kfoo Loc: Arkansas

Is it good to shoot in this mod and is it different than “RAW”?

Quixdraw Loc: x

Let the battle begin! I'm happy with JPEG Fine. Many others require only RAW, despite all the hoops you have to jump through. IMHO, a personal choice of how you pursue photography and what you enjoy doing!

Sorry - missed a turn - it is valuable if you use it in your workflow. I don't.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It means when you snap a photo it will save both the raw file and a jpeg. It really depends on your needs. A lot of people new to shooting raw do it, or people that want the jpeg for quick results but want the raw to go back and more fully process when they have time.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

When I first started shooting I used RAW/JPG fine so I could compare my poor but developing post processing skills against the camera's jpg image. When I was sure I could do as well or better with my RAW images in post processing I switched to just RAW capture.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot RAW+JPEG(fine), unless I need 4 extra shots in burst mode, then I just do RAW temporarily.
I peruse the JPEGS in Windows and edit the RAW if desired.
(I don't edit until I want to use the image.)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You get the raw file either way and even if you only shoot raw you still get a JPEG. The camera is going to create the JPEG whether you want it or not because it embeds a copy of the JPEG into the raw file.

If you shoot raw + JPEG the implication is that you want the JPEG and should then expose to get as good a JPEG as possible. This will typically compromise the raw file to some degree as the exposure that creates a good JPEG is most likely reduced some from what you could apply to the raw file.

With digital sensors more exposure equals better image quality. However too much exposure nukes your highlights and your dead. It's kind of like playing chicken with a concrete wall. You want to stop as close to the wall as you can but never hit the wall. The camera engineers know this well and so when they adjust the software in your camera that creates JPEGs they tend to be conservative chicken players and they stop well before hitting the wall. You get a good JPEG and certainly a usable raw file.

But knowing what I just told you it starts to nag at you that your raw files could have been exposed more and would be just a little better. Most of the time it won't matter but then you eventually take a photo in which a little more exposure to the raw file really would have helped. Then you start considering just how good at playing chicken you can get and you start creating better raw files and bad JPEGs. Then there's no sense in creating bad JPEGs so you stop bothering.

You have a Nikon camera and Nikon's engineers play a pretty mean game of chicken. They cut the difference pretty close. This situation varies one camera maker to the next. I have a Fuji camera and they're as scared of that concrete wall as Trump is of an angry black woman. So if I expose to get a good JPEG with my Fuji my raw files are often underexposed by half of what they could be. I don't bother then to save the JPEGs since the exposures I set typically blow the JPEGs.

The moral of the story then is to a greater or lesser degree depending on the camera brand you can't set a best exposure for both the JPEG and raw -- you gotta pick one.

Joe

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Depends on what you’re shooting and your needs.
For events where I need access to a small file for quick web posting or slide show during or right after an event, or dye-sub prints on the spot, I shoot raw + small basic JPEG so I can have that file quickly.
I don’t have time to tweak or sometimes even download the raw files at that time.
Later on, I’ll have access to those raw files to adjust for archive use.
I don’t see any reason to shoot large fine jpeg if I’m shooting raw.
I can easily export my raw files to that if needed.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Either way? Well, I suppose,
But one cannot use the embedded JPEG image independent of the RAW.......
So, that's absolutely no benefit to me.

Semantics?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A RAW file is God's way of telling us how hard it is to be a camera.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Sure you can use the embedded JPEG, they're simple to extract. They may or may not be full res and odds are they're not JPEG fine but rather JPEG normal.

Here's a free extraction utility: http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Joe

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Simple to extract.....
If I also save the JPEG, I do not have to extract anything.
Even simpler.

If I only have a RAW file, I'll simply convert and save as a JPEG after any editing.
I do not have a RAW viewer for my PC, nor do I want one.
If I open the RAW editor, I can see the images of the RAW files.

Just skinning the same cat a different way.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you become a RAW photographer, you become the decision maker for these considerations in post processing, where many had been decided by the camera for the JPEG:

1. Sharpening
2. Noise Reduction
3. Color Saturation
4. Exposure adjustments, general
5. Contrast, general
6. Highlights and shadows
7. White Balance
8. Lens corrections
9. Color space
10. Pixel resolution for target image share platforms

You don't have to understand all these issues, but when you do, you'll be much more successful as a RAW photographer and you'll begin to find your JPEGs are worthless.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Worth less than what?

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Except to send to your clients.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You'd only send an unprocessed image to a former client ...