Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
NEF (RAW) + JPEG fine
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Jun 5, 2020 22:32:28   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
kfoo wrote:
Is it good to shoot in this mod and is it different than “RAW”?


I don't find any benefit to shooting raw+jpeg.

Some will argue that it provides a backup.

I've been shooting raw only since 2007 with Nikon, Fuji, Sony and have never missed not having that backup jpeg.

I suppose if you have good to excellent lighting, in many cases you can get away with just a jpeg image.but compared to editing raw files, editing jpegs can be a real pain, especially if you have a lot of images that require similar adjustments. Raw editing is just faster and way easier in most cases.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 03:55:24   #
Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal
 
Other things to consider.
The raw takes @ twice as much space.
So taking one of each takes up @ three times as much space as one jpg.
Fills up fast.
Bigger better cards helps. My D699 (and others) have two cards- one for each.
I like the small jpg files to see, cull, share, etc. Then the remaining raw files after the sorting are keepers.Works for me, YMMV.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 08:12:46   #
petego4it Loc: NY
 
Many good comments/perspectives here. This is mine. I'm on a quest for perfect pictures. Very, very rare but I've invested in great equipment that can do so. I also don't have as much time as I'd like. If I did, raw would be all I'd do. As it is, fine jpgs suit 90%+ of my needs saving me time. But ~10% of my shots are the ones I truly cherish. So, since the camera does both and I can have them on the few occasions when I do get OIALT (once in a lifetime) shots worth the extra time to process most carefully, I'm very happy. Otherwise, most always, my Nikons nowadays do a wonderful jpg job. Some people still like manual focus, exposure, darkroom developing their own shots too. Just not my thing. The security of having shots in two places is also a bonus!

Reply
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Jun 6, 2020 08:15:17   #
petego4it Loc: NY
 
BTW, I'm also one who likes bracketing. Same theory! Get the shot!

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 08:36:37   #
Silverrails
 
Ysarex wrote:
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
You get the raw file either way and even if you on... (show quote)


Thanks for this info. I have Never shot in RAW or RAW+JPEG, Only in JPEG. It's like trying to go into a Pitch Black Dark room, you crack the door a little, but you shut it immediately because you cannot see what or who is in that room that could hurt you. Yes you could turn on the light, but you have NO idea where the switch is located, so you shut the Door and leave. This is how I feel about RAW Photo-Editing.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 08:37:03   #
uhaas2009
 
For my learning curve I took pics for free and gave here the original. The last time I gave her the smallest jpg. She couldn’t PP on ssmedia.....LOL.....

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 08:40:41   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance of shooting in RAW.

Reply
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Jun 6, 2020 08:46:42   #
ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio
 
quixdraw wrote:
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.


JPEG fine is good for me also. It’s all personal choice. No right or wrong answer.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 08:49:51   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
When I got my first DSLR I shot jpg. It was what I knew from the P&S cameras I had before.
Eventually I screwed up a setting and got blue pictures. I needed those pictures and they were not repeatable. It took hours with what I knew at the time to get something that looked reasonable from them. So I decided to try raw.

Shot raw+jpg for a while. Tried several editing programs and settled on Lightroom. Once I got comfortable with editing raw files I dropped the jpg, saving 30% of the card space. I was too cheap to just buy larger cards.

Then when I got to 10,000 images in my photopile I started having trouble finding things. Started to get serious about Lightroom's organization capabilities. That solved that problem.

Now I shoot raw only. I can get good jpgs if I pay attention to what I'm doing, but I want to avoid that. Shooting raw forces me to put my images through the raw conversion software (Lightroom in my case). Since my raw conversion program does my organizing also, everything gets into the organizing system. If I were to shoot jpg, I would be tempted to use the image directly, without putting it into Lightroom. If that happens, and the photo isn't in my LR catalog, there will come a time when I will not be able to find that photo because I have no good way to search for it beyond just randomly looking at images. That time interval is getting shorter as I am getting older.

In fact I frequently get into trouble when I take iPhone photos. They're right there and I use them immediately. If I don't download them and place them into the LR catalog, I have to depend on the iPhone Photos app, which shows me everything in chronological order. That means I have to remember when I took the photo I'm looking for. I'm terrible at remembering dates, so that is a bust for me. I can put them into albums, but I have so many albums that that only decreases the problem by about a factor of 2. Not nearly enough.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 09:02:05   #
ELNikkor
 
I only shoot RAW when I come across a special opportunity which may have future blow-up value. At that point, I always also set jpeg to "Fine, Large" (D750). At those settings, with each click, I'm using up to 50mp per click; 20 for the jpeg and 30 for the RAW. The few times I've processed RAW images, they've come out looking much like the camera's jpegs, and are being saved as jpegs anyhow, so why hassle and fuss with my computer? I'm more of a camera-in-hand, than a process-with-computer person.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 09:34:34   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
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.
When you become a RAW photographer, you become the... (show quote)

Trust me the camera is much smarter than I

Reply
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Jun 6, 2020 09:43:54   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Perfect pictures are relative.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 10:56:03   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
kfoo wrote:
Is it good to shoot in this mod and is it different than “RAW”?


If you enjoy time at your computer working photos you will love RAW. Having said this, with all the new software available, you can do so much with a good JPEG, that I tend to shoot FINE most of the time.
Cheers!

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 11:06:35   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
Gene51 wrote:
...but compared to editing raw files, editing jpegs can be a real pain, especially if you have a lot of images that require similar adjustments. Raw editing is just faster and way easier in most cases.


You can set your file handling preferences to open JPEGs with Adobe Camera Raw and have almost all the benefits of tweaking a raw file, though obviously not nearly as much latitude.
I used to get a lot of jpeg images submitted to me before I was “retired” from a university. In many cases, it was like putting lipstick on a pig. No, definitely not as good as coming from raw, but you deal with what you’re given.

All of our first year headshots (about 150) were shot in jpeg only (Fuji S5) and cropped all to a similar composition, head size and file size in a matter of a few minutes for ID cards and other uses.

Reply
Jun 6, 2020 11:10:46   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance of shooting in RAW.


But my other camera doesn't do RAW, arrrrrg.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 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.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.