Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering how many of you use the RAW+JPEG mode instead of simply RAW or JPEG. It seems that there are some definite advantages to using RAW+JPEG, especially now that many cameras automatically apply functions such as lens distortion and CA correction as well noise reduction to JPEGs, but not to RAW files.  Also, if the the JPEG straight out of the camera is satisfactory, then a lot of post-processing time can be saved. OTOH, shooting in R+J mode takes up considerably more space on memory cards and can slow down shooting speeds (if that's an issue).

 

Any thoughts on the pros and cons of using R+J?

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, never.  I always want the option to work with a CR2 file so the jpg just takes extra hard drive space.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always shoot RAW + jpeg for the simple reason that I effectively get a second opinion of a semi finished file (most jpegs still need a tweak). However I never use the OOC jpeg, merely see it as a reference point, and delete them after processing the RAW file. With the numerous art and film type setting now being introduced into cameras I see the inclusion of a jpeg file as a very helpful addition to my workflow. As for taking up card space, well, cards are cheap enough these days to not be a consideration.

Edited by ReeRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always shoot RAW + jpeg for the simple reason that I effectively get a second opinion of a semi finished file (most jpegs still need a tweak). However I never use the OOC jpeg, merely see it as a reference point, and delete them after processing the RAW file. With the numerous art and film type setting now being introduced into cameras I see the inclusion of a jpeg file as a very helpful addition to my workflow. As for taking up card space, well, cards are cheap enough these days to not be a consideration.

Do you find that those tweaks (e.g. contrast adjustment, removing dust spots, etc.) of the JPEG files make much difference to the technical quality of the final images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John

 

Usually the tweaks involved are alignment, WB, saturation and some highlight recovery only. Neither of these degrade IQ and they do "lift" the image. As I stated above, guidelines only for RAW processing, but I would have no hesitation in submitting them for the news desk if I shot this sort of line.

 

I'll contradict myself here. Shooting high ISO with my Fuji X-E1 I have noticed on occasions that the OOC jpegs are less noisy than I can achieve in the RAW file. I have in fact uploaded a 2500 ISO OOC jpeg as a single submission and QC passed the image. It's not something I would promote as a regular exercise but it's worth keeping an eye on. Another reason I feel shooting both formats can be beneficial.

Edited by ReeRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John

 

Usually the tweaks involved are alignment, WB, saturation and some highlight recovery only. Neither of these degrade IQ and they do "lift" the image. As I stated above, guidelines only for RAW processing, but I would have no hesitation in submitting them for the news desk if I shot this sort of line.

 

I'll contradict myself here. Shooting high ISO with my Fuji X-E1 I have noticed on occasions that the OOC jpegs are less noisy than I can achieve in the RAW file. I have in fact uploaded a 2500 ISO OOC jpeg as a single submission and QC passed the image. It's not something I would promote as a regular exercise but it's worth keeping an eye on. Another reason I feel shooting both formats can be beneficial.

Thanks, interesting observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider using both when shooting news so the JPEGs can be uploaded quicker via the live news feed, but I would always want the RAWs as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider using both when shooting news so the JPEGs can be uploaded quicker via the live news feed, but I would always want the RAWs as well.

Exactly my approach. I can almost always get a better result from RAW with a little effort in post production. Last weekend I was at Brands Hatch for British Superbikes and uploaded out of camera jpgs to a news agency (they helped me get accreditation) within an hour of the race finishing. This week I have started working up a selection for Alamy and they ar emuch better as I am able to open up the shadows. Only problem is that it uses a lot of buffer so I occasionally got to the point that the camera was not ready to shoot and that was without shooting bursts of more than 2-3 frames. (I was using a Canon 1Ds3)

 

I shoot RAW only for general stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dual card cameras

 

raw to one card

jpg to another

 

raw for quality

jpg for speed when working news

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAW + JPEG for me. Just the way I've done it from the start. I do wish Canon has dual card system in at least the 7D. If it's not in the mkII I'm going to eat my strap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

always only RAW, probably out of habit as I have never actually tried shooting jpeg with a DSLR.

I have started shooting more video footage recently and added a new camera profile onto my 5DII which is more suitable for video, much less contrasty. I like that I can use this for vids and it doesn't affect my raw shooting for stills, otherwise if I shot jpgs I would at some point forget to change the camera profile!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me RAW is an added complication.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only to shoot RAW. Can't cope with any added complications!

 

dov

 

+1

 

...and just haven't got any more space for additional file storage. (nobody say anything about that being cheap or jpegs being small, please)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything shot in raw for me with the exception of when I use my sony rx100 which is only a very small percentage of the time..I normally process firstly in nikon capture nx2 and resize and touch up in adobe CC if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both, as a habit from when windows could not display a thumbnail for the Raw file so needed the Jpg to tell what the raw file was. Not kicked the habit except for doing weddings where space and time is a premium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always RAW+JPEG for most of the reasons already stated above. Also, using JPEGS as reference images means I don't have to upgrade my organiser software to cater for the RAW output of new cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the in-camera fixes that some cameras (e.g.Sony) now have for lens distortion and CA. As far as I know, these features are only available in JPEG mode, so shooting RAW+JPEG could conceivably provide the best of both worlds for extreme control freaks.

 

My current cameras don't have these fixes, but the next one I buy will. It would useful to hear from some JPEG-only fans (we know you're out there) who are  taking advantage of this new technology. Is it worthwhile?

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jpeg-only, not taking advantage, don't have them. I've once had a fail on CA but it was SoLD as well, fortunately, so I didn't have to address the CA, but then I use nothing wider than an 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the in-camera fixes that some cameras (e.g.Sony) now have for lens distortion and CA. As far as I know, these features are only available in JPEG mode, so shooting RAW+JPEG could conceivably provide the best of both worlds for extreme control freaks.

 

My current cameras don't have these fixes, but the next one I buy will. It would useful to hear from some JPEG-only fans (we know you're out there) who are  taking advantage of this new technology. Is it worthwhile?

 

Thats done in LR or ACR where the RAW file is processed. I dont need my in camera settings for that nor the JPG. Its a simple 3 click batch process in LR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAW files are so much easier to edit, especially in Photoshop. Tried to shoot both for a very short time but camera couldn't cope with the amount of data. Just RAW for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too started shooting raw + jpeg as it was the only way to see the pics in windows.  When I finally updated ACR to 7.1, it could read my cr2 files, so I don't shoot jpeg anymore.  Like the extra room on the card and they are pretty easy to process in ACR then PS CS6.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use RAW + JPG on the Fuji x100s.  In Fuji Velvia mode, I have not been able to recreate a Lightroom Preset that mimics the camera's processing.  Images in JPG are incredible out of this camera.

 

I also use this setting on the X-Pro1 but the images from that camera in JPG do not match the x100s

 

I shoot only in RAW with my Canon 5D MK III, and Pentax 645D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.