Is there an advantage to recording: RAW+JPEG?

[kitsap2]

Greetings from a new forum member.

I am trying to grasp the idea of whether to record in RAW, or RAW+JPEG.

I am using Aperture 3, and have already tried the RAW+JPEG idea. Now, I'm trying to figure out why I would actually want one of each. What are the advantages? How do you separate the RAW from the JPEG, in the event you don't want one of them?

I'm thinking that, maybe, I should just try recording in, RAW, only.

I have been a digital photographer for many years, but am still very much in need of acquiring more knowledge.

Tom

 

[legreve]

I worked for a guy in London who always did this and it made perfect sense.

We'd capture close to a thousand shots every beauty session, and having to open a raw converter and waiting for every single image to update when viewed in 100% would be a drag.

Jpgs are faster to view through during selections.

So to answer your question: When dealing with high amounts of footage, shooting both will spare you some time during the preliminary phase.
If you only shoot hobby things or family etc. don't bother with the jpg.

How do you separate the RAW from the JPEG, in the event you don't want one of them?

If you're referring to files on your computer... delete the one you dont want???

If you're referring to making it so you only have raw on the camera... settings - raw only.

 

[kitsap2]

Thanks so much for answering my post, legreve! I think, being the amateur that I am, that your suggestion for, RAW only, is the way to go. I am only a hobbyist, and retired, so I have enough time to wait for photos to download.

Thanks,
Tom

 

[Pikemann Urge]

I think Legreve's answer is sufficient. I do have a few things of my own to add, however.

Legreve mentioned how much easier it is to preview the JPEGs instead of waiting for RAW conversion. But there is another advantage: let's say that for some reason the client wants the images immediately. Well, if you shot RAW+JPEG, you have instant access to the files. And to view them nobody needs anything more sophisticated than Preview - or just a web browser if you have nothing else.

I also am not sure what you mean by 'separating' the RAWs from the JPEGs. It should be pointed out that they are separate files. Further, any OS file browser window (Finder in OS X) will allow you to view by file type. This will make it easy to select all the RAW or JPEG images in a matter of seconds for deletion (or for moving to a separate directory). You would do this before importing into Aperture for the sake of keeping things clean and simple.

 

[glocke12]

Not a pro here, but I shoot RAW+JPEG all the time.

Basically if I feel the in-camera processing did a sufficient job, or if it is an average photo I will keep the JPEG and delete the RAW.

If I feel the processing could have been done better, or if it is an exceptional photo that I may want to work on later I will keep both.

 

[mahood]

Legreve mentioned how much easier it is to preview the JPEGs instead of waiting for RAW conversion. But there is another advantage: let's say that for some reason the client wants the images immediately. Well, if you shot RAW+JPEG, you have instant access to the files. And to view them nobody needs anything more sophisticated than Preview - or just a web browser if you have nothing else.

Indeed - plus any in-camera processing you select (white balance, B+W, sharpening) only gets applied to the JPG, so you can quickly see if a black & white version works.

I shoot in both, and usually never use the JPG - but when I plugged my CF card into a friend's PS3 and put the pics of their kids up on the big TV it was well worth it! Much better than sending them processed images the next day and missing their reaction. It also let me pick the best ones to process, based on their feedback.

Mark

 

[steviem]

The other thing with RAW+JPEG is that Aperture will use the jpeg as the preview image rather than generate a new one, so this could save processing time if you haven't much in terms of system resources.

 

[wpotere]

RAW will let you have full control over the image so that you can process it the way you want. Say you are out shooting and you screw up the white balance. If you shot JPG you will not be able to modify the white balance of a JPG. If you shot in RAW, you will be able to modify that and when you get things set the way you want them in the photo you can the convert it to whatever format you want.

RAW has saved my butt a few times. Most professionals will only shoot RAW and then work with the photos one at a time. However, it is nice to have the camera do the processing when you are just trying to photos out the door.

 

[kitsap2]

I also am not sure what you mean by 'separating' the RAWs from the JPEGs. It should be pointed out that they are separate files. Further, any OS file browser window (Finder in OS X) will allow you to view by file type. This will make it easy to select all the RAW or JPEG images in a matter of seconds for deletion (or for moving to a separate directory). You would do this before importing into Aperture for the sake of keeping things clean and simple.

Well, probably because I'm so new with using Aperture 3, when I imported my, RAW+JPEG's, I imported them together with the setting of, "Use RAW as Master". So when I'm browsing those photos, I see the RAW photo with the little, "R", badge, in the lower right corner of the photo. So, when I said that I wanted to know how to separate the, RAW, from the, JPEG, this is what I was referring to. Am I missing some simple step here?

Later, I found out that I could change my import options to import the, RAW and JPEG's, separately. This seems a much better idea, I think. But, I might be overlooking some other step, or technique, altogether.

Thanks for you reply, everything helps at this stage.

Tom

 

[snberk103]

I only shoot RAW, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that shooting RAW+JPG takes more room on the memory card than shooting just one file type. It's not 2x as much since the JPG files are smaller, but it you are out in the field you will need to account for fewer exposures you can record on each card.

From what I have read above - mostly good advice - I see reason to change from shooting RAW only (for my needs).

 

[wpotere]

I only shoot RAW, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that shooting RAW+JPG takes more room on the memory card than shooting just one file type. It's not 2x as much since the JPG files are smaller, but it you are out in the field you will need to account for fewer exposures you can record on each card.

From what I have read above - mostly good advice - I see reason to change from shooting RAW only (for my needs).

Yup, two files = more space.

 

[Waybo]

Not a pro here, but I shoot RAW+JPEG all the time.

Basically if I feel the in-camera processing did a sufficient job, or if it is an average photo I will keep the JPEG and delete the RAW.

If I feel the processing could have been done better, or if it is an exceptional photo that I may want to work on later I will keep both.

I'm a newbie, but I do exactly what glocke12 does ... and it works for me.

The downside: shooting Raw+JPG takes up more space on your memory card. And, because it means storing two files it takes longer to record, filling up your buffer faster than shooting just one file type. (Raw files are huge, and jpg files require camera processing before storing.)

I use a fast memory card, with 16GB, so it is has rarely been a problem for me.

When I recently attended a birthday party for a special 2-year-old, I expected to shoot only candids, and was tempted to turn off Raw, so I could shoot faster/longer bursts. I was glad I didn't. I took a snapshot of the birthday girl and her grandpa. There wasn't time for careful programming, (or I would have missed their fantastic expressions), so post-editing was required. Because I was able to work with the raw file, it turned out to be one of my best photographs, ever.

 

[gkarris]

I don't do it, but I know that some people want to be able to preview the images on their laptop or other computer until they get home to their Image Processing Computer for the RAWs. They'll then delete the jpegs...

 

[Ruahrc]

JPEG + RAW can also help when you're starting the process of learning RAW conversion, because you have the in-camera processed JPG as a reference or a target to aim for. Later, as you become more proficient at RAW processing and start to develop your own vision, you may not need the JPGs anymore.

Ruahrc

 

[NoNameBrand]

RAW only here.

Someone mentioned that JPEGs were faster to work with for organizing— Aperture has a 'quick preview' button that displays the JPEG preview that the camera embedded in the RAW file (or Aperture's, if it's generated them), which lets you quickly cull.

 

[MattSepeta]

Ever since my xTi I have had all my cameras permanently set in RAW. I perform post processing on EVERY image I shoot, and tacking on a useless JPG provides only negative outcomes for me- fills buffer faster, takes up more space on memory cards as well as hard disks.

Also- I have never noticed any sort of slow previewing or image culling using RAWs compared to JPEGs.

 

[tinman0]

ever since my xti i have had all my cameras permanently set in raw. I perform post processing on every image i shoot, and tacking on a useless jpg provides only negative outcomes for me- fills buffer faster, takes up more space on memory cards as well as hard disks.

Also- i have never noticed any sort of slow previewing or image culling using raws compared to jpegs.

+1

 

[Alvi]

RAW will let you have full control over the image so that you can process it the way you want. Say you are out shooting and you screw up the white balance. If you shot JPG you will not be able to modify the white balance of a JPG. If you shot in RAW, you will be able to modify that and when you get things set the way you want them in the photo you can the convert it to whatever format you want.

RAW has saved my butt a few times. Most professionals will only shoot RAW and then work with the photos one at a time. However, it is nice to have the camera do the processing when you are just trying to photos out the door.

Sorry.. I'm just getting into photography... So is the RAW file exactly what the Image sensor captures when you take a picture? Meaning that you could make the processing your Camera does later on your PC and edit it further?

 

[merkinmuffley]

RAW only most of the time. Depends on the assignment, if I'm not worried about space on the card, I'll shoot both. If I know I'm going to be capturing lots of images I'll switch to RAW only. Its an easy change on my Canon bodies.

 

[mahood]

Sorry.. I'm just getting into photography... So is the RAW file exactly what the Image sensor captures when you take a picture? Meaning that you could make the processing your Camera does later on your PC and edit it further?

Pretty much, yes - the JPG has already been processed by the camera (which lets you have some control with the 'picture styles') and compressed. The RAW is (ideally) lossless, and untouched - so you can decide everything that happens to it.

This is why by default, most RAW programs start with some sharpening, contrast enhancement and a few other 'tweaks' as soon as you import, as the images will look flat otherwise.

Mark

 

[hansolo669]

why would you shoot raw?
i shoot jpeg (though i do have some raw files) and as far as i can tell/see their is no adjustment i can do in raw that i cant do in jpeg!?
now i am by no means a pro, but i do have a fairly good knowlegde of photography and file formats and such. afaik raw just gives you files that have spotty support and you have to convert to get images that are actually usefull. vs jpeg where you just have images that work rigth off the bat....i have "rescued" a number of photos by adjusting contrast and dodging/buring and the like; these have all been jpegs!

 

[runlsd]

RAW + JPEG is a good combo when working on a machine like mine. JPEGs can be "preview files." If I don't like them, I delete the JPEG and its RAW counterpart.

I'd like to try more RAW processing. But my UMB simply cannot handle RAW files from my camera that are 28mb/photo. That's on CS4 and Lightroom 3.