Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
i record both raw and jpeg on my d500. Is this redundant?
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Sep 18, 2018 18:03:15   #
home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 18:11:00   #
pquiggle Loc: Monterey Bay California
 
I shot both RAW and a small jpeg. I can quickly share the jpegs with others without having to convert the raw images. It's convenient at times and takes little extra space. I only load the raw files into Lightroom for editing.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 18:13:22   #
alx Loc: NJ
 
There are those who shoot for a living that need to quickly upload jpegs, for them it is a time factor and then they have the raw to use in the future. Some people are totally paranoid and are afraid of a card failure. If that describes you, do whatever makes you feel safe. You can always weigh the criticality of the situation and adjust the camera accordingly.

Reply
 
 
Sep 18, 2018 18:30:42   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
I started shooting raw+jpg when Picasa displayed my new-at-time camera's raw with a heavy purple cast. PS Elements doesn't have batch processing and I wouldn't want to do that anyway, both because I shoot far more than I usually want to process and because I do a lot of "playful pp" and experimenting.

I'm using Fastone Image Viewer now in place of Picasa, and probably the version of the raw it displays (embedded jpg??) is good enough to be able to choose which I want to edit in Elements, but occasionally I do find it convenient to have a jpg sooc.

The bottom line, for me, is that I can easily delete the jpgs within my computer's folder system (I don't use an Organizer) a few days or weeks after an outing, so there's no "space" issue. The additional time to download from the camera to computer seems insignificant. So, why change?

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 18:30:50   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
home brewer wrote:
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks


When I first began shooting RAW, and post-processing; I would shoot RAW with JPEG as a backup because it seemed safe and somehow necessary. In time, I stopped shooting JPEG altogether, and have experienced no negative consequences.
If one needs JPEG images to instantly send, or post on media prior to any post-processing; by all means shoot JPEG.
Otherwise, in my experience, I don't shoot JPEG.
JPEG is fine, RAW is better.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 18:33:06   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
RAW editors have different, usually better, editing capabilities than JPEG editors.
I save RAW for working with, and the JPEG for viewing in Windows Explorer.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 18:35:42   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
home brewer wrote:
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks


The way I shoot certain subjects changes based on whether I am recording a jpeg or raw. Truth is, I never record jpegs, because my workflow is optimized for raw - from determining exposure to final output. I use a spot meter (in the camera) and expose for highlights, in such a way that I do not over expose them. If I shot a jpeg that way it would be unusable. In fact, without a simple adjustment for shadows/highlights and exposure, the raw file as it comes from the camera is similarly ugly. But the things I can do to the raw file to create a good image goes far beyond anything I could manage with just a jpeg.

So, from my perspective, not only is it redundant to shoot jpeg if shooting raw, if I try to get an optimum jpeg in high contrast situations, the jpeg may look just OK, with blown highlights and muddy shadows, but the raw file may be also less than optimum. If you know how far you can push exposure to the right, you can depend on that for 90% of the images, especially high contrast ones. The remaining 10% may need to be exposure stacked (HDR).

Reply
 
 
Sep 18, 2018 18:39:26   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
I started shooting raw+jpg when Picasa displayed my new-at-time camera's raw with a heavy purple cast. PS Elements doesn't have batch processing and I wouldn't want to do that anyway, both because I shoot far more than I usually want to process and because I do a lot of "playful pp" and experimenting.

I'm using Fastone Image Viewer now in place of Picasa, and probably the version of the raw it displays (embedded jpg??) is good enough to be able to choose which I want to edit in Elements, but occasionally I do find it convenient to have a jpg sooc.

The bottom line, for me, is that I can easily delete the jpgs within my computer's folder system (I don't use an Organizer) a few days or weeks after an outing, so there's no "space" issue. The additional time to download from the camera to computer seems insignificant. So, why change?
I started shooting raw+jpg when Picasa displayed m... (show quote)



Reply
Sep 18, 2018 19:01:25   #
PeterBergh
 
home brewer wrote:
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks


Using lightroom, you can easily create JPG files by using the Export command in the Library module. You cannot create raw images from JPG files; the conversion from raw to JPG loses much information. Thus, unless you need the immediacy of JPG images, there's little point to letting the camera create JPG files in addition to raw files.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 19:13:10   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
You will find opinions around here that will passionately argue both sides.

It really depends on what you are doing with your photographs. If you want to download, correct exposure, etc and do any post processing, you need RAW. No questions.
If you want a quick image with minimal changes or want to immediately squirt it out on social media via a bluetooth or WiFi connection, shoot JPEG.

But, with a 2 card camera body, you really need to set the second card slot as a real time backup for your RAW files. This gives you a safety net in case your primary memory card dies. Statistically it is only a matter of time before this happens.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 19:21:59   #
FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County
 
I shoot both. My reasons are probably different than most.
The j-pegs go to the d-i-l and grandkids - strictly for on-line sharing, they never have and never will print any. Raws are for me - and for their albums, which they always want to look thru when they visit. They used to complain that my computer was where pictures went to die. Now, they get them on their phones and can quit bore-assing me. 😈😈😈

Reply
 
 
Sep 18, 2018 19:54:08   #
CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver
 
While I know there are a few specific reasons for shooting both. Personally, I have never seen a good reason. There are times I shoot JPG and most of the time I shoot Raw. To do both as a standard practice seems awfully redundant .

One good reason is if one is using a Camranger. It can take forever to transfer raw files while a JPG transfers pretty fast. So the raw is on the card, but the JPG shows up on the iPad or whatever.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 20:10:52   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
When I started with digital, quite a while ago, I shot nothing but raw. There wasn't much in the way of 'posting pictures' so I did a lot of printing. Then a friend of mine decided she wanted a website for her business. She hired somebody who did a terrible job. So I decided to learn how to build a website. A lot of reading and an 8 hour Microsoft seminar later we built a website using Notepad. Band width was so narrow that pictures had to be small. So I started shooting JPG and they looked good.

I won $1,000 worth of software from Microsoft for incorporating an animation using an Active X control on the opening page.

Now I shoot both and find today's JPG files are fine for posting. Anything I print larger than 6x8 I use the NEF. Since I use XQD + SD or CF depending on the camera, backing up with NEF to the second card would slow things up.

I don't recommend this method, but after shooting just Raw, then just JPG, and now both, I ain't gonna change anymore.

--

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 20:21:23   #
lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.
 
home brewer wrote:
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks
I can think of one reason as it currently applies to me. When I'm abroad, I do not bring my (MacBook Pro) laptop. Instead I bring one of my iPads. I don't do any post-processing while abroad, but I do like to send to some friends a few e-mails containing photos taken with either my mirrorless or SLT camera. If I shoot only in RAW, I can't e-mail anything, but if I shoot in RAW + JPEG, I'm able to compress and e-mail some of my pics.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 06:12:53   #
dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl
 
home brewer wrote:
I just started using light room and I have started to wonder why i need all those jpegs when I have a NEf that i con-convert to jpeg as required. Is there any advantage in having the jpeg readily available? I you think I am being foolish be kind
thanks


Photojournalist often are required by their employers or purchaser's of their photos, to shoot and submit jpegs. If I am shooting a subject that is inteneded for such submission, I shoot RAW(NEF)+Jpeg.. otherwise I shoot RAW(NEF) only. Generally, while jpeg comes out usable, it serves a couple of purposes for the publisher. These reasons are as follows: 1. The images are more "timely" as they don't have to be processed on either end. 2. The publisher "feels" that the images are less likely to be manipulated prior to submission. 3. The images are "ready" for publicasion on receipt, all that needs to be done is cropping and sizing. 4. Tradition and history.. publishers feel that they are "getting" a more real and unadulterated image that hasn't been processed. Note: most photographers (professional or not) know that you can just as easily manipulate a jpeg image as you can a RAW one... but editors like to stick to their beliefs as much as anyone else. 5. Tradition. Editors have prefered jpeg since digital replaced film negatives/prints in photo submission... so the excuse is that "it has always been done this way so we can easily "Claim" that none of our photos have "been edited". We, photographers and regular users of photo editing programs know that most of these arguments are designed for the unknowing and are baseless, but when a photoeditor goes to his boss, he/she cans say, "well, the photos were submitted to us as jpegs and were just sized to fit the space in the story so we can point to the photographer if there are any discrepensies in the image.
Now, as photographers (and now, computer image specialists, we all know that there is no truth to these beliefs... but photo editors can and do fall back on the protection claim of, "well, it's always been done this way, so it must be right!".
The other "major" reason is that the images are already publication ready and the editor/publication doesn't have to "waste time" editing and massaging an image. The Editors of a publication may bet hundreds of photos for a given edition and it would be time consuming to have to edit and adjust each RAW/NEFF file before publishing. The Jpegs are publication ready with no additional process (other than sizing) needed.
So, photographers that are publishing, usually either ONLY shoot jpeg for publishing or shoot both (as I said, I shoot both because the jpeg image may suitable for them, but I may want to massage it for other uses.
For safekeeping, I keep a file folder on my computer of all jpegs submitted to publications ... I have a main folder on the desktop called "publication images" and subfolders for each publication inside it.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.