Is it better to use software to convert RAW to JPEG or just let the camera do it?

esac · November 14, 2009

I am fairly amateur so forgive me if this is a FAQ.

I setup my own little home photography studio, and I am experimenting to get the best result. For normal camera usage, I plan on just letting it do JPEG Normal. However in my 'studio' should I shoot RAW, make any adjustments needed, and then convert to JPEG (I do not plan on keeping the RAW image around). Or is it perfectly fine to just let the camera encode in JPEG and make my adjustments to that image?

DavidTO · November 14, 2009

It depends on your needs. Without a doubt, RAW gives you more latitude. JPEG gives you a simpler workflow.

pathfinder · November 14, 2009

A quick google turned up this explanation of why to shoot RAW or jpgs

Nikolai · November 14, 2009

raw + jpegs gives you quick "proofs". If you don't need proofs - just shoot raw.
Of course, sports and astrophotography have their own reasons to shoot jpegs.

BinaryFx · November 14, 2009

esac wrote:

I do not plan on keeping the RAW image around.

Although raw camera files will take up more space, I would not throw them away. The analogy would be to throw away the negative and to keep the print! The JPEG (print) can be thrown away and a new one made from the raw data (negative)...but you can't get the raw data from a JPEG. That being said, one can do wonders with a JPEG, just not to the same degree as with raw camera data.

If you are thinking of throwing away the raw data, then you are likely best never using it in the first place and simply to stick with JPEG...or you can read up on the technology and embrace raw data if it suits your workflow!

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_hilight.pdf

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Regards,

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
http://prepression.blogspot.com

esac · November 14, 2009

I am just wondering why that is. At least for my home 'photography studio', once I have the images processed and looking correct, I know with almost 99% certainty that I will not be making anymore edits to it. At that point I just need a JPEG for a print or 2, and then it is going on my website. Is that 1% where I wish I had kept the RAW worth it enough to keep all RAW's around?

Granted, I could just burn them to DVD and not have to worry about it.

BinaryFx wrote:

Although raw camera files will take up more space, I would not throw them away. The analogy would be to throw away the negative and to keep the print! The JPEG (print) can be thrown away and a new one made from the raw data (negative)...but you can't get the raw data from a JPEG. That being said, one can do wonders with a JPEG, just not to the same degree as with raw camera data.

If you are thinking of throwing away the raw data, then you are likely best never using it in the first place and simply to stick with JPEG...or you can read up on the technology and embrace raw data if it suits your workflow!

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_hilight.pdf

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Regards,

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
http://prepression.blogspot.com

BradfordBenn · November 15, 2009

esac wrote:

I am just wondering why that is. At least for my home 'photography studio', once I have the images processed and looking correct, I know with almost 99% certainty that I will not be making anymore edits to it. At that point I just need a JPEG for a print or 2, and then it is going on my website. Is that 1% where I wish I had kept the RAW worth it enough to keep all RAW's around?

Granted, I could just burn them to DVD and not have to worry about it.

I am still a shotgun shooter (take a bunch and try for the best) and have very rarely needed to go back to the RAW to do anything, but those two times (out of ~5K images) I have had to it was worth it. With how cheap storage is, why not do it anyway? I burn a DVD with PDF contact sheets, the JPGs and the RAW files for images. The reason is that when I mess up, I have a place to go back and get them. Also with having MANY images around I find it easier to do offline than online storage.

colourbox · November 15, 2009

esac wrote:

once I have the images processed and looking correct, I know with almost 99% certainty that I will not be making anymore edits to it...Is that 1% where I wish I had kept the RAW worth it enough to keep all RAW's around?

That's a question only you can answer.

One argument for keeping raws is that raw processing technology is advancing all the time, while, except for the occasional firmware update, the converter technology permanently fixed inside your camera will never get any better. If you are happy with your photos this is fine, but for instance, a lot of people are marvelling at how much better the high-ISO color noise reduction is in the Lightroom 3 beta. When the final comes out, I will want to take a new pass at some high-ISO raws I shot a few years ago and see if I can get cleaner versions of some favorite old images.

If you want to keep alive the possibility that you may in the future be able to develop your raws beyond what your camera was capable of, raw can be important. If you like to finish your images and not look back, there may be no point in keeping the raws.

Grainbelt · November 15, 2009

In a studio, I'm not sure, as your lighting should be good.

I'm very new to photography, and find that in very contrasty (read: outdoor) situations I can retain much more detail from the raw file than the jpg. I just picked up Adobe Camera Raw last week and have gone back to old photos that I liked, and had shot RAW+JPEG. Went back to the RAW file and I'm very glad I had it.

Art Scott · November 15, 2009

esac wrote:

I am just wondering why that is. At least for my home 'photography studio', once I have the images processed and looking correct, I know with almost 99% certainty that I will not be making anymore edits to it. At that point I just need a JPEG for a print or 2, and then it is going on my website. Is that 1% where I wish I had kept the RAW worth it enough to keep all RAW's around?

Granted, I could just burn them to DVD and not have to worry about it.

It iis always better to do the conversion yourself.......so that what you get is totally your visions...........

Scenario: You finish your editing for a set of portraits and you deliver them......you have also deleted the negs (raws) and then the client says.....this image need more of this.....oh that is not a beauty mark but a mole I had removed after the portraits were taken and need to be removed......their can be any number of reasons to keep your negs...............

To save space and still retain all of the quality of my negs, they all get converted to ADOBE DNG......this includes some negs off my p/s cams that shot in raw....storage is so minimal that one should not worry about space.....just remember that one should have a minimum of 3 copies of all the files (your working drive + 2 exact copies.....it takes a bit longer but I do it by drag and drop over night......that way there is no .bak file extensions (back ups are often given weird file extensions and if you quit using the back up software your outta luck if you need that back up.....so I just do it as described and keep a log of backed up to such and such date.....

I used to use a real cool back up software and rewritable disks ..... as I started the back up it would tell me which disk to start with and then it would automatically erase and rewrite from there........but then the company went belly up...........and I changed operating systems and the software was no good any longer.............that is when I started the drag and drop for backing up.............

BinaryFx · November 16, 2009

http://naturewindows.com/articles/article090203.html

Toward the bottom of the page is a side by side of a processed raw file and a camera JPEG "To RAW Or To JPEG".

Not all cameras will be this bad, it will depend on the camera, firmware, subject, shooting conditions, camera settings, raw development software and settings and many other factors - so your mileage may vary.

It is a personal choice, raw camera data is the current flavour of the month and it does receive a lot of attention, perhaps more than is truly warranted - that being said, beyond the hype it does provide great benefit to those who have the time and patience to develop their images rather than leaving this to the camera.

Regards,

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
http://prepression.blogspot.com

arodney · November 16, 2009

By and large, if you don’t do something dumb when shooting JPEG (blow out the highlights a tad, wrong white balance), you’ll get a very lovely image. But its baked pixels, locked in stone. The camera always shoots Raw. Do you wish to force that Raw to be deleted and only accept the JPEG (which is only 8-bit and at best, in Adobe RGB which is too small a color gamut for many scenes you’ll capture and output devices you could use?).

The pro Raw argument isn’t that JPEGs suck, the camera manufacturers spend huge amounts of R&D, like the old film manufacturers, making a rendering they hope you’ll enjoy. Problem is, if you don’t, you’re kind of screwed. Not so with Raw. Its all about options, today and in the future as processors get better and you as a digital darkroom user get better.

Qarik · November 17, 2009

bottom line as an ameteur photographer who as aspirations to become better you need to be able to process RAW files comfortably and quickly. Only when you begin processing and studying RAW will you realize the advantages of it. Don't fight it.

If and when you become better and can nail your exposures later in your career..you may switch back to jpg as an option thought most don't.

mercphoto · November 17, 2009

Tools like Lightroom and Aperture make a RAW workflow so simple and easy there really isn't much reason not to shoot RAW anymore. And as an added bonus both those tools become your cataloging tool and so much more.

arodney · November 17, 2009

This article really sums up the differences from the perspective of a photographer:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

Qarik · November 17, 2009

arodney wrote:

This article really sums up the differences from the perspective of a photographer:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

great article

Is it better to use software to convert RAW to JPEG or just let the camera do it?

Comments