Raw and/or JPEG (Page 4): I always shoot in both raw and jpeg--that way I have all the benefits of the raw processing power, and can also see the images right away when I open them in...

Georgeski

I always shoot in both raw and jpeg--that way I have all the benefits of the raw processing power, and can also see the images right away when I open them in Photoshop Bridge--it takes up more saving space in the camera and computer, but it's worth it to me!!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

PhotoNat wrote:

This is my first DSLR camera. When shooting, is it necessary to set it for BOTH raw and JPEG, or can I just set it for raw, then convert to JPEG after post processing in Photo Shop Elements 14? I'm thinking of the amount of space used on my SD card and in my computer storage, with raw vs. both.

I am new to this, so all advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
PhotoNat

Really it's up to you. There used to be the storage consideration, but the huge gigabyte cards have muted that argument, and they are so cheap now. Since you are in the early stages of your venture it is not as important as learning to do great photography. Raw and JPEP together coupled with a high megapixel sensor make for a lot of data to store and manipulate, so that is a factor for some.

The JPEG can be easier to transmit on some platforms, since you don't have to downsize (Google G-mail comes to mind). JPEG's are great, it's just that RAW is that much better, but that won't become real to you till you start to post process. Yes you can always make a JPEG from the RAW original.

gwilliams6

GrandmaG wrote:

When shooting in Raw, the image you see on the LCD of the camera is the embedded JPEG. When you import a Raw file to process, the image you see is minimally processed so that an image can be seen. At least, that’s how I understand it. Since I ALWAYS process my photos in LR/PS, I shoot in RAW only.

Here is a VERY detailed study that will answer your questions.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-44050-1.html

PlymouthWoodworker Loc: Plymouth, MA

I agree with shooting only RAW to save space. I shoot both RAW and jpeg. That way I can go through the jpegs on my computer quickly without having to open the RAW editor. From the jpegs I determine which shots are worthy of keeping/editing. Then I work on the corresponding RAW files.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

PlymouthWoodworker wrote:

I agree with shooting only RAW to save space. I shoot both RAW and jpeg. That way I can go through the jpegs on my computer quickly without having to open the RAW editor. From the jpegs I determine which shots are worthy of keeping/editing. Then I work on the corresponding RAW files.

Ditto.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

The puritans will tell you RAW. I have 2 D850's and they are set to fine jpeg. I can do pretty much any adjustment I need to do opening them in Bridge which gives me some of the same controls as opening them in RAW. I know it's not capturing the data the same but for what I do it's just fine.

If I am on a shoot that I think I will need more data and more adjustment control, I will shoot in RAW. Or, you can shoot in RAW and Jpeg and use the RAW if you find a need to.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Georgeski wrote:

I always shoot in both raw and jpeg--that way I have all the benefits of the raw processing power, and can also see the images right away when I open them in Photoshop Bridge--it takes up more saving space in the camera and computer, but it's worth it to me!!

I don't actually save any space on the cards in my camera since I use my second card as a backup and BOTH are RAW. If I were to shoot RAW+JPEG, I would save some space on the 2nd card. However, once or twice, the camera didn't write to the first card (I think the pins didn't connect quite right), so I was glad that I had my images backed up as RAW on the 2nd card.

EDIT: If I send a photo from LR to PS, I save it as a TIFF. If I want to send pictures to FB or Shutterfly, I export my favorites to a Desktop folder as JPEG.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

olemikey wrote:

JPEG's are great, it's just that RAW is that much better, but that won't become real to you till you start to post process. Yes you can always make a JPEG from the RAW original.

That is a true statement. I had a hard time letting go of the JPEG; but once I saw how much more I could do with the RAW file and how easy it was to export as a JPEG, I switched to capturing in RAW only.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

PlymouthWoodworker wrote:

I agree with shooting only RAW to save space. I shoot both RAW and jpeg. That way I can go through the jpegs on my computer quickly without having to open the RAW editor. From the jpegs I determine which shots are worthy of keeping/editing. Then I work on the corresponding RAW files.

This sounds a little complex. I just review the RAW and throw out the duds. Too much extra work to go through the JPEGS, then match up to the RAW to delete or keep. I just don't like the extra JPEG files cluttering up my workspace.

To each his/her own. If that works for you, go for it.

gwilliams6

PlymouthWoodworker wrote:

I agree with shooting only RAW to save space. I shoot both RAW and jpeg. That way I can go through the jpegs on my computer quickly without having to open the RAW editor. From the jpegs I determine which shots are worthy of keeping/editing. Then I work on the corresponding RAW files.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

If you want to send photos on line, or post on social media, JPEG is just fine. If you want to get the most out of your photos, shoot RAW and use a post processing program such as the one you mention. There are many more, but they enable you to get the most out of your RAW shots. And, as you mention, you can convert RAW to JPEG on your computer. I shot both simultaneously for a time, but now just shoot RAW and convert to JPEG in Luminar, if necessary. Photo Shop, Lightroom and all the other post-processing programs will do it easily and quickly.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Converting to JPEG after editing is so easy a GEICO caveman can do it these days. And in batches if there are a bunch you want to send at one time.

I find it easier to shoot in raw and export the edited images I want to share as JPEGs. Less clutter and no loss of image detail from repeated edits and saves.

I used to shoot just fine JPEG, but, like Mikey and GrandmaG, I didn’t know what I was missing until I tried it.

And yes, “real” photographers sometimes shoot both. No diss intended.

Andy

User ID

PhotoNat wrote:

This is my first DSLR camera. When
shooting, is it necessary to set it for BOTH raw and JPEG,
or can I just set it for raw, then convert to JPEG after
post processing in Photo Shop Elements 14? I'm thinking
of the amount of space used on my SD card and in my
computer storage, with raw vs. both.

I am new to this, so all advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
PhotoNat

Given the stated reason for your question,
just get a bigger card. Storage is cheap.

Now, in the UHH tradition, IGNORING your stated reason:

Your camera menus allow you to do it either way. That is
cuz there are reasons to do it either way. This thread will
be full of arguments about those reasons. Don't read any
of it. Just get a bigger card and don't make any decisions.

IOW shoot both. I won't offer reason why. No point in it.
Storage is cheap. Decisions cause angst. Punk out !

Next question please !

.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

JD750 wrote:

But you are not "new at this" with your first DSLR.

The OP said "When shooting, is it necessary to set it for BOTH raw and JPEG, or can I just set it for raw, then convert to JPEG after post processing in Photo Shop Elements 14? " I was responding to his specific question.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Longshadow wrote:

Ditto.

Same here