Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
RAW+JPEG
Aug 17, 2013 23:29:24 #
Ok I'm sure this has been discussed 100 time but I missed it. Is it really worth the extra storage space to do RAW+JEPEG. I'm shooting with a Canon 7D and have it set up to capture both when I take the shot. Ant thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.
Aug 18, 2013 00:08:04 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
No I don't think so.
Shoot raw.
If you need a jpg, convert in software there.
Shoot raw.
If you need a jpg, convert in software there.
Aug 18, 2013 00:13:42 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
However , if you can confidently get your exposure right and you need fps speed for sports or wildlife then you might shoot just jpg.
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Aug 18, 2013 00:16:13 #
Thanks! I haven't tried RAW before and wondered if it was really worth it. I know the advantages in post processing. I just wondered if the larger files were any better than high end JPEG?
Aug 18, 2013 00:27:10 #
qasas3251 wrote:
Ok I'm sure this has been discussed 100 time but I missed it. Is it really worth the extra storage space to do RAW+JPEG. I'm shooting with a Canon 7D and have it set up to capture both when I take the shot. Ant thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.
Use the search at the top to see ALL the UHH discussion on this subject.
The short answer:
If you need to publish quickly shoot JPEG and get it right in camera thereby reducing your time in front of a computer developing (post processing) your RAW photos.
Shooting both gives you the advantage of both worlds....fast publish with JPEG, more robust post process options with RAW.
Add to the short answer for the 7D:
If you are shooting sports or high speed bursts your camera will slow down and the buffer will fill faster when shooting either JPEG+RAW or RAW as opposed to just shooting JPEG.
Aug 18, 2013 00:36:13 #
qasas3251 wrote:
Thanks! I haven't tried RAW before and wondered if it was really worth it. I know the advantages in post processing. I just wondered if the larger files were any better than high end JPEG?
You should try it for a while. You may find that you don't like touching up every image in post like you'll have to do if shooting raw. Go to the FAQ section of UHH and check out the raw faq. JPG images are only 8-bit, while shooting raw you can choose to edit your images in 16 or 32-bit depth.
Aug 18, 2013 00:50:56 #
robert-photos wrote:
The short answer:
If you need to publish quickly shoot JPEG and get it right in camera thereby reducing your time in front of a computer developing (post processing) your RAW photos.
Shooting both gives you the advantage of both worlds....fast publish with JPEG, more robust post process options with RAW.
If you need to publish quickly shoot JPEG and get it right in camera thereby reducing your time in front of a computer developing (post processing) your RAW photos.
Shooting both gives you the advantage of both worlds....fast publish with JPEG, more robust post process options with RAW.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.
Aug 18, 2013 05:17:48 #
If you break it down, Raw is like and old fashion negative, packed with all the information of the image. jpeg is the equivalent of the finished prints (photos) the shop made from your negatives. So if you are a point & shoot person and want the image or print without alteration then shoot jpeg. If you are a true photographer and want to correct, enhance and or be more creative in PP with your shots then shoot RAW and save in jpeg, remember RAW is a no destructive negative form.
Likewise picture size, If you just want to view your pictures on a screen then set the camera to a low storage value and save space on your memory card. If you want to blow up to really large prints or want to crop out a very small part then increase the storage value of the shots.
Likewise picture size, If you just want to view your pictures on a screen then set the camera to a low storage value and save space on your memory card. If you want to blow up to really large prints or want to crop out a very small part then increase the storage value of the shots.
qasas3251 wrote:
Ok I'm sure this has been discussed 100 time but I missed it. Is it really worth the extra storage space to do RAW+JEPEG. I'm shooting with a Canon 7D and have it set up to capture both when I take the shot. Ant thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.
Aug 18, 2013 06:19:59 #
Aug 18, 2013 07:51:16 #
I go swing both ways, If its something I want to treasure and share with others, RAW. If it's like a family gathering, and just will just want to flip through and not spend much time with the JPG. If I go to a friends wedding so say, I would be shooting JPG of the Guest, and the Bride and Groom in RAW.
Aug 18, 2013 08:23:08 #
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Aug 18, 2013 08:27:33 #
qasas3251 wrote:
I tried this for a short while, but found that I never used the JPEG files, so I went back to only RAW.Ok I'm sure this has been discussed 100 time but I missed it. Is it really worth the extra storage space to do RAW+JEPEG. I'm shooting with a Canon 7D and have it set up to capture both when I take the shot. Ant thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.
When I shoot a 'record' type photo, converting the RAW files to JPEG is very quick as I have my preferred settings in Adobe Camera Raw. When I need or want to do more PP, the RAW starting point always makes adjustments much better, and generally they are more easy to do.
Aug 18, 2013 08:40:37 #
DaveMM wrote:
I tried this for a short while, but found that I never used the JPEG files, so I went back to only RAW.
When I shoot a 'record' type photo, converting the RAW files to JPEG is very quick as I have my preferred settings in Adobe Camera Raw. When I need or want to do more PP, the RAW starting point always makes adjustments much better, and generally they are more easy to do.
When I shoot a 'record' type photo, converting the RAW files to JPEG is very quick as I have my preferred settings in Adobe Camera Raw. When I need or want to do more PP, the RAW starting point always makes adjustments much better, and generally they are more easy to do.
Lightroom does the same as well. Set it up to do the JPEG conversions of the basics during import and you already have a good JPEG image to email for immediate export to family, friends or clients and can do additional tweaks if necessary later. ;)
Aug 18, 2013 08:56:48 #
qasas3251 wrote:
Ok I'm sure this has been discussed 100 time but I missed it. Is it really worth the extra storage space to do RAW+JEPEG. I'm shooting with a Canon 7D and have it set up to capture both when I take the shot. Ant thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.
I like that combination because I get the quick image, but I also have more room for processing something that looks special. I don't process all my raw files, just the ones I like.
Aug 18, 2013 12:21:23 #
majeskiphoto
Loc: Hamilton, Ontario
Luckily with Canon you'll be happy with the JPEGS, and you'll probably be satisfied using them 95% of the time. The same can't be said for Nikon and some others, but it's always good to play it safe and have the RAW files just in case of exposure or white balance problems, which again are rare with the Canon. Shooting both is good as long as your diligent about editing all your dud shots, at least deleting the Raw images in order not to waste memory.
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 Film Photography section of our forum.