What are the advantages/disadvantages of shooting straight RAW or RAW+JPG? I shoot RAW only, but forget why? Should I be shooting RAW+JPG?
Thank you in advance.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of shooting straight RAW or RAW+JPG? I shoot RAW only, but forget why? Should I be shooting RAW+JPG?
Thank you in advance.
As you can easily and quickly create a JPG in PP, unless you need a JPG before you can get to your computer, I can't see any point in wasting space on your memory card by shooting both.
As you can easily and quickly create a JPG in PP, unless you need a JPG before you can get to your computer, I can't see any point in wasting space on your memory card by shooting both.
Thanks, Dub. I thought it was something simple like that, but want to make sure I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face (or something).
One reason I sometimes do shoot RAW + jpg ( since large CF cards are cheaper anyway ) is occasionally I am needing a B&W image, and I want to see the different filter effects on my LCD as I shoot - red filter, green filter etc, and I am shooting in RAW for maximum image quality.
I will see B&W jpgs on my LCD, and I will still have a color RAW image for editing. One other reason might be for a journalist who knows their images will be used as a B&W in a newspaper, but wants the security of RAW as well. If the jpg is good enough, there is zero post shooting editing time spent at a computer, but the RAW file enables you to come back and post edit it later if desired.
Folks will tell you if you use LR, you can always make a jpg, and yes that is true, but I do not want to load RAW AND JPGS to LR. And I like seeing what B&W images shot with a red filter or an orange filter look like sometime at the moment of shooting.
While I shoot primarily RAW, some large volume/stable lighting events (e.g. fashion shows) can benefit from a raw+(small)jpeg combo. Toss-rate is very low, pretty much everything goes. This way I still sort out RAWs (Adobe Bridge CS4 is smart enough to move jpegs along, plus I created a little tool to ensure just that), and then quickly upload all straight-out-of-camera jpegs (Star*Explorer does all the multiple album creation/upload in one quick sweep) without spending extra hours in processing.
This way I can get pictures up quickly and then if an order comes I simply process selected raw files and replace the original SOOC jpegs with processed versions. One day print delay and batch replace mode of Star*Explorer do the trick nicely.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of shooting straight RAW or RAW+JPG? I shoot RAW only, but forget why? Should I be shooting RAW+JPG?
Thank you in advance.
with your 40D I do not see a reason for YOU to need to shoot R+Jpg.......if your camera was like my 7D's then I shoot the combo so I can magnify the jpg if I am doing any chimping......for some reason Konica Minolta Did not allow magnification of the .thm or raw file so I have to waste card space at times.....but when I load to LR I separate the files by type and toss all .thms and jpgs before the upload.......saving disk space..............
with your 40D I do not see a reason for YOU to need to shoot R+Jpg.......if your camera was like my 7D's then I shoot the combo so I can magnify the jpg if I am doing any chimping......for some reason Konica Minolta Did not allow magnification of the .thm or raw file so I have to waste card space at times.....but when I load to LR I separate the files by type and toss all .thms and jpgs before the upload.......saving disk space..............
Thanks, this is all helpful, and confirms my original instincts, to shoot only RAW. The short answer seems to be, if you shoot both RAW and JPG, you have quick access to the JPG and the RAW serves as high-quality negative that you may want/need to access later.
Thanks, this is all helpful, and confirms my original instincts, to shoot only RAW. The short answer seems to be, if you shoot both RAW and JPG, you have quick access to the JPG and the RAW serves as high-quality negative that you may want/need to access later.
I just recently learned that raw files include a jpg that is displayed on your camera's LCD. There are several free utilities that will extract this jpg for you. I'm not an expert on whether or not this is a "better" jpg than is created by shooting raw + jpg, but it is an option, depending on your needs and wants.
In the current May/June issue of Digital PhotoPro, on the last page of the issue, a writer ( who is not atributed ) suggests doing just as I said - that occasionally shooting RAW + a Monochrome jpg can be worthwhile.
You get to see what a monochrome image will look like on your LCD during the shooting phase, and still retain all the advantages of a RAW file for later processing, as either a color or a B&W image!!
It is always nice to find someone to agree with you
With my D90, I've found that RAW + JPEG(Fine) produces a better quality picture for review on the LCD. If I'm only shooting RAW, it's a lower quality JPEG that is displayed, so I can't always determine the sharpness acurately.
I just recently learned that raw files include a jpg that is displayed on your camera's LCD. There are several free utilities that will extract this jpg for you. I'm not an expert on whether or not this is a "better" jpg than is created by shooting raw + jpg, but it is an option, depending on your needs and wants.
With my D90, I've found that RAW + JPEG(Fine) produces a better quality picture for review on the LCD. If I'm only shooting RAW, it's a lower quality JPEG that is displayed, so I can't always determine the sharpness acurately.
As far as using jpgs to determine sharpness goes, there's a fly in your ointment. You've got two different terms confused here. What you are really trying to double check is your focus. It is part of the capture process. Sharpening is a post processing activity. Software applies sharpening algorithms to the RAW data. Different amounts of sharpening are required for different outputs.
And then, there's this. DSLRs always capture the RAW data and render a jpg, regardless of the quality settings on your camera. The RAW data must be captured, and it must be converted to a jpg for viewing on the camera LCD. The only thing the quality settings affect is what data is written to the memory card. When the camera renders the jpg, it applies the jpg image settings to the preview, regardless of the quality settings in the camera. Meaning, your jpg settings are applied to the preview, even if you are set to RAW only. Meaning, the preview will be identical whether you are set to RAW only or RAW plus jpg. And saving the jpg is totally redundant. (Of course, the grayscale renderings mentioned above are a totally different story.) I just double checked this on my D200. I'm pretty sure your D90 works the same way.
Furthermore, if your purpose is to evaluate focus, the sharpening applied to your jpg in camera may actually mask focus problems, depending on your in camera jpg sharpening settings and the actual content of the scene captured. A RAW rendering may actually give a better evaluation of focus. Yes, it will be softer than the in camera jpg, but the plane of focus will be readily apparent as will the depth of field. And neither will be obscured by general and perhaps inappropriate sharpening applied in camera. The plane of focus is mathematically defined, but what constitutes "out of focus" is highly subjective. And sharpening is applied after the fact. And I'm having a real hard time with why someone would want to extract the camera jpg preview post processing if they have the RAW available.
Anyway, save RAW plus jpg if you want, but except for very specific and specialized purposes, it's hard to justify.
As far as using jpgs to determine sharpness goes, there's a fly in your ointment. You've got two different terms confused here. What you are really trying to double check is your focus. It is part of the capture process. Sharpening is a post processing activity.
And I do find that I can see things better when I do RAW +Jpeg. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe that's not the way it's supposed to work. But it works for me. (and that's all that matters)
Both
I shoot both. I keep the jpg files in a separate backup file from the raws on different backup drives. I copy the jpgs using Internet Explorer to the backup drives right away. Then I can play all I want in LR but no matter what, I have an archive backup. I just use em as a safety backup. Memory and HD are cheap now. My Smugsite is also one more backup for me.
I shoot both. I keep the jpg files in a separate backup file from the raws on different backup drives. I copy the jpgs using Internet Explorer to the backup drives right away. Then I can play all I want in LR but no matter what, I have an archive backup. I just use em as a safety backup. Memory and HD are cheap now. My Smugsite is also one more backup for me.
I hate to be such a party pooper, but archiving jpgs is an even less fruitless notion.
A 10Mp RAW image when converted to jpg at the highest quality settings yields about a 7Mp image, depending on the image. So, 3Mp of irreplaceable data is simply thrown away. Why would you archive an inferior file that is missing 30% of your capture data? In fact, it would be easier to archive your RAW files, and not surrender 30% of your data, and not be stuck with irreversible edits. Lightroom or Bridge will automatically backup your RAW files on import, and can be set to automatically backup your catalog on a set schedule, every time you open Lr, or whatever, at your discretion. The only downside is that your archive files are bigger (but that's what we want). But as you point out, memory is cheap. And even if it wasn't, jpg files are simply unsuitable as archives of your RAW files. What's the point of buying a 10Mp camera if you believe 7Mp is enough?
And what happens when you change your edit of the RAW file? Do you make a new jpg every time? And how do you keep track of which jpgs in your archive have been reedited, and need to be updated in your jpg archive? And if you lose your drive with RAW files, all you have left is your vastly inferior jpgs. Archiving jpgs is a big can of worms. And pointless if you can capture RAW. Archive and backup your RAW files.
Just so you know, I'm not that comfortable criticizing someone's techniques. I don't consider my opinions the final word on anything. And, of course, anyone is free to incorporate poor practices into their work flow. And that person is the only one who suffers. But, when you post it here, that is an endorsement of poor practice. And it is not in the best interest of the forum or its readers to leave poor practices unchallenged. And no need to get your feelings hurt if your practices are challenged. We're all trying to achieve the same thing here. Better images and work flows. And the best practices have been identified and implemented by the very best people in the business. You don't have to take my word for it.
But I am certain that when it comes to archiving jpgs, just say "No".
Seperate
I have two backup drives; One is RAW and One is JPG; Yes, I know the JPG is inferior but it's processed and it's a universal file. RAW requires a RAW converter. Just like the 8 track or cassette, the RAW maybe rendered useless one day unless it's converted. I find it a bit of extra insurance. I'd rather havae a small inferior file than one that might be unreadable in the future. I think that with digital media one day we could hit a wall. That is a different subject.
I have two backup drives; One is RAW and One is JPG; Yes, I know the JPG is inferior but it's processed and it's a universal file. RAW requires a RAW converter. Just like the 8 track or cassette, the RAW maybe rendered useless one day unless it's converted. I find it a bit of extra insurance. I'd rather havae a small inferior file than one that might be unreadable in the future. I think that with digital media one day we could hit a wall. That is a different subject.
Hi, Kat. I'm sorry. This still doesn't hold water.
To begin with, your comparison to 8 track is apples and oranges. They're both fruit, but that's where the similarity ends. You can't download free software to convert your 8 track player into a CD player. Software can easily convert any format in danger of extinction to a newer format. And there is no need to make this conversion until the threat of extinction is imminent and obvious.
If you are concerned with individual camera RAW format extinction, so is Adobe. That's why they created DNG (Digital Negative) format. It is an open source universal RAW format. Adobe has made it available free to any software developer or camera manufacturer. Anyone can download Adobe's DNG conversion software for free here. If you already have Lightroom or Photoshop, they have built in DNG conversion. You can do it automatically on import. And save or destroy the original camera RAW files at your discretion. RAW files are here to stay, and Adobe DNG is the answer to camera RAW format extinction. And Adobe has guaranteed the support of DNG indefinitely. I don't lose any sleep worrying about Adobe going under. And I don't worry about RAW format extinction.
But if you still are, jpg is still the wrong solution. Archiving uncompressed TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) copies of your files will dodge your imaginary RAW extinction bullet without losing any data. And TIFF is practically universal. It will also handle layers, in case you are also worried about PSD format going extinct. TIFF is an archive format, whereas jpg is a compressed file transfer format. Intended for use when the transfer of large files is prohibitive, and the cost in image quality is a necessary price.
So, if you are a belt and suspenders kind of person (not a bad thing for a photographer to be), convert to DNG on import, edit, then export copies to archive as TIFFs. But you're still stuck with the messy problem of keeping your TIFF backups synchronized with your latest RAW edits.
Consider the probability that your RAW format will go extinct this year. I can say with absolute certainty it is 0. It absolutely will not happen. Compare that to the probability that your hard drive will fail. Even though very small, it is quite real, and, compared to the "0" probability above, it is very large. So, which should you be more concerned about, something, that if it happens at all, will happen over a span of years, with plenty of warning , and with an alternative already in place (format extinction), or should you be more concerned about something that could happen literally at any instant and be very difficult or impossible to recover from (hard drive failure). I'd be a lot more concerned about hard drive failure, and set up my work flow to reflect this reality. That is, back up my RAW files.
If your hard drive failed tomorrow, you would lose all your RAW files. And all you will have left is inferior renditions with 30% per cent of the data gone for good. I find it surprising that a professional photographer would find this satisfactory, especially when better alternatives are available. And I wonder if your clients would also find these inferior images satisfactory.
No file format is exempt from extinction. Even jpg. JPG is a generic term and really refers to the family of jpg file formats. JPG is not a file format, per se. The jpg file formats are JPEG/JIF, JPEG/JFIF, JPEG/EXIF, JPEG/LS, JBIG, JPEG 2000, and JPEG XR. Most DSLRs use JPEG/EXIF or JPEG/JFIF . The first format, JPEG/JIF, is rarely used. You might say it is on the endangered species list. JPEG/LS, JBIG, JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR are specialty formats, or have not been widely adopted. The point is, JPG, like any other file format, is evolving. And the mostly likely endpoint of this evolution is that JPG will eventually be replaced by a new and more effective format.
I know the JPG is inferior but it's processed
Yes, your camera can apply a development preset. But Lightroom can apply a custom development preset automatically on import. And not only will this preset be superior to the preset in your camera, it is reversible. Let’s take sharpening, for example. Your camera only offers 4 or 5 sharpness preset options. Usually something along the lines of Auto, Less Sharp, More Sharp, and Super Duper Sharp. It's like a black box with a few buttons. You are only guessing as to what is going on inside. Lightroom has 4 sharpness controls. Amount (150 settings), Radius (26 settings), Detail (100 settings), and Masking (100 settings). This yields 39,000,000 (that’s 39 million) possible combinations. And there is no mystery as to what settings have been applied. Clearly, sharpening in Lr is vastly superior to sharpening in camera. And it doesn’t cost you any effort. And it’s reversible. And the same holds true for any development option.
And, since you use Lr, you don’t need to make jpgs to upload them to Smug Mug. There is a very good upload plugin for Lr allowing you to upload directly without converting to jpg first. The jpgs are rendered on the fly, and delivered to the gallery of your choice.
Anyway, Ms. Kat, I don't mean to be picking on you. And I didn’t take the time to formulate my replies just for you. I’m pretty sure you will probably stick with your jpg archives, in spite of the mountain of reasons it’s a bad idea. If you do, good luck with that.
But, to the other forum readers who come here looking for best practices, archiving and backing up jpgs instead of your RAW files is definitely not even a good practice, let alone the best practice. In fact, I can’t imagine a worse practice.
As I said earlier, I don’t consider myself the final authority on anything. But I’m pretty darn sure about this.
Lee,
I think (and I have been wrong before:-) Kathy meant "processed files" as in "touched up ready for print/delivery", not as in "obtained from RAW by applying default conversion".
While I'm a big proponent of "RAW-flow", I do occasionally put a lot of time in post-processing. It would be a pity to lose all those hours. Of course, in this case I would probably also save PSD, since I really don't believe Adobe would drop the ball any time soon. And if I do that, adding a realtively small final jpeg to the archive is really not a big deal.
Other than that - I do beleive RAW files are the negatives of the digital world and should be treated as such.
Lee,
I think (and I have been wrong before:-) Kathy meant "processed files" as in "touched up ready for print/delivery", not as in "obtained from RAW by applying default conversion".
While I'm a big proponent of "RAW-flow", I do occasionally put a lot of time in post-processing. It would be a pity to lose all those hours. Of course, in this case I would probably also save PSD, since I really don't believe Adobe would drop the ball any time soon. And if I do that, adding a realtively small final jpeg to the archive is really not a big deal.
Other than that - I do beleive RAW files are the negatives of the digital world and should be treated as such.
(I've been wrong before, too. My wife has a list if you're interested.)
Of course, there are lots of good reasons to create jpgs. But archiving is not one of them. For all the reasons listed above.
And I addressed your point as well.
But Lightroom can apply a custom development preset automatically on import. And not only will this preset be superior to the preset in your camera, it is reversible.
Note that I said a "custom" preset. Not the default Lr preset.
No competent professional would consider a camera generated jpg as "touched up, ready for delivery." Some might consider them adequate as proofs, but that is debatable.
When you set your jpg parameters in your camera, you are creating a preset that the camera automatically applies to every image. And the adjustments are irreversible.
When you create and apply a develop preset in Lr, you are doing the same thing. When you import your RAWs from your memory card, Lr automatically applies your selected preset to every image. Just like your camera. And the preset applied will be superior, and reversible. Exactly zero extra time is required. The very first time the image appears in Lr, the presets have been applied. Just as if you had applied them in camera. Only better.
Now, if the images are going to Smug Mug, there is no need to create a jpg file on your computer at all. Use the Smug Mug uploader.
If you need jpgs for something else, now is the time to make your jpg copies. And Lr makes this super easy.
And I'm not sure what you mean by losing hours of processing time. Unless you're not backing up your catalog as well.
I have Lr set to automatically backup the RAW files on import. It is also set to backup its catalog every time I open it. If my hard drive crashes, the RAW files and the latest edits are still there on my backup drive. Nothing is lost. Just reload your images and your Lr catalog, and you're back in business. And I don't have to lift a finger to accomplish this. Lr is set to do it automatically. And I'm not knee deep in jpgs that may or may not reflect my latest and best develop settings. [FONT="]But I do owe Kat an apology. Reading her first post, I got the impression she wasn’t backing up her RAW files on a separate drive. Her second one made it quite clear she does, and I still missed it. My bad.
If she is also backing up her Lr catalog, she is golden. If her hard drive crashes, she can retrieve her RAW files and the latest RAW edits no problem. But this only drives home the point that backing up jpgs as archives is completely unnecessary. There is no need for any further backup in any format, let alone jpg.
It bears keeping in mind that Adobe knows their business. Better than you or me or Kat, for sure. And they know what photographers need. And Lr provides it. If there isn't an easy way to do something in Lr, you might want to consider the possibility that it is because the Adobe engineers have determined there is no need to do it at all. The automatic backup system in Lr does all that is necessary, and nothing that isn't. No duplicate files required. No effort on my part required.
A human being's most precious commodity is time. Wasting this precious commodity creating and managing unnecessary and inappropriate files just doesn't make sense. That time would be better spent outdoors taking more photos. Or playing with your kids. Or washing the dog. It's your time. Waste it if you want. But there is absolutely no need.
Well, if this horse wasn't dead when we started beating it, it is now. That's all I got.
And I'm not sure what you mean by losing hours of processing time.
I mean hours of work in PS. Local corrections, layers, this kind of stuff, not yet doable via LR or ACR.
PSD can be humongous. JPEG is a final result, relatively small.
The thread is about shooting in RAW + jpg, not about how we archive our files. Lets keep our discussion on that topic.
How we archive our files seems to be very important to you, so I suggest you open your own thread on that subject and let this thread continue as a discussion about shooting RAW + jpg. I have already posted my feelings in this regard.
I do not feel strongly whether one chooses to shoot in RAW, jpg only, or RAW + jpg as long as the individual understands the alternatives, and the reasons for choosing one style or another. I also feel that way about archiving as well. I, like Kathy and others, tend to keep duplicate or triplicate copies of my basic images files ( RAW files for me usually ) but I also keep duplicate copies of my final jpgs as well as I have a significant investment of time in some of them that can be hard to replicate again.
I am sure ChatKat is comfortable with her image archiving style, even if you seem not to be.
I mean hours of work in PS. Local corrections, layers, this kind of stuff, not yet doable via LR or ACR.
PSD can be humongous. JPEG is a final result, relatively small.
Why would you lose your PSD files? You should be backing them up with your RAWs.
If you are backing up your image files, RAW and PSD, and backing up your Lr catalog, then lose your hard drive, nothing is lost. Just reload your image files and your Lr catalog, and everything will be there, good as new. Including your PSD files. No jpgs required.
Yes, PSD files can get big. But so what. Memory is cheap. Time is precious. I've been using Ps since Ps6, and am no slouch. But I find that less than 10% of my RAW photos need any further editing in Ps. So you shouldn't have that many PSDs anyway. If you're doing a lot more than that, perhaps you need to you need to reevaluate your camera technique and your RAW processing skills. I am also graphic designer, so I also have several thousand PSD graphic design images in my catalog. Many of them have 30 to 50 layers. So they are pretty big. But their big size does not reduce the performance of my Lr catalog one bit.
Using jpgs to archive PSD files is no different and no more effective than using them to archive RAW files. PSD files are just as precious as your RAWs, and should always be archived along with your RAW images. Actually, jpgs are an even less effective way to archive PSD files than it is to archive RAW files. Not only do you lose 30% of the data of the originial file, you lose all your layers and the time it took to create them. And jpgs will never look as good as the PSD.
And when you call your jpg a final result, how do you know it's final? I go back and reedit lots of my images I thought I was done with. As my skills evolve, I am always learning new ways to improve my images. In my catalog, there is no such thing as a final result. Only my latest best effort. Everything is a work in progress. At certain points, I call it good, and publish the results, but it's very common for me to go back and reedit as my skills improve, or requirements change.
Jpg is a file transfer format. Not an archive format. Jpg is simply not appropriate for archiving files. In this thread, I've offered about 3000 words worth of rock solid reasons why this is so. If you don't get it by now, I'm not sure what else to say.
Anyway, I'm only trying to help. Please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are offered.
Now, I'm going to use some of that time I saved by not fooling around with unnecessary jpgs, and go spend some time with playing with my boy. And maybe even wash the dog.
Yes, the thread is about RAW plus Jpg, and Kat listed archiving as one of her primary reasons for shooting that way. Discussion of archiving is totally on point. And please note I addressed her other reasons for shooting RAW plus JPG point by point.
I do not feel strongly whether one chooses to shoot in RAW, jpg only, or RAW + jpg as long as the individual understands the alternatives, and the reasons for choosing one style or another.
I don't either. The whole point of the effort I put into my posts is exactly the reason you offer above. So that any individual understands the alternatives, and the reasons some styles are inappropriate or less effective than others. Then they can make an informed decision. Do you believe anyone is less well informed because of my posts? Are my posts inaccurate or misleading? Are they personally insulting?
Unless you can answer yes to one of the above questions, I'm not sure what your beef is. If you would rather I not participate, that can be arranged. But, near as I can tell, my posts have been very well received, and many posters have expressed their gratitude for my contributions in no uncertain terms.
Regardless of your intentions and technical expertise you're coming across rather harsh. Everybody does things differently, sometimes slighly, sometimes drastically. And that's ok, it's a free country. Keeping insisting on your own POV as the only ultimately true one would not do anybody any good.
Thank you for that observation. It never was, and never is my intention to hurt any ones feelings. But I never claimed my POV was the only valid one. Nor did I claim to be the ultimate authority on anything. My posts state this quite explicitly. I also say that I have no expectation of changing the minds of someone already invested in a system. The information I shared dealt with the specific functionalities and limitatons of the software and file formats involved. All inherent in the systems. What you do with this information is up to you. But this information is not my opinion or my point of view. It is no more or no less than a description of the capacities of the systems involved.
I do sincerely apologize to anyone who took my comments personally, but that does not change the facts. Over the years, I've had my favorite ox gored by the facts many times. And, like anybody else, at first I was defensive. But, I got over it.
Human nature being what it is, people will do what they are going to do, free country or not. I fully embrace this. I think it's great. A world where everyone was just like me wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
And, once again, I apologize to anyone who didn't take my comments in the spirit they were offered.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de St. Exupery
Comments
Thanks, Dub. I thought it was something simple like that, but want to make sure I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face (or something).
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I rarely shoot RAW + jpgs.
One reason I sometimes do shoot RAW + jpg ( since large CF cards are cheaper anyway ) is occasionally I am needing a B&W image, and I want to see the different filter effects on my LCD as I shoot - red filter, green filter etc, and I am shooting in RAW for maximum image quality.
I will see B&W jpgs on my LCD, and I will still have a color RAW image for editing. One other reason might be for a journalist who knows their images will be used as a B&W in a newspaper, but wants the security of RAW as well. If the jpg is good enough, there is zero post shooting editing time spent at a computer, but the RAW file enables you to come back and post edit it later if desired.
Folks will tell you if you use LR, you can always make a jpg, and yes that is true, but I do not want to load RAW AND JPGS to LR. And I like seeing what B&W images shot with a red filter or an orange filter look like sometime at the moment of shooting.
Works for me on occasion.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This way I can get pictures up quickly and then if an order comes I simply process selected raw files and replace the original SOOC jpegs with processed versions. One day print delay and batch replace mode of Star*Explorer do the trick nicely.
with your 40D I do not see a reason for YOU to need to shoot R+Jpg.......if your camera was like my 7D's then I shoot the combo so I can magnify the jpg if I am doing any chimping......for some reason Konica Minolta Did not allow magnification of the .thm or raw file so I have to waste card space at times.....but when I load to LR I separate the files by type and toss all .thms and jpgs before the upload.......saving disk space..............
Thanks, this is all helpful, and confirms my original instincts, to shoot only RAW. The short answer seems to be, if you shoot both RAW and JPG, you have quick access to the JPG and the RAW serves as high-quality negative that you may want/need to access later.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I just recently learned that raw files include a jpg that is displayed on your camera's LCD. There are several free utilities that will extract this jpg for you. I'm not an expert on whether or not this is a "better" jpg than is created by shooting raw + jpg, but it is an option, depending on your needs and wants.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/10/make_instant_jp.html
You get to see what a monochrome image will look like on your LCD during the shooting phase, and still retain all the advantages of a RAW file for later processing, as either a color or a B&W image!!
It is always nice to find someone to agree with you
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
As far as using jpgs to determine sharpness goes, there's a fly in your ointment. You've got two different terms confused here. What you are really trying to double check is your focus. It is part of the capture process. Sharpening is a post processing activity. Software applies sharpening algorithms to the RAW data. Different amounts of sharpening are required for different outputs.
And then, there's this. DSLRs always capture the RAW data and render a jpg, regardless of the quality settings on your camera. The RAW data must be captured, and it must be converted to a jpg for viewing on the camera LCD. The only thing the quality settings affect is what data is written to the memory card. When the camera renders the jpg, it applies the jpg image settings to the preview, regardless of the quality settings in the camera. Meaning, your jpg settings are applied to the preview, even if you are set to RAW only. Meaning, the preview will be identical whether you are set to RAW only or RAW plus jpg. And saving the jpg is totally redundant. (Of course, the grayscale renderings mentioned above are a totally different story.) I just double checked this on my D200. I'm pretty sure your D90 works the same way.
Furthermore, if your purpose is to evaluate focus, the sharpening applied to your jpg in camera may actually mask focus problems, depending on your in camera jpg sharpening settings and the actual content of the scene captured. A RAW rendering may actually give a better evaluation of focus. Yes, it will be softer than the in camera jpg, but the plane of focus will be readily apparent as will the depth of field. And neither will be obscured by general and perhaps inappropriate sharpening applied in camera. The plane of focus is mathematically defined, but what constitutes "out of focus" is highly subjective. And sharpening is applied after the fact. And I'm having a real hard time with why someone would want to extract the camera jpg preview post processing if they have the RAW available.
Anyway, save RAW plus jpg if you want, but except for very specific and specialized purposes, it's hard to justify.
Two cents worth. (And I may owe you a penny.)
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
And I do find that I can see things better when I do RAW +Jpeg. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe that's not the way it's supposed to work. But it works for me. (and that's all that matters)
Yep, that's my criteria. If you think it works, go for it.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
I shoot both. I keep the jpg files in a separate backup file from the raws on different backup drives. I copy the jpgs using Internet Explorer to the backup drives right away. Then I can play all I want in LR but no matter what, I have an archive backup. I just use em as a safety backup. Memory and HD are cheap now. My Smugsite is also one more backup for me.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
I hate to be such a party pooper, but archiving jpgs is an even less fruitless notion.
A 10Mp RAW image when converted to jpg at the highest quality settings yields about a 7Mp image, depending on the image. So, 3Mp of irreplaceable data is simply thrown away. Why would you archive an inferior file that is missing 30% of your capture data? In fact, it would be easier to archive your RAW files, and not surrender 30% of your data, and not be stuck with irreversible edits. Lightroom or Bridge will automatically backup your RAW files on import, and can be set to automatically backup your catalog on a set schedule, every time you open Lr, or whatever, at your discretion. The only downside is that your archive files are bigger (but that's what we want). But as you point out, memory is cheap. And even if it wasn't, jpg files are simply unsuitable as archives of your RAW files. What's the point of buying a 10Mp camera if you believe 7Mp is enough?
And what happens when you change your edit of the RAW file? Do you make a new jpg every time? And how do you keep track of which jpgs in your archive have been reedited, and need to be updated in your jpg archive? And if you lose your drive with RAW files, all you have left is your vastly inferior jpgs. Archiving jpgs is a big can of worms. And pointless if you can capture RAW. Archive and backup your RAW files.
Just so you know, I'm not that comfortable criticizing someone's techniques. I don't consider my opinions the final word on anything. And, of course, anyone is free to incorporate poor practices into their work flow. And that person is the only one who suffers. But, when you post it here, that is an endorsement of poor practice. And it is not in the best interest of the forum or its readers to leave poor practices unchallenged. And no need to get your feelings hurt if your practices are challenged. We're all trying to achieve the same thing here. Better images and work flows. And the best practices have been identified and implemented by the very best people in the business. You don't have to take my word for it.
But I am certain that when it comes to archiving jpgs, just say "No".
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
I have two backup drives; One is RAW and One is JPG; Yes, I know the JPG is inferior but it's processed and it's a universal file. RAW requires a RAW converter. Just like the 8 track or cassette, the RAW maybe rendered useless one day unless it's converted. I find it a bit of extra insurance. I'd rather havae a small inferior file than one that might be unreadable in the future. I think that with digital media one day we could hit a wall. That is a different subject.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Hi, Kat. I'm sorry. This still doesn't hold water.
To begin with, your comparison to 8 track is apples and oranges. They're both fruit, but that's where the similarity ends. You can't download free software to convert your 8 track player into a CD player. Software can easily convert any format in danger of extinction to a newer format. And there is no need to make this conversion until the threat of extinction is imminent and obvious.
If you are concerned with individual camera RAW format extinction, so is Adobe. That's why they created DNG (Digital Negative) format. It is an open source universal RAW format. Adobe has made it available free to any software developer or camera manufacturer. Anyone can download Adobe's DNG conversion software for free here. If you already have Lightroom or Photoshop, they have built in DNG conversion. You can do it automatically on import. And save or destroy the original camera RAW files at your discretion. RAW files are here to stay, and Adobe DNG is the answer to camera RAW format extinction. And Adobe has guaranteed the support of DNG indefinitely. I don't lose any sleep worrying about Adobe going under. And I don't worry about RAW format extinction.
But if you still are, jpg is still the wrong solution. Archiving uncompressed TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) copies of your files will dodge your imaginary RAW extinction bullet without losing any data. And TIFF is practically universal. It will also handle layers, in case you are also worried about PSD format going extinct. TIFF is an archive format, whereas jpg is a compressed file transfer format. Intended for use when the transfer of large files is prohibitive, and the cost in image quality is a necessary price.
So, if you are a belt and suspenders kind of person (not a bad thing for a photographer to be), convert to DNG on import, edit, then export copies to archive as TIFFs. But you're still stuck with the messy problem of keeping your TIFF backups synchronized with your latest RAW edits.
Consider the probability that your RAW format will go extinct this year. I can say with absolute certainty it is 0. It absolutely will not happen. Compare that to the probability that your hard drive will fail. Even though very small, it is quite real, and, compared to the "0" probability above, it is very large. So, which should you be more concerned about, something, that if it happens at all, will happen over a span of years, with plenty of warning , and with an alternative already in place (format extinction), or should you be more concerned about something that could happen literally at any instant and be very difficult or impossible to recover from (hard drive failure). I'd be a lot more concerned about hard drive failure, and set up my work flow to reflect this reality. That is, back up my RAW files.
If your hard drive failed tomorrow, you would lose all your RAW files. And all you will have left is inferior renditions with 30% per cent of the data gone for good. I find it surprising that a professional photographer would find this satisfactory, especially when better alternatives are available. And I wonder if your clients would also find these inferior images satisfactory.
No file format is exempt from extinction. Even jpg. JPG is a generic term and really refers to the family of jpg file formats. JPG is not a file format, per se. The jpg file formats are JPEG/JIF, JPEG/JFIF, JPEG/EXIF, JPEG/LS, JBIG, JPEG 2000, and JPEG XR. Most DSLRs use JPEG/EXIF or JPEG/JFIF . The first format, JPEG/JIF, is rarely used. You might say it is on the endangered species list. JPEG/LS, JBIG, JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR are specialty formats, or have not been widely adopted. The point is, JPG, like any other file format, is evolving. And the mostly likely endpoint of this evolution is that JPG will eventually be replaced by a new and more effective format.
Yes, your camera can apply a development preset. But Lightroom can apply a custom development preset automatically on import. And not only will this preset be superior to the preset in your camera, it is reversible. Let’s take sharpening, for example. Your camera only offers 4 or 5 sharpness preset options. Usually something along the lines of Auto, Less Sharp, More Sharp, and Super Duper Sharp. It's like a black box with a few buttons. You are only guessing as to what is going on inside. Lightroom has 4 sharpness controls. Amount (150 settings), Radius (26 settings), Detail (100 settings), and Masking (100 settings). This yields 39,000,000 (that’s 39 million) possible combinations. And there is no mystery as to what settings have been applied. Clearly, sharpening in Lr is vastly superior to sharpening in camera. And it doesn’t cost you any effort. And it’s reversible. And the same holds true for any development option.
And, since you use Lr, you don’t need to make jpgs to upload them to Smug Mug. There is a very good upload plugin for Lr allowing you to upload directly without converting to jpg first. The jpgs are rendered on the fly, and delivered to the gallery of your choice.
Anyway, Ms. Kat, I don't mean to be picking on you. And I didn’t take the time to formulate my replies just for you. I’m pretty sure you will probably stick with your jpg archives, in spite of the mountain of reasons it’s a bad idea. If you do, good luck with that.
But, to the other forum readers who come here looking for best practices, archiving and backing up jpgs instead of your RAW files is definitely not even a good practice, let alone the best practice. In fact, I can’t imagine a worse practice.
As I said earlier, I don’t consider myself the final authority on anything. But I’m pretty darn sure about this.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
I think (and I have been wrong before:-) Kathy meant "processed files" as in "touched up ready for print/delivery", not as in "obtained from RAW by applying default conversion".
While I'm a big proponent of "RAW-flow", I do occasionally put a lot of time in post-processing. It would be a pity to lose all those hours. Of course, in this case I would probably also save PSD, since I really don't believe Adobe would drop the ball any time soon. And if I do that, adding a realtively small final jpeg to the archive is really not a big deal.
Other than that - I do beleive RAW files are the negatives of the digital world and should be treated as such.
Of course, there are lots of good reasons to create jpgs. But archiving is not one of them. For all the reasons listed above.
And I addressed your point as well.
Note that I said a "custom" preset. Not the default Lr preset.
No competent professional would consider a camera generated jpg as "touched up, ready for delivery." Some might consider them adequate as proofs, but that is debatable.
When you set your jpg parameters in your camera, you are creating a preset that the camera automatically applies to every image. And the adjustments are irreversible.
When you create and apply a develop preset in Lr, you are doing the same thing. When you import your RAWs from your memory card, Lr automatically applies your selected preset to every image. Just like your camera. And the preset applied will be superior, and reversible. Exactly zero extra time is required. The very first time the image appears in Lr, the presets have been applied. Just as if you had applied them in camera. Only better.
Now, if the images are going to Smug Mug, there is no need to create a jpg file on your computer at all. Use the Smug Mug uploader.
If you need jpgs for something else, now is the time to make your jpg copies. And Lr makes this super easy.
And I'm not sure what you mean by losing hours of processing time. Unless you're not backing up your catalog as well.
I have Lr set to automatically backup the RAW files on import. It is also set to backup its catalog every time I open it. If my hard drive crashes, the RAW files and the latest edits are still there on my backup drive. Nothing is lost. Just reload your images and your Lr catalog, and you're back in business. And I don't have to lift a finger to accomplish this. Lr is set to do it automatically. And I'm not knee deep in jpgs that may or may not reflect my latest and best develop settings.
[FONT="]But I do owe Kat an apology. Reading her first post, I got the impression she wasn’t backing up her RAW files on a separate drive. Her second one made it quite clear she does, and I still missed it. My bad.
If she is also backing up her Lr catalog, she is golden. If her hard drive crashes, she can retrieve her RAW files and the latest RAW edits no problem. But this only drives home the point that backing up jpgs as archives is completely unnecessary. There is no need for any further backup in any format, let alone jpg.
It bears keeping in mind that Adobe knows their business. Better than you or me or Kat, for sure. And they know what photographers need. And Lr provides it. If there isn't an easy way to do something in Lr, you might want to consider the possibility that it is because the Adobe engineers have determined there is no need to do it at all. The automatic backup system in Lr does all that is necessary, and nothing that isn't. No duplicate files required. No effort on my part required.
A human being's most precious commodity is time. Wasting this precious commodity creating and managing unnecessary and inappropriate files just doesn't make sense. That time would be better spent outdoors taking more photos. Or playing with your kids. Or washing the dog. It's your time. Waste it if you want. But there is absolutely no need.
Well, if this horse wasn't dead when we started beating it, it is now. That's all I got.
[/FONT]
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
PSD can be humongous. JPEG is a final result, relatively small.
The thread is about shooting in RAW + jpg, not about how we archive our files. Lets keep our discussion on that topic.
How we archive our files seems to be very important to you, so I suggest you open your own thread on that subject and let this thread continue as a discussion about shooting RAW + jpg. I have already posted my feelings in this regard.
I do not feel strongly whether one chooses to shoot in RAW, jpg only, or RAW + jpg as long as the individual understands the alternatives, and the reasons for choosing one style or another. I also feel that way about archiving as well. I, like Kathy and others, tend to keep duplicate or triplicate copies of my basic images files ( RAW files for me usually ) but I also keep duplicate copies of my final jpgs as well as I have a significant investment of time in some of them that can be hard to replicate again.
I am sure ChatKat is comfortable with her image archiving style, even if you seem not to be.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Hi, Nikolai.
Why would you lose your PSD files? You should be backing them up with your RAWs.
If you are backing up your image files, RAW and PSD, and backing up your Lr catalog, then lose your hard drive, nothing is lost. Just reload your image files and your Lr catalog, and everything will be there, good as new. Including your PSD files. No jpgs required.
Yes, PSD files can get big. But so what. Memory is cheap. Time is precious. I've been using Ps since Ps6, and am no slouch. But I find that less than 10% of my RAW photos need any further editing in Ps. So you shouldn't have that many PSDs anyway. If you're doing a lot more than that, perhaps you need to you need to reevaluate your camera technique and your RAW processing skills. I am also graphic designer, so I also have several thousand PSD graphic design images in my catalog. Many of them have 30 to 50 layers. So they are pretty big. But their big size does not reduce the performance of my Lr catalog one bit.
Using jpgs to archive PSD files is no different and no more effective than using them to archive RAW files. PSD files are just as precious as your RAWs, and should always be archived along with your RAW images. Actually, jpgs are an even less effective way to archive PSD files than it is to archive RAW files. Not only do you lose 30% of the data of the originial file, you lose all your layers and the time it took to create them. And jpgs will never look as good as the PSD.
And when you call your jpg a final result, how do you know it's final? I go back and reedit lots of my images I thought I was done with. As my skills evolve, I am always learning new ways to improve my images. In my catalog, there is no such thing as a final result. Only my latest best effort. Everything is a work in progress. At certain points, I call it good, and publish the results, but it's very common for me to go back and reedit as my skills improve, or requirements change.
Jpg is a file transfer format. Not an archive format. Jpg is simply not appropriate for archiving files. In this thread, I've offered about 3000 words worth of rock solid reasons why this is so. If you don't get it by now, I'm not sure what else to say.
Anyway, I'm only trying to help. Please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are offered.
Now, I'm going to use some of that time I saved by not fooling around with unnecessary jpgs, and go spend some time with playing with my boy. And maybe even wash the dog.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
Hi, Pathfinder.
Yes, the thread is about RAW plus Jpg, and Kat listed archiving as one of her primary reasons for shooting that way. Discussion of archiving is totally on point. And please note I addressed her other reasons for shooting RAW plus JPG point by point.
I don't either. The whole point of the effort I put into my posts is exactly the reason you offer above. So that any individual understands the alternatives, and the reasons some styles are inappropriate or less effective than others. Then they can make an informed decision. Do you believe anyone is less well informed because of my posts? Are my posts inaccurate or misleading? Are they personally insulting?
Unless you can answer yes to one of the above questions, I'm not sure what your beef is. If you would rather I not participate, that can be arranged. But, near as I can tell, my posts have been very well received, and many posters have expressed their gratitude for my contributions in no uncertain terms.
Your move.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
slow down, mate.
Regardless of your intentions and technical expertise you're coming across rather harsh. Everybody does things differently, sometimes slighly, sometimes drastically. And that's ok, it's a free country. Keeping insisting on your own POV as the only ultimately true one would not do anybody any good.
Have a great mellow weekend!
Hi, Nikolai.
Thank you for that observation. It never was, and never is my intention to hurt any ones feelings. But I never claimed my POV was the only valid one. Nor did I claim to be the ultimate authority on anything. My posts state this quite explicitly. I also say that I have no expectation of changing the minds of someone already invested in a system. The information I shared dealt with the specific functionalities and limitatons of the software and file formats involved. All inherent in the systems. What you do with this information is up to you. But this information is not my opinion or my point of view. It is no more or no less than a description of the capacities of the systems involved.
I do sincerely apologize to anyone who took my comments personally, but that does not change the facts. Over the years, I've had my favorite ox gored by the facts many times. And, like anybody else, at first I was defensive. But, I got over it.
Human nature being what it is, people will do what they are going to do, free country or not. I fully embrace this. I think it's great. A world where everyone was just like me wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
And, once again, I apologize to anyone who didn't take my comments in the spirit they were offered.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de St. Exupery
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com