mrova Loc: Chesterfield, VA

I'm new to photography with lots to learn. And this is just the place!
Question - I was always told by a professional photographer friend about shooting in RAW because of the control you have with adjusting the picture later. And that's what I'm doing, using LR-4 to tweak them before I use them.
The question I have though is what is the purpose of shooting in RAW + Jpeg, which is what I'm currently doing? I edit the RAW files, and do nothing with the Jpegs...but beyond that, what's the purpose of shooting in both?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

I think you'll find tons on this subject if you do a search but imho, if you arejust tossing the Jpegs stop recording them...

I suppose if you wanted to compare your results with what the camera settings produced or perhaps you want the RAW file "just in case" but normally used the Jpegs for finished product it could be handy. Perhaps you have a photo printer that will print from your card - I'm guessing they don't accept RAW images.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

You can control if you shoot in JPG, RAW or a combination of both as you are currently doing. In as such, you may want to use the JPGs as a reference, or something to send as a quick result. In the future though you may find it only necessary to shoot in RAW. The choice is yours to make. Either way, keep shooting and post them here!

mrova Loc: Chesterfield, VA

Thanks! I think I (sort of) understand the difference between the two. It was more of a curiosity question. I've got the canon 60d, and while I'm learning, I'm shooting in the RAW + Jpeg setting. Don't really know why I'm doing that except I'm trying to learn a bit about editing the RAW file, and yet still have the jpeg to fall on, if needed. I guess?
But, too, I was wondering what the advantage, if there is one, of even have that setting, is that a setting professionals use, and what the purpose would be shooting in both.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

I used to shoot in both being curious what the camera would do versus what I wanted. There were also times when I was not able to edit the RAW files as much as I wanted to, but needed to get a copy out so I used the JPG. Other than that I would be curious too what others do and why.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Your camera's JPG image is someone else's idea of how your captured image should be tweaked. The raw image is completely original, and you can tweak exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpness, etc., as you see fit. Your raw images cannot be altered, so you can always return to the original. Any JPG can be altered, such as cropping, and once done, cannot be un-done.

Raw images have a wider exposure latitude than JPG, so fewer raw images are needed in HDR composites, than JPG images.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I shoot simultaneous raw + JPG. I upload both to my PC. I view my JPGs, only to select matching raw images for further processing, and save the raw to a new folder, just for post processing. The resulting edited images are saved as JPGs, and are loaded into a new folder labeled as edited images. The raw cannot be altered, so remains in original folder.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Just remember a RAW can always be used to make a JPEG without any change being made to the RAW. JPEG can not be made into a RAW file and unless you use "Save As" the quality of the JPEG will deminish. RAW the best way to go.

mrova Loc: Chesterfield, VA

Thanks for all the insight everyone. All good and helpful info here, and I appreciate the variety of answers. Making a bit more sense to me! Sooner or later I'll settle and get more comfortable with how I'm recording them.
I started shooting in RAW + Jpeg because photographer friends were telling me to learn to edit the RAW images. Once I started doing that, I've found myself only editing the RAW files and doing nothing with the jpegs. Guess I was hanging onto the jpegs for "backup" in case I really screwed something up. Learning and doing...

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Agreed, just as I stated in my post.

Andy Scuba Loc: Nelson, New Zealand

My advice is to always shoot only RAW images. That way you don't loose anything and you can start over with any alterations you do including cropping and can (at least with a decent RAW editor like Nikon Capture NX2) always instantly compare your changes back with the original. Provided you have a backup (for purely security reasons) you can always work on the RAW file going back and forward with any computer processing steps you fancy trying out. Also with Capture NX2 this is very easy, and there's no messing about with all those old fashioned layers (like in Photoshop). If you want to see what your camera would have done in making the image into a Jpeg, just use the auto-balance in the RAW editor. Nine times out of ten... when you see what the Jpeg would have looked like, you will delete this step and do something else. The processing that the camera does to make a Jpeg is usually unacceptable and if you haven't got the RAW you will be stuck with whatever compromise the camera's computer chip decides to give you. If you only want an average shot stick to Jpeg... if you want something creative always use RAW.

runsthebitterroot Loc: Western Montana

Eccept for a few photo's, in the past few years I didn't use raw even when shooting in the semi manual modes. Just over the past several months I have learned alot about what I could do with more serious post processing. Now I wish I had done all my shooting in raw+jpeg. Memory was never and is not an issue, however the a loss of some good photo's are an issue. I guess it can be chalked up as part of the learning process.

Larry

Andy Scuba Loc: Nelson, New Zealand

I've been trying to think of an analogy, to best explain why camera produced jpegs are not much use.
Here it is...
In the old days, if you had no darkroom, you took your pictures into a camera shop and they produced en-prints for you. You had no control of the colour balance, tonal range, contrast or anything else that the shop might impose on you. These sausage-machine prints were quite rightly despised; they were arbitary interpretations of your precious negatives and never looked good compared to even your earliest attempts at printing your own stuff in a darkroom. I'm enclosing two pictures to show you what I'm talking about. Usually, I don't bother saving camera produced Jpegs but on this occasion I just happen to have an example of what the camera thought I wanted in a jpeg. Look at the first picture... it is so flat you probably wouldn't have given it a second look when judging the jpegs.
Now let me tell you this image was made with a Nikon D3s, which until the D4 came out was widely held to be the world's best camera. (If the world's top camera produces Jpegs like this imagine what a cheap camera will do).
Next, look at the second Jpeg of the same shot produced from the RAW file after a few minutes using Nikon Capture NX2 to tweek the pixels. As you can see it is very nice, but I can assure you though no amount of fiddling with the Jpeg would have produced this result. I still have the RAW file with all the corrections added to it. From this I can go right back to the camera original (in the same file) if I want, so I can re-change any one of dozens of aspects of the final image once more. I can even make it go monochrome, save it... and then make it go back to colour again with no loss of detail.
That's why you should only shoot RAW.

What the camera wanted as a Jpeg


What you can obtain from a RAW file

mrova Loc: Chesterfield, VA

Andy, thanks for that. All others too! You're all a wealth of knowledge for me. This has been extremely helpful to me. And Andy, the explanation along with the pics tells it very clearly. Why I hadn't thought of looking at my own edited pics right beside the camera-provided jpeg, I don't know.
It's making great sense to me, and by golly, I think I'm learning more! Thanks! Ya'll are awesome!