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 <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Sep 19, 2018 06:41:11   #
ELNikkor
 
I shoot RAW + jpeg on images that will be used for future manipulation and/or printing, RAW on 1 card, jpeg on the other. For family documentary daily life, just jpeg.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 06:49:52   #
WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
 
I shoot raw (NEF) only. But, I set up the in-camera Picture control as though I was going to shoot JPEG. That way, when I import the raw files into Nikon's excellent ViewNX-i, I see them processed as though they were JPG's. (I could of course override the Picture Control setting at that point but rarely do.) I then can do a batch conversion to either TIFF or JPG.

I'm pretty sure this is also true when using Canon's DPP4 (Digital Photo Professional 4).

Will in AZ

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 06:58:30   #
NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin
 
I shoot both for just general facebook most often the jpeg is enough for the wife to share (grandkids etc) for a pic I am going to print,when it matters I'll use the raw file. I also save the raw files to 3 different backup drives

Reply
 
 
Sep 19, 2018 07:04:42   #
GlenBose Loc: NE Florida, formerly Limerick, PA
 
I use a Canon 80D (single card) and FastStone on a Win 7 machine. I shoot both Raw and Jpeg at their highest quality. Windows native viewer is what I review my Jpegs with to cull my pics down (yeah I really need to improve my abilities) then eliminate 'bad pics' in both formats, keeping just those most worthy. I split the remainder into sub-directories and work on the Raws to do a final culling, keeping only the 'best'. I then strip out the unwanted Jpegs and from the raws save as Tifs for printing or Jpegs for posting or sending.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 07:04:59   #
Grace98 Loc: Waterlooville, Hampshire - United Kingdom
 
You're not foolish. To be honest, I think it's a matter of preference. My friend for example always shoots Raw + Jpeg. Told me it saves her time having to convert them. I shoot Raw only. I've found that by shooting in both, it does slow down the camera....unless I was dreaming!
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

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 07:15:11   #
Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast
 
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'm now shooting RAW only and when viewing them in Widows Explorer, I download only the ones I need or want to keep for PP. I very seldom immediately post on line. However the good thing with digital you can delete any and all files immediately.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 07:36:48   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
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 started with JPEG, went to raw and JPEG, and now shoot just raw (NEF). Works for me.

Shooting both gets you an image you can share immediately without processing.

Reply
 
 
Sep 19, 2018 07:41:58   #
mborn Loc: Massachusetts
 
Personally, I only shoot Raw. If I need jpgs I export them from LR

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 08:20:46   #
SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS
 
I have shot both JPEG and RAW for a while, mostly since I had my D300. I would view the JPEG and if it was worth it, would edit the RAW file in Lightroom. That was fine with the D300 then the D7100 because my stand alone (non cloud) edition of Lightroom could handle D7100 RAW files, no problem. That changed when I got the D850 which gives JPEG files near the size of RAW files from the D7100. Typically I like to print a proof size for myself which is an 8" x 12"; I want to see the shot on paper before going large, up to 24" x 36". At an average size of 20MB+ each, a large fine JPEG from my D850 is plenty. I have not gotten a color JPEG from my D850 that is less than 20MB; some black & white JPEG's from the D850 are slightly smaller than 20MB yet even those are not very common. Whatever floats your boat; there's not right or wrong answer in my world on this matter.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 08:35:52   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
FlyGuy47 wrote:
I have shot both JPEG and RAW for a while, mostly since I had my D300. I would view the JPEG and if it was worth it, would edit the RAW ...
...

Whatever floats your boat; there's not right or wrong answer in my world on this matter.



Reply
Sep 19, 2018 08:40:09   #
waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li
 
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 do the same, RAW and JPG because about half of what I shoot is for family and friends and the jpegs are easier to share quickly. I like to have RAW for stuff that I want t get serious about and I simply don't bother resetting the camera so I just shoot both. It is easy enough to delete what I don't want,

Reply
 
 
Sep 19, 2018 08:48:04   #
Barny
 
I am a hobby photographer that sells photo files to cover my expenses. I have a D500 and record raw and JPG files on the separate cards. JPGs are quickly edited in Picasa 3 (about 3 a minute) and posted on FB with watermarks saying "proof only" and the image mumber given by the camera. Purchasers quote the image number to order. The raw file via LR is used to edite and produce a photo file of 2048 pixels on the long side suitable for social media and small prints of 6x4, 7x5 and 8x10 at a push. I take photos on request from my FB friends who ride horses in competitions.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 08:48:34   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
Gene51 wrote:
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 exp osure stacked (HDR).
The way I shoot certain subjects changes based on ... (show quote)


I respect your opinions Gene - and your advice - especially in respect of RAW PP, however I do enjoy shooting and PPing JPGs as well as RAWs. I liken JPGs from a well set up camera to pre-set batch processed RAWs. My preferred editor is Serif's PhotoPlus X7, now a legacy program and the forerunner of Affinity. I accept that the JPG DR is around three stops less than that for RAW. But I still ETTR and I do not regard my shadows as muddy - I think shadows add to my pictures - and I rarely blow highlights. I may on occasion ETTL. I have a couple of palette-knife acrylics (landscapes) with quite deep shadows, where the artist has not attempted to overdo the detail. I think shadows can bring a photograph to life rather than to muddy it, concentrating our view towards the main subject, appropriately exposed. I have seen pictures captured inside a cathedral where the brightened shadow areas destroyed the atmosphere, which the photos could otherwise have preserved. So - from my perspective, it is not redundant to shoot JPG and RAW. I am grateful to Panasonic for the very clever menus and dials which would be un-necessary for RAW alone.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 09:20:41   #
Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.
 
I shoot Raw and Jpeg mainly because I sometimes need small size Jpeg files quickly, to send via Internet. Ok, Jpegs can be counted - on as a back-up to the RAW image file, as well as the 2nd. card image. I please myself, 'Cos I'm my own boss. If any poster tells you "Do not shoot both" !!! Just ask them for WAGES for shooting to their orders.

Reply
Sep 19, 2018 09:21:49   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
It depends - on what you want to do with the photo. For a quick share on social media, JPEG is better. For a quick unplanned snapshot for memories, a JPEG is enough for me. For a planned, composed, quality photo worth a million dollars, I'll need that RAW. So I get all of this out of my 16MP D7000 and kit 18-200 with its dual card slots. 😜😜

Reply
Page <prev 2 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.