Why shoot in JPG and raw ? (Page 5): You're right, a file in the raw category is not an image file. A second misconception is that a JPEG is an image file, it is not either . In order...

amehta Loc: Boston

big-guy wrote:

MISCONCEPTION: RAW is an image file. IT IS NOT!

TRUTH: RAW is a file with all the data (1's and 0's) stored for each shot. Processing, whether in camera or in computer, uses a subset of that data to create a JPG or other format picture that you can view.

You're right, a file in the raw category is not an image file.

A second misconception is that a JPEG is an image file, it is not either. In order for the JPEG file to be viewed, the data needs to be converted to RGB pixel data, it is not stored that way.

A bmp file, on the other hand, is an image file, and a tiff (uncompressed) file basically is as well, because both do store RGB pixel data, which is what computer monitors display.

LLucas Loc: Upstate South Carolina, USA

Oh my goodness... so much to learn! Thanks to all you UHH's who are willing and able to teach!!

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

missletoe wrote:

Why shoot in JPG and raw? If you can convert raw to JPG in PP why take up the space on your memory card?

If the replies here on this thread are not enough, do a search for jpeg and raw on this forum site and see the endless list of topic headings on this subject. I recently added a question regarding tiff files, too. Opinions vary.
Jpeg quality is improving with modern cameras but they don't always capture the image as well as could be done if corrected using a raw file and some post processing. My own camera does a pretty great job with jpegs so I don't find a lot of times yet when I need to do anything to adjust them with the exception of a small dodge or burn in Photoshop.

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

Well because you can of course!

You may want to do both when you think the JPG will give you pretty good results SOOC and have the RAWs for backup if you need to make adjustments on your own for those that need a little work.

I pretty much always shoot RAW except for one inspection customer I have that requests small JPGs emailed. For that customer I shoot RAW + small JPG. 99 times out of 100 that is all the customer needs. That other time they may come back and ask for more detail in a small area of a specific photo. I can then go back to the RAW and create a high resolution JPG of a small area where they wanted more detail.

Not everyone will use every option on every camera but in my case I am glad that I have not only the option to shoot RAW + JPG but also to select the size of JPG. It's all about letting the camera save me a bunch of time converting & resizing. The maximum quality your camera is able to produce is not always appropriate for every use.

So that's why I do it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

and jpg, which is highly compressed and limited to just 8 bits of tonal depth, is a lousy choice for anything but the simplest edits. Too little data to work with, and too much lost each time you make an edit.

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I messed up......see my next comment.

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

LLucas wrote:

Thanks for clarifying.
According to the thread here, RAW is best for photos that will be tweaked. Jpeg is fine for snapshots. That's what I got out of this. Thanks for the beautiful examples, especially the evening time-lapsed scene. I will continue shooting RAW since PP is my favorite part of the process.

I have read a few times on this forum that JPEG is the choice for snapshots. Well, those who are experienced photographers, who know a good shot when they see it and understand the technical aspects of photography....not that difficult....can take some amazingly wonderful "snapshots". The more you practice the better you get and a jpeg is not a second rate file type. You can just do more adjusting with raw because it holds more info. If you have the photo right to begin with then you don't have to worry about post processing. The issue then comes down to how to archive it to preserve all the info if you use the jpeg many times over. Do a search for my question on archiving the image as a tiff. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-182143-1.html

Blaster6 Loc: Central PA

mossgate wrote:

I have read a few times on this forum that JPEG is the choice for snapshots. Well, those who are experienced photographers, who know a good shot when they see it and understand the technical aspects of photography....not that difficult....can take some amazingly wonderful "snapshots".

Well I don't know if I would go that far.
I believe general consensus of a snapshot is a poorly composed photo that is taken without any thought or skill being applied. Those are not limited to JPG and shooting RAW will not fix composition. RAW also does not make a boring subject interesting.

If you apply enough talent before you press the shutter you don't need to apply as much in post processing.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

amehta wrote:

You're right, a file in the raw category is not an image file.

A second misconception is that a JPEG is an image file, it is not either. In order for the JPEG file to be viewed, the data needs to be converted to RGB pixel data, it is not stored that way.

A bmp file, on the other hand, is an image file, and a tiff (uncompressed) file basically is as well, because both do store RGB pixel data, which is what computer monitors display.

Baby steps... baby steps. :-)

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

missletoe wrote:

Why shoot in JPG and raw? If you can convert raw to JPG in PP why take up the space on your memory card?

Because images can be processed to look better when shot in raw. But if you feel the trade-off is too great and you are happy with you jpg snap shots, then by all means, keep shooting jpgs. There's nothing wrong with that.

amehta Loc: Boston

big-guy wrote:

Baby steps... baby steps. :-)

:thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

Blaster6 wrote:

Well I don't know if I would go that far.
I believe general consensus of a snapshot is a poorly composed photo that is taken without any thought or skill being applied. Those are not limited to JPG and shooting RAW will not fix composition. RAW also does not make a boring subject interesting.

If you apply enough talent before you press the shutter you don't need to apply as much in post processing.

Perhaps a snapshot is more about the intended use of the picture than the quality, like social media vs enlargements.

amehta Loc: Boston

sirlensalot wrote:

Because it is technically impossible to get it perfect straight from the camera. If close is good enough, as it is for most of us, depending on the circumstance or event, JPEG's are fine.

I think it is also technically impossible to get it perfect in software. :-)

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

11 reasons to shoot in RAW format
http://www.digitalphotomentor.com/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats/

amehta Loc: Boston

dirtpusher wrote:

11 reasons to shoot in RAW format
http://www.digitalphotomentor.com/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats/

Nobody, certainly not the OP, is questioning the value of raw files.