JPEG vs. RAW

goldilocksandmy3bears

Whats the reason behind shooting JPEG + RAW vs. just shooting in RAW - other than being able to view the image right on the computer rather than having to go into photoshop (or whatever program you use)?
Courtney

Nikolai

goldilocksandmy3bears wrote:

Whats the reason behind shooting JPEG + RAW vs. just shooting in RAW - other than being able to view the image right on the computer rather than having to go into photoshop (or whatever program you use)?
Courtney

Speaking only for myself: I shoot RAW + small coarse JPEGs in two cases:
1) model/portrait session. This way I'm able to give my client the "proofs" on a CD right at the end of the session. They are low quality, so I'm not overly concerned about copyright issues.
2) event photogrpahy (fashion show, air show, reenactment, county fair, etc.). Hundreds (if not thousands) of pictures, very few of which will be actually purchased. I come home, cull out total losers (black frames and such), break them into folders and upload to SM, thus avoiding conversion step (which may take hours). With my S*E I can easily upload 2,000 small pictures the same night. I typically set my galleries with 1 day execution delay, so if an order comes, I process the pertinent RAW file and replace the small jpeg with full-res image.
Other than that - RAW, baby!

pathfinder

One reason I do it occasionally, that Nik didn't mention, is that if I am shooting B&W images, I get to see the B&W image with its associated rendering ( sepia, blue tone, red filter, green filter, etc ) on the LCD as I shoot, but still have the full color RAW file to process from if I change my mind and want a color image later at the computer. Best of both worlds for me, sometimes.

Memory is cheap these days, 8 Gb and 16 Gb chips will hold a lot of images.

nxthree

I haven't been able to find documentation on this... but my personal testing has shown that the image displayed while chimping is sharper when you use RAW + JPEG (Fine).

Shooting RAW-only requires your camera to do a quick JPEG conversion/extraction (whatever you want to call it) so it can display on the LCD. This JPEG is usually of a lower quality and size. If I'm chimping and zooming to check that I had a crispy focus, I find that RAW+JPEG works the best.

pathfinder

Interesting, as I absolutely do not trust LCD images to verify focus. One good reason for tethtered shooting I suspect.

I prefer to see the images on a full size monitor before i fully accept them; I have been fooled too many times with what I thought was a good image on an LCD.

JPGS are processed by the computer chips in the camera, and they WILL add some sharpening to the image, that is not present natively in the RAW files. So - the jpgs displayed may look sharper on the little LCD, but you will have to sharpen the RAW file thoroughly in ACR for sharp images, even if focused carefully at the time of shooting.

Mostly I chimp for composition, check exposure with the histogram, and verify focus, after the fact, back at my computer. I am pretty confident with my focus, even though I do not really trust my LCD image for verifying focus. YMMV

goldilocksandmy3bears

thank you thank you and thank you! I will continue shooting RAW + JPEG!

mercphoto

goldilocksandmy3bears wrote:

Whats the reason behind shooting JPEG + RAW vs. just shooting in RAW - other than being able to view the image right on the computer rather than having to go into photoshop (or whatever program you use)?
Courtney

With the advent of programs like Lightroom and Aperture not sure there is a big reason to shoot RAW+JPG any more. And it does create two copies of an image that you need to keep track of. It can be a pain to do things like re-name files (and keep both copies the same name). To keep meta data like keywords and copyrights the same. Rankings the same. Etc.

In fact, the only program I have seen myself that intelligently deals with RAW+JPG is Photo Mechanic. Great program, but its not a program that's really "necessary" any longer.

Tim Kamppinen

pathfinder wrote:

Interesting, as I absolutely do not trust LCD images to verify focus.

The LCD works great for verifying focus, IF you zoom in to 100%. I realize that can get tedious, but if you shoot Nikon and have a D300 or higher you can customize the center button of the directional pad to instantly zoom to 100% so you don't have to hit the zoom button five times. I really wish the D90 had the same feature, because I always check focus by zooming in to 100% (but not past... there are two higher zoom settings that will just show you a pixelated mess). For a portrait I just check out the eyes. In my experience this works great. Where I've got into trouble is when the image looks sharp but I forgot to zoom in and check, and find later that it's out of focus.

pathfinder

AT 10x Live View works also.......

nxthree

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

The LCD works great for verifying focus, IF you zoom in to 100%.

Exactly. When I'm taking shots of people at f1.8, I have to make sure the eyes were crisp. I don't have the option of being tethered. And I'm still an amateur, so I don't completely trust myself. I have to check. Shooting RAW+JPEG(Fine) seems to allow the best chimping.