quite well for me.
 
I shoot only in RAW. The good thing about the Sony software is that when I import pictures from my memory card, I can view the embedded JPGs from the RAW files full screen and drag the ones I want to process straight into Elements for processing and converting. Also handy for quickly showing clients if I have my laptop with me.
 
HuntingMartians said:
Eh, what has more processing power and tools a computer or camera? That is why I shoot RAW and then do editing in a computer.
Click to expand...

The camera is just as powerful as any PC, if all you do is 'batch process' to a set of basic image correction parameters for sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone. If you make further corrections, beyond the camera's scope and which demand Raw files to prevent image degradation, then of course Raw is better.

But basic batch processing is all a lot of people do, perhaps believing that Raw when output through a PC is somehow better than Raw when output through the camera. It is not; it is just more work. And it fills cards up very quickly, and storage DVDs, and your PC gets clogged and slow. Raw is only better if you need the PC to do things the camera has not been programmed for. And cropping, or adding a frame, or correcting distortion, or converging verticals, or lots of other PP functions are done just as well with JPEGs as with Raws.

The point I make is that I think it is bad practise to rely on post processing in Raw to bail you out of sloppy camera technique. And if you take some time to adjust your camera's JPEG processing parameters, and you are careful with your exposure setting and white balance before you take the pic, then usually there shouldn't be any need for basic adjustments after.

Regards,

Richard.
 
I only shoot in RAW. I downloaded the XP add-in to allow me to view the RAW thumbnails which helped me no end prior to opening those I want then into CS3
 
HoppyUK said:
The point I make is that I think it is bad practise to rely on post processing in Raw to bail you out of sloppy camera technique. And if you take some time to adjust your camera's JPEG processing parameters, and you are careful with your exposure setting and white balance before you take the pic, then usually there shouldn't be any need for basic adjustments after.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is bad practice to shoot lazily knowing that you can fix it after. But I shoot RAW because I think I can do a better job of creating the JPG than the camera. Even if you adjust the JPG settings in camera, the final product is still the camera's interpretation of those settings.

In film terms, JPG is like sending your film to a lab and relying on the lab technician to develop your film. RAW is like developing the film yourself with total control.
 
I shoot only RAW on the D700 and do the PP'ing later.

When i had the Oly E-3 i used to shoot both, simply because for 90% of shots the RAW was not needed as the JPG's out of the E-3 were that good! - Pity the D700 cannot match them as i hate PP'ing :LOL:
 
Thanks for all your contributions. I think its one or the other for me from now on and mainly RAW I guess.
 
simple really, the small jpeg means you can quickly go through them and delete the crap or pick which ones to process.


GEH007 said:
I have started shooting more and more in RAW as I appreciate the benfiits of being able to retro fix in processing. I still sometimes shoot in jpg if just snapping.

What I still cant really work out is why would anyone shoot in JPG + RAW mode? RAW's become jpg anyway and if I just want jpg I will shoot jpg.

What's the point in shooting both together, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
 
out of interest, where there much PP options for original SLR owners, i.e. on film and not digital?
 
I sometimes shoot Raw and jpeg for judging focus as it's much easier with a jpeg than with raw files :) or at least it is for me :D
 
I only shoot RAW as I want the best from my images and mainly as I enjoy post processing. For me processing is a large chunk of digital photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top