Instant JPG from RAW

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

Hi everyone - on Scott Kelby's guest blogger post last week - Michael Tapes from rawworkflow.com (no affiliation) put up something about instant jpg from raw file.

Here's a link to Michael's blog

What interests me is that this could be the tool that allows me to move from RAW+JPG Fine on my D80 to just RAW

Only thing is - the JPG out of the RAW is 1/3 of the size of the JPG Fine from the camera _and_ it doesn't appear to have all the in camera settings applied (although it does look a little more correct - colour wise than the JPG Fine from the camera)

If anyone has a play with it - let me know why you might think the JPG from RAW is so much smaller

Enjoy and thanks in advance for any ideas on the jpg size issue

Cheers, Jase

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

Update - Michael replied to my comment on his blog - would see the JPG in the RAW specs are set by the camera manufacturer

So Nikon D80 must be JPG Medium instead of JPG Fine in the RAW

Not sure if I can move to shooting just RAW then - as I take a heap of photos of my kids that the family in Oz want to see but I don't have time to process each and every one that I want to publish

Thoughts??

CatOne · October 2, 2008

jasonstone wrote:

Update - Michael replied to my comment on his blog - would see the JPG in the RAW specs are set by the camera manufacturer

So Nikon D80 must be JPG Medium instead of JPG Fine in the RAW

Not sure if I can move to shooting just RAW then - as I take a heap of photos of my kids that the family in Oz want to see but I don't have time to process each and every one that I want to publish

Thoughts??

Usually you can set the camera's JPEG size when shooting RAW+JPEG. So you can do RAW+JPEG (fine) or RAW+JPEG (small) or whatever. I don't own a D80 so I don't know for sure -- my Canons have at least 4 options for JPEG sizes though.

But frankly, I use Aperture and it takes about 1 minute to generate 100 JPEGs from the RAW files with a little post processing. So I always shoot RAW only. "Don't have time to process" really doesn't compute for me... it just doesn't take long to generate JPEGs at all.

OffTopic · October 2, 2008

The utility creates a "high quality" proof (Michael Tapes words), not a final finished image. It has its uses in the commercial world, but it's not something that I personally would use to create images for publication. As you noted they are smaller files with less data, and they are created from the embedded thumbs which don't have all of the normal processing applied which would be applied to a JPEG file.

I could see it being used to upload a quick proof gallery (as Tapes discusses in his post), as long as you have Proof Delay on so you can replace it with the final image before printing.

I guess my thinking is this - people shoot RAW to have total control over the processing. If you don't have the time or desire to process the RAW files, why would you shoot RAW? If you just generating JPEGs straight from the RAW files, aren't you really defeating the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.

Is there another advantage to shooting RAW that I'm missing? Unless you're doing it to create a proof gallery that will later be replaced with the final images, why not just shoot JPEG for the high volume family stuff, and RAW for your more creative stuff?

I'm re-reading that last paragraph and it may seem harsher than what I intend - I really am curious because I've noticed that a lot of people lately seem to go from RAW straight to JPEG with very minimal (or no) processing, and I honestly don't understand where the advantage is in shooting RAW in that scenario.

CatOne · October 2, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

...

I guess my thinking is this - people shoot RAW to have total control over the processing. If you don't have the time or desire to process the RAW files, why would you shoot RAW? If you just generating JPEGs straight from the RAW files, aren't you really defeating the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place. Is there another advantage to shooting RAW that I'm missing? Unless you're doing it to create a proof gallery that will later be replaced with the final images, why not just shoot JPEG for the high volume family stuff, and RAW for your more creative stuff?

I'm re-reading that last paragraph and it may seem harsher than what I intend - I really am curious because I've noticed that a lot of people lately seem to go from RAW straight to JPEG with very minimal (or no) processing, and I honestly don't understand where the advantage is in shooting RAW in that scenario.

What's the advantage in shooting JPEG in any scenario? If I want minimally post-processed JPEGs in a hurry, I do this:

* Import them into Aperture, adding any keywords that make sense, and add copyright info
* Take one image from the set, and put the white balance where I want it.
* Bump the saturation or vibrancy to where I want it
* Enable edge sharpening
(all this takes maybe 30-60 seconds)
* Lift the adjustments
* Stamp the adjustments on all the rest of the images
(wait 15 seconds for this to complete)
* Export all images as JPEGs to Smugmug

Rough proofs, but with more control than I had for JPEGs, and really for _no_ additional time. With Aperture or Lightroom, there really is no overhead for JPEGs, frankly. For 10, 100, or 1000 JPEGs, there's a fixed hit of about 60 seconds more time, total.

OffTopic · October 2, 2008

CatOne wrote:

What's the advantage in shooting JPEG in any scenario? If I want minimally post-processed JPEGs in a hurry, I do this:

* Import them into Aperture, adding any keywords that make sense, and add copyright info
* Take one image from the set, and put the white balance where I want it.
* Bump the saturation or vibrancy to where I want it
* Enable edge sharpening
(all this takes maybe 30-60 seconds)
* Lift the adjustments
* Stamp the adjustments on all the rest of the images
(wait 15 seconds for this to complete)
* Export all images as JPEGs to Smugmug

Rough proofs, but with more control than I had for JPEGs, and really for _no_ additional time. With Aperture or Lightroom, there really is no overhead for JPEGs, frankly. For 10, 100, or 1000 JPEGs, there's a fixed hit of about 60 seconds more time, total.

Okay, I can see how that works when you want to make the same adjustments to a large batch of photos, especially if you do portraits or events where the lighting stays relatively the same. And you ARE controlling your adjustments, unlike the IJFR utility Jasonstone linked to.

I'm jealous of those of you who can benefit from batch processing. With the stuff I'm usually shooting, I end up with hundreds of photos each with drastically different light, so my biggest batch is usually no more than 5 files!

I'm an old-school RAW shooter, so I am just in the habit of previewing and individually selecting the files I want to process one-by-one. If I have 5 similar shots, I pick my favorite one and ignore the rest. Unfortunately I carry that habit with me even when I do a studio shoot and could benefit from batch processing.

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

I guess my thinking is this - people shoot RAW to have total control over the processing. If you don't have the time or desire to process the RAW files, why would you shoot RAW? If you just generating JPEGs straight from the RAW files, aren't you really defeating the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place. Is there another advantage to shooting RAW that I'm missing? Unless you're doing it to create a proof gallery that will later be replaced with the final images, why not just shoot JPEG for the high volume family stuff, and RAW for your more creative stuff?

I'm re-reading that last paragraph and it may seem harsher than what I intend - I really am curious because I've noticed that a lot of people lately seem to go from RAW straight to JPEG with very minimal (or no) processing, and I honestly don't understand where the advantage is in shooting RAW in that scenario.

Hi Lori - no it didn't come across as harsh at all - it's quite accurate! It's actually a dilemna I've been having for a long while now.

I know that with time I can make an image - and the resulting JPG - in Lightroom look better than one straight out of the camera.

BUT.... and it's a big one for me...

I don't have enough time to edit ALL my RAW photos to make JPGs of them.

I haven't get found a setting that I can use for all my RAW photos to generate JPGs off them either as I'm usually shooting with different light, in different lighting conditions, sometimes pics of the kids in movement and sometimes landscape and everything in between - and this is a usual "batch" for me!

So to answer the question - why am I shooting RAW+JPG?
Because I want to hedge my bets - if I manage to nail the composition etc. of a shot but I'm just a bit off on the white balance, or i want to pump up the saturation a bit or or or or... well then I want to have the RAW to ensure I can do exactly what I want to get exactly the image I saw (or want to see)

So basically it's insurance for me - 98% of my photos I use are JPG straight out of the camera but slowly I'm doing more and more with Lightroom.

Oh the other reason is I had to spend time learning Lightroom and findind time for me - is well nigh on impossible...

Think I'll stay with RAW+JPG Fine setting for now though

Cheers, Jase
p.s. hope that wasn't too scattered or long winded explanation

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

CatOne wrote:

Rough proofs, but with more control than I had for JPEGs, and really for _no_ additional time. With Aperture or Lightroom, there really is no overhead for JPEGs, frankly. For 10, 100, or 1000 JPEGs, there's a fixed hit of about 60 seconds more time, total.

I have Lori's problem - in a "batch" of 100+ photos I'm lucky if 5 in a row have the same lighting or content... so I've found it hard to find such a setting

I've bought Scott Kelby's new LR2 book though - so hopefully that will get my LR skills improved to the point where this could be a possibility.

Cheers, Jase

CatOne · October 2, 2008

jasonstone wrote:

I have Lori's problem - in a "batch" of 100+ photos I'm lucky if 5 in a row have the same lighting or content... so I've found it hard to find such a setting

I've bought Scott Kelby's new LR2 book though - so hopefully that will get my LR skills improved to the point where this could be a possibility.

Cheers, Jase

Fair enough. But what I still don't understand is, if you wanted to go with "straight out of camera" and can convert from RAW to JPEG with Aperture effectively immediately, then why not do that? For me, there's really no time difference at all between the two. And RAW gives me much more flexibility if I need to do something. The only downside is that RAW files are larger than JPEGs, but these days with a 1 TB drive costing $129, that's just not an issue

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

CatOne wrote:

Fair enough. But what I still don't understand is, if you wanted to go with "straight out of camera" and can convert from RAW to JPEG with Aperture effectively immediately, then why not do that? For me, there's really no time difference at all between the two. And RAW gives me much more flexibility if I need to do something. The only downside is that RAW files are larger than JPEGs, but these days with a 1 TB drive costing $129, that's just not an issue

Well going RAW to JPEG from Lightroom - I dunno guess I always thought the JPG out of the camera with some minimal processing looked better than the JPG made straight from a RAW file in LR.
(I hope I understood you right - I think you mean just import all the RAW files into LR and then do an export to JPG with say some minmal sharpening.)

Will have to do some tests after this weekend - I'm off with the family down to Bergamo in Italy to meet some friends so hopefully get some nice photos to play with

Oh and that's one reason I'm not worried about RAW+JPG - I have 3 1TB drives, 1 250GB drive, 1 160GB drive - so i'm covered with backups no problem!

Cheers, Jase

digismile · October 2, 2008

jasonstone wrote:

Well going RAW to JPEG from Lightroom - I dunno guess I always thought the JPG out of the camera with some minimal processing looked better than the JPG made straight from a RAW file in LR.

(I hope I understood you right - I think you mean just import all the RAW files into LR and then do an export to JPG with say some minmal sharpening.)

Whatever minimal processing you are doing in camera, you can set as your default camera raw processing for ACR in Lightroom to do the same. Plus, your white balance adjustments to jpegs don't even compare to adjusting a raw file.

I too, sometimes take a heap of family photos that I want to upload quickly to smugmug. Here's all I do:

1. Import from card using ImageIngesterPro3. It automatically puts originals and copies in the right folders, renames the files, adds copyright metadata, and sometimes I also add some keywords at this point.

2. Import or update the folder(s) into Lightroom.

3. Have a quick look in Lightroom to see what I want to upload and set the "Pick" flag (or another tag of your choice). You do have to look at them in some program before uploading, don't you? So why not LR?

Personally, I would make slight exposure corrections, but often, they are pretty much good to go as is, if I've done my job behind the camera.

4. Use the LR plug-in to directly send them to smugmug. You can create new galleries if necessary, re-size if you don't want to upload the full size originals, etc.

Can't be much simpler. Import to disk, add to LR so that you can preview, select files, and upload. Plus, you don't double your number of files. The jpeg is created on the way to SM.

Your only "issue" is that you believe the jpeg out of camera is better than a RAW file. Easy to fix!

Just my 2 cents,

jasonstone · October 2, 2008

digismile wrote:

Whatever minimal processing you are doing in camera, you can set as your default camera raw processing for ACR in Lightroom to do the same. Plus, your white balance adjustments to jpegs don't even compare to adjusting a raw file.

It's not usually the WB i am adjusting - but in camera I didn't have many changes from default - so yes it's likely i could generate jpg from my raw in LR and have similar results - I guess I just never thought to try that - don't ask me why

I always thought that RAW photos were less saturated or different colours etc. from the JPG from the camera - I guess i was just a wrong assumption and one that I never got out of my head!

digismile wrote:

I too, sometimes take a heap of family photos that I want to upload quickly to smugmug. Here's all I do:

3. Have a quick look in Lightroom to see what I want to upload and set the "Pick" flag (or another tag of your choice). You do have to look at them in some program before uploading, don't you? So why not LR?

--> TRUE! I use iPhoto for my JPGs

4. Use the LR plug-in to directly send them to smugmug. You can create new galleries if necessary, re-size if you don't want to upload the full size originals, etc.

Can't be much simpler. Import to disk, add to LR so that you can preview, select files, and upload. Plus, you don't double your number of files. The jpeg is created on the way to SM.

Hmmm so you're doing no processing to the RAW apart from uploading it to SM which will do some sharpening I know - I'm going to try that v.soon and compare results with JPG out of camera,

digismile wrote:

Your only "issue" is that you believe the jpeg out of camera is better than a RAW file. Easy to fix!

My issue is not having spent enough time trying to understand Lightroom until now - but I'm working on that

Cheers, Jase

digismile · October 2, 2008

Jason,

You're actually not "wrong" regarding RAW files being "flat". This has been discussed since the earth's crust was cooling

. (It's not that the RAW files are flat. it's that you've already done some processing in camera to the jpeg).

You identified that you are doing some in camera adjustments. Some people do, some don't (I don't, since I do all my post processing in RAW). Since this is what you like, the goal is to mimic these adjustments as your "default" RAW settings. I'm guessing that you probably like the saturation higher, and maybe a contrast boost. This means that when you open your Raw file in Bridge or Lightroom or PS, it will look like what you were expecting.

This has become a whole lot easier since the release of ACR 4.5. After installing this version of ACR, you can download some new beta versions of camera profiles that work with ACR (see this thread). It adds some defaults to mimic various in camera adjustments. But even without these, it's still easy to make these adjustments yourself and save them either as the RAW default, or by a name you specify.

So, to your question, yes, I can load my photos, open them in LR and not do ANY adjustments and send them off to smugmug using the LR uploader. In reality, if I see a photo that i like that just screams for a tweek, I'm going to do it. Just know that making adjustments in LR2 is REALLY painless!

What you are trying to accomplish are those adjustments that you do almost everytime. This is what you can easily automate. Trust me! the first step is to figure out what those changes are and we can help you do the next step(s).

BTW, my goal has always been to do the least amount of post processing! (So I'm always looking for shortcuts ...)

arodney · October 3, 2008

jasonstone wrote:

Well going RAW to JPEG from Lightroom - I dunno guess I always thought the JPG out of the camera with some minimal processing looked better than the JPG made straight from a RAW file in LR.

That's because you haven't setup a viable Lightroom default rendering. Its using that to build the initial previews and will export that if you don't alter any develop settings. But you CAN adjust this default rendering to better match the JPEGs, then skip the JPEG route all together.

IF you have LR, I see little reason to shoot Raw+JPEG or even mess with extracting the small Raw JPEG. It will never match what you'll ultimately render in LR. You can produce a desirable default LR rendering and very quickly use the Export command to build JPEGs that exactly match this initial setting. The key is messing with the default settings and even playing with the new Beta camera profiles if you happen to shoot Nikon or Canon (some designed to closely match the camera generated JPEGs).

jasonstone · October 6, 2008

Actually I might have found a preset which works GREAT!

From this guy who developed them for LR for his D200 - but many using them with D80 and others with great success...

Just in case anyone else ends up here and wants the link go to http://www.onethirdstop.com

Ran a test last night and I like what I see - will maybe link to some sample comparisons later if I get the time

Cheers, Jase

Instant JPG from RAW

Comments