Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Shooting RAW & JPEG
Page <<first <prev 9 of 11 next> last>>
Jul 8, 2022 11:10:25   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
Retina wrote:
For years my Windows PC did not have the codecs to display my Fujifilm and both types of Nikon raw files in Explorer, so I got in the habit of using JPGs as a quick visual reference. I've also been so used to working with folders in DOS, Windows, Linux, etc. I never thought of organizing photos with specialized software as just an occasional hobbyist. With much faster disk drives and more codecs, it makes sense not to save JPGs from the camera's card unless I plan on doing a lot of e-mailing. ("Daddy, why do they call them disk drives? Why do you call saving a TV show taping it?") I am not sure how the codecs were installed, whether it was from PP apps or they now come with Windows like so many drivers seem to.
For years my Windows PC did not have the codecs to... (show quote)

I do all my 8x10 printing from jpegs

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 11:17:48   #
Hip Coyote
 
Jodevoy wrote:
When raw was new it seemed everyone said to shoot raw and jpeg, which I did. I was looking over my storage yesterday and was reminded just how much space this is taking up! I use subscription Lightroom and Photoshop, if that matters to your response. I do not recall ever going back to the jpeg shots for any reason. Is there some reason I should NOT just go and delete them? It would be easy enough to do. In January I went to a SONY mirrorless and these files are even larger than before, so I am storage conscious right now. My gut instinct is to just delete the jpegs but I don’t want to cause any problems. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Also…for the record, how many others are shooting raw and jpeg, or did I miss the memo saying this was not really necessary. (The camera “how-to experts” seem to suggest setting it up this way.).
When raw was new it seemed everyone said to shoot ... (show quote)

This has been discussed, ad nauseam, on this forum. Admin should create a link to some unbiased summary and delete any further discussions of raw vs jpeg. It’s getting goofy to see this come up time and time again.

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 11:23:29   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
stevinri wrote:
Then what are you?


RAW lets each photographer decide for themselves: are you the finger or the button?

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2022 11:34:04   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
One who casually takes snaps. Shooting only jpg format is akin to Polaroid photos. Little can be done to either.
--Bob
stevinri wrote:
Then what are you?

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 11:46:37   #
stevinri Loc: Rhode Island
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
RAW lets each photographer decide for themselves: are you the finger or the button?


Can you be both?

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 13:34:00   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
billt1970 wrote:
The real answer is: It depends . . .

On what you are doing. I am a real estate photographer shooting ground stills, aerial stills, 360's and more for a half dozen agencies. It depends on what the agency specifies. In my case some agencies specify JPEGs and others specify RAW. And so, by always shooting RAW+JPEG I never have to worry about changing my settings and having them wrong for a particular shoot. I always have what the customer agency wants.

Yes it certainly does take up extra space, but I haven't run out yet, and if/when I do it is simple to go back and delete anything that the client did not specify for the job.

Best Regards,

BT
The real answer is: It depends . . . br br On wh... (show quote)


IMHO, there is absolutely no reason to store both Raw and Jpeg if you use Lightroom as you can easily and quickly export one from a raw file. Best of luck.

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 16:19:20   #
jimopho Loc: Maine
 
I guess I'm a little different than most. I shoot raw plus jpeg and mostly use the jpegs. On rare occasions I use the Raw. The jpegs often look perfect right out of the camera. I sell my printed images for a living. I'm sure this will raise some hackles.

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2022 17:09:00   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
jimopho wrote:
... I sell my printed images for a living. I'm sure this will raise some hackles.


If the jpgs meet your standards and your customers standards, none of our hackles will have anything to say about it.

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 18:29:43   #
Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore
 
I go on many fishing trips and day trips so I always shoot JPEG +RAW. After the trips and before after party dinner, I'll print a few jpegs to pass around. Not going to pp after a long day on water.
The Jpeg take up so little storage it doesn't amount to much. 128 SanDisk card under $30, external drives cheap too, so I don't care, about storage.

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 20:58:54   #
Silverman Loc: Michigan
 
If possible, may I ask as an Advanced Amatur, what is the Best Photo-Editing software to use with the
"RAW + JPEG" Exposure Combination? I will look forward to your professional advice.

Reply
Jul 8, 2022 21:35:40   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Silverman wrote:
If possible, may I ask as an Advanced Amatur, what is the Best Photo-Editing software to use with the
"RAW + JPEG" Exposure Combination? I will look forward to your professional advice.


The best, IMHO is Lightroom/Photoshop, available for $ 10 per month. The JPEGS are completely unnecessary. Best of luck.

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2022 21:40:10   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
Silverman wrote:
If possible, may I ask as an Advanced Amatur, what is the Best Photo-Editing software to use with the
"RAW + JPEG" Exposure Combination? I will look forward to your professional advice.


+1 for the Adobe Photography package. And I don't record the jpg unless there is no other option. I had a photography 'business' in High School in the 1950's but have been an amateur since then. I'm probably advanced in the geek things, but not much in the artistic realm.

When I got into digital ('99) I looked around for a processing program. By about '05 I had settled on Adobe after trying about 10 different things. They all had different strengths and weaknesses but Adobe seemed best overall.

Reply
Jul 9, 2022 10:39:36   #
Melsilver9
 
I shot RAW for many years and did many black and white conversions.
For the last two years, I've shot RAW and High-contrast Black and white.
Lightroom can be set to import both.
I see both images side by side and I can quickly decide whether I want this to be a color or B&W image.
I know I can do this with the black and white button inside Lightroom but it often takes a few seconds to render.
By shooting both, you get to see them side by side immediately.
Storage is cheap but if it were an issue, I would discard the JPEG after making a decision.

Reply
Jul 9, 2022 10:53:19   #
KenProspero
 
cjc2 wrote:
The best, IMHO is Lightroom/Photoshop, available for $ 10 per month. The JPEGS are completely unnecessary. Best of luck.


As an advanced amateur/intermediate -- I'd say definately Lightroom/Photoshop.

There are cheaper (maybe even free) alternatives, but ... If you start going to workshops/field trips (which I highly recommend) it's a near certainty that the person running it will be using LR/PS, which means you can get advice. Also, it's MUCH easier to get advice on any topic, for LR/PS. It's the standard.

Reply
Jul 9, 2022 13:45:06   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Jodevoy wrote:
When raw was new it seemed everyone said to shoot raw and jpeg, which I did. I was looking over my storage yesterday and was reminded just how much space this is taking up! I use subscription Lightroom and Photoshop, if that matters to your response. I do not recall ever going back to the jpeg shots for any reason. Is there some reason I should NOT just go and delete them? It would be easy enough to do. In January I went to a SONY mirrorless and these files are even larger than before, so I am storage conscious right now. My gut instinct is to just delete the jpegs but I don’t want to cause any problems. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Also…for the record, how many others are shooting raw and jpeg, or did I miss the memo saying this was not really necessary. (The camera “how-to experts” seem to suggest setting it up this way.).
When raw was new it seemed everyone said to shoot ... (show quote)


Shooting raw+jpeg never made any sense to me. Storage considerations aside, I often find myself shooting subjects of extreme contrast, and there is just no way you can get a decent result using a camera-generated jpeg. However, if I optimize the exposure for raw (expose FOR the right of the histogram), taking care to not blow the highlights, the result can be a very respectable image.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 9 of 11 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.