MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

This is a synopsis of the post “Why I shoot RAW images”.

Advantages to saving RAW from camera:
-More leeway making adjustments after saving from camera [because it has more information]
-More options for saving different versions of the same image for special purposes {email – tablet display – printing} [because it has more information]

Downsides to saving RAW from camera:
-More than doubles the hard drive storage space and resulting additional backup space = $ [because it has more information]
-Probably slows buffering of burst image capturing [because it has more information]

Advantages to shooting only JPG:
-Uses less hard drive space for images and backups [because it has less information]
Downside to saving only JPG:
-Less leeway for correction of mistakes in your editor [because it has less information]

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

First, sorry to highjack the today's thread, but 10 pages and counting!

Now my opinion. I am not offering any of this as fact. Anything I mention you should test on your own camera to see if it makes sense. If you are able to read this loooong post I am making the case that if you can afford hard drive space there is no valid argument against saving the RAW file (in addition to your JPG if you need it).

Every camera captures RAW data from the sensor. The hardware and software inside some cameras MAYBE just renders a JPG but those are not the cameras we are discussing here. Most of the cameras used here offer RAW + [JPG Fine or JPG Standard or more gradations] OR just [JPG Fine or JPG Standard or more gradations] OR just RAW.

In any case, for this level of hardware, there are choices to be made. You can leave it as it came from the box - that is a choice. But from the comments of those shooting only JPG it did not seem like they were staying with default settings. So they were not shy about adjusting the JGP to their liking. So in reality JPG only shooters are doing in camera what they would otherwise do in their editing software. {And some quick testing suggests that these in camera settings are also embedded in the RAW file if it is saved.}

The way to think about the RAW file is that it has at least two parts – the sensor data and some information about your JPG preview (that also matches your in camera saved JPG files settings). {I tested on my GX85 – two images of the same item – one in Standard and one in Vivid – in Lightroom I could see that the Temp and Tint sliders had different “0 points” – moving the sliders to match each other made the images match. This seems to indicate that the RAW file’s sensor data is independent of the preview/JPG settings – the RAW data side contains the same information given the same exposure conditions and is indifferent to the JPG treatment.} Those who are interested can do that quick test of changing a setting that affects the JPG preview and see what the effect is on your editor preview between changes on the RAW file. I expect that you see the applied JPG effect and that it is easily reversed at the editor.

If your camera’s RAW file type carries along the JPG settings information then that makes it important to get your JPG settings correct as that makes any needed adjustments much easier later. This was an aha! moment for me in the last post as I had been starting to rely on Lightroom’s ability to correct my mistakes. But even burkphoto who made the comment on the importance of getting the JPG settings right in camera admitted to not trusting JPGs for “unpredictable … situations” and said about saving RAW: “It's also great for rookies…” – that’s me!

Therefore my opinion is that the most forward thinking and safe (am I hitting the right chord here?) plan is to save RAW plus some JPG version if JPG is needed. Set the JPG setting to your liking (and this can be for at least two reasons – 1-getting it correct for easier editing and exporting from the RAW file and 2-giving it some treatment in camera like Vivid) AND also save the RAW. You can ignore the RAW for now if you want to as drive space is fairly cheap. Or you can save just the RAW file like I do and TRY/HOPE to get it “right in camera” while having the extra leeway to fix your mistakes later when you inevitably make them. From any editor/developer environment you can export multiple versions of JPGs or other file types in different quality levels using the RAW file (with the embedded in camera JPG settings – I think – test this). The ability to export different versions of the same image at different quality levels seems to be a great advantage of RAW over any version of JPG.

The RAW also gives your descendants the option of seeing your image at its best. {Can you imagine 1000 years from now a distant relative finding your RAW files on a cloud somewhere and asking SIRI “What are they?” She checks with Google and Google says – “I don’t know” – yeah, I can’t imagine that either.}

Bill_de Loc: US

Does the latest version of CC acknowledge the in camera settings? For the longest time Adobe ignored this information and, from what I have read, drops it when converting to DNG.

--

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

My quick test indicated that Lightroom "saw" the difference between the same capture (a closet and hallway door) as Standard and Vivid (arguably JPG settings) with the two images only seeming to have different Tint and Temp values. Once those values were equalized between the images they appeared the same.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

It seems that like a DNG file carries the original and any edits internally, the RAW can carry some (how much?) of the in camera JPG settings internally and it seems Lightroom interprets them (at least for Lumix RAW). I am curious if this is the case for other brands.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

My export of the RAW file with Vivid (different Temp and Tint) kept its setting as an exported DNG.

Bill_de Loc: US

Thanks Michael.

--

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

For me, hard drive space is not an important factor. I have plenty of space. Ultimately, it comes down to which camera I'm using - if it can output RAW files. Not all of my cameras do.

Jim Bob

As I have often stated, who gives a shit?

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

Once you are saving the RAW file - who gives a shit about the JPG in camera (except for the reasons stated above). And if you know you will never need anything better than a JPG - who gives a shit about RAW. 100% agree!
I don't care how others save their work. For some a passing glance in the LCD display and Delete is enough - live in the moment!
But if you are saying you do not give a shit about anything - I haven't attained that level of self control.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Oh yes Adobe and God were invented at about the same time; both are worshiped and ignore camera data !... both have started too many wars. PS is a religion, CC people look upon PSE people as immature poor waifs. There are many other editing programs who do not rob the poor $10 at a time.. or is it now $20/month? People struggle with LR and PS while neglecting home, family, and photography; ridiculous. CC people claim they can work miracles.... yes in hours... vs using plugins lie Topaz where the same result is achievable in moments.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Over the weekend, I shot raw + JPEG, something I don't usually do. The raw images were about 26k, while the JPEG were about 6k. Big difference.

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

If you shoot JPG and change your white balance to tungsten and forget to reset it you will know one reason to shoot Raw !!

cthahn

Wonderful. If you are a photographer you should know all of this.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

And if you normally save just RAW then you used 6k on your SD card for a JPG that you can readily export in many quality levels from your editor. And if you normally save just JPG then you have 20k more data to make your adjustments in your editor then you would with just the JPG. And I am sure you have the space on one of your many external drives.