monroephoto

For those of us who shoot both portraits and sports, RAW and JPEG may offer advantages. Portraits benefit from the enhanced editing capabilities of a data rich file. Sports benefit from a faster capture rate (JPEG files are much smaller allowing buffers to handle without hanging up), and the edits are generally much less intense making a larger RAW file unnecessary (although I do shoot RAW at times even in Sports).

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I shoot 100% raw, I use FastRawViewer and RawDigger on my Mac to quickly display and select which images to import into Lightroom for editing from my SD card reader. FRV can launch Lightroom, Photoshop or most any other application with the selected images for editing or import easily.

Getting only editable images into Lightroom is quick and easy with FRV, only import what is editable.

When I need a JPG, Lightroom or Photoshop can export one in a few seconds

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

I don't know the difference between RAW and JPEG, but then I am not a professional. I shoot only JPEG and after deleting the ones I don't want store the others on my computer. I just finished having around a hundred JPEG files printed. These are photos I took while we were in Germany and I am placing them in an album so they can be viewed by family and friends. I also kept a journal and will print that out and include it with the album. I personally don't know if RAW would be sharper or have more color or what. I actually don't care as the JPEG files work wonderfully for me.

ELNikkor

I shoot both on the rare occasion I might want to do some RAW post in the future. My ancient computer will not accept RAW processing programs, so I'm thinking of upgrading

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

There is a CODEX for viewing RAW with Windows. I can view my own Pentax Raw PEF files as well as others Canon, Nikon, etc. Just a little add-on to Windows.

I've never found shooting JPGs useful. Once I process a Raw file I'll have no use for the other original JPG. Sure I'll create new JPGs for email and web publishing but then I want to use my finished version anyway. And I often have to reduce the res and image size for emailing anyway. So I never have a use for Camera JPGs. I generally work with 16-bit 300ppi PSD files and archive as same or TIFF. I only convert to 8-bit for out put.

One of the only sensible uses I learned of for JPGs was one of my instructors worked for a TV news station part time. She shot still images that sometimes were used along with video. She often had a less than two hour turn-around time to submit her work so for this she exclusively shot JPGs as she'd have no time to process -- basically just sort and send. The class was a bit surprised to learn that she did not use Lightroom or Bridge for sorting but Windows. One folder for keepers, one folder to later be deleted. Look, drag, drop.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use both files depending on subject. I have never used RAW-JPEG at the same time in camera but those who do claim that they can send a picture right away by email or see those JPEG faster.

jtvarga Loc: Niwot, CO

I shoot both as a cheap backup system. I discovered a bad 64 GB memory card, and the shots that used the 2 bad memory spots were unreadable. Luckily, I could use the JPEGs of those 2 shots instead of losing those moments entirely.

Of course, that card is now returned.

Larrymc Loc: Mississippi

I've started shooting only RAW to both cards instead of RAW+ or RAW to Card 1 and JPEG to card 2. I find that shooting at a high frame rate the buffer tends to get very slow when shots are written to two cards as RAW files. So nowadays I shoot RAW only and like Don cull in Fast Raw Viewer before I get the RAW files to separate date folders.

Despite what has been said about viewing RAW format files you need to read this https://www.fastrawviewer.com/viewing-raw-is-not-impossible before deciding it can't be done. Fast Raw Viewer is pretty inexpensive and very handy. Besides viewing it will also display the RAW histogram which can be quite different from the JPEG rendered histogram.

So if you are going to Process, notice I didn't say Post Process as Raw files have to be processed first before any post processing can be done. You might as well view them in a true RAW viewer instead of a viewer that uses the embedded JPEG as a reference.

Larry

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

FWIW - The only time I needed to hand out a JPG during a shoot I simply had the camera create a JPG from one of the raw image files... I guess I figure why waste the memory card space shooting raw+JPG when it is an easy matter to create the JPG in camera if it is needed.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

The only time I now shoot in both formats is if I am doing a model shoot and the model will get the JPEGs if she (yes, I mostly shoot ladies) does not do any post processing. I will post process the RAW files. I shot in both formats for a short while, mostly as I was getting my feet wet with in depth post processing. After a while I no longer had the need to shoot in JPEG (except for the above situations).

steve03 Loc: long Lsland

I usually shoot just raw, but there are times I shoot both. I will be shooting reunions this Christmas season and I can let those that want to download images right there if they have a laptop.

Larrymc Loc: Mississippi

Ralph you may want to check out what these people say about viewing RAW files it may change your mind....or maybe not. https://www.fastrawviewer.com/viewing-raw-is-not-impossible

Regards

Larry

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I shoot both since my D7000 has two SD slots, I can do one for each. If I'm doing delberative shooting with the forethought to PP the result, then I use the RAW files. If it's just snapshots for memories or family I'll use the JPEG's.

As an aside, based on a lot of the replies, I don't think that many folks know that what they see on a screen from a RAW file is its embedded JPEG.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

In answer to your question; you are missing nothing (And yes, you are actually viewing a jpg or equal when opening/viewing the RAW file (I am not familiar with LR protocols). Clearly whatever your 'need' for RAW and/or jpg; this works for you. The entire discussion here about reasons for shooting RAW, Jpg, or RAW+Jpg, while valid, is something that is and has been discussed at length in this forum. The only question I have for you is what camera do you use? I know Nikon, and if you shoot RAW only, there is an embedded high quality Jpg included in the RAW file. Depending upon your viewing/editing software, you can extract this for use (FYI....).