RAW, JPEG Etc etc

[SnappingShark]

So I used to shoot in JPEG.
The I shot in JPEG & RAW (But did nothing with the RAW).

Now when I import a file into Aperture, I'll import the RAW.

So I'm going to change my camera over to only import the RAW.

Is this right, am I missing a step? Or is there something else I should be doing with the RAW?

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, first, you'll need a goat, a really sharp knife and access to a holy mountain.

As long as aperture will import the raw and then allow you to edit and save to JPG you should be good to go, I'm guessing it will but I don't use aperture myself.

 

[WayneF]

So I used to shoot in JPEG.
The I shot in JPEG & RAW (But did nothing with the RAW).

Now when I import a file into Aperture, I'll import the RAW.

So I'm going to change my camera over to only import the RAW.

Is this right, am I missing a step? Or is there something else I should be doing with the RAW?

That is right, if you have Raw, you have no use for the JPG, in that you can always easily output a JPG for whatever specific purpose.

But yes, of course there is something else you could be doing. We don't just output JPG from Raw. Raw has no camera settings in it, no White Balance or whatever else. So first, we process the Raw, correcting White Balance, maybe exposure too. After we can see it, then we know what it needs and can easily fix it. Then we output the JPG.

 

[astroNikon]

You went the same route I did.
I did JPEG, then JPG & RAW but didn't do anything with the RAW
Then imported the RAW into Lightroom and just exported it as JPG (like why ??)
Then actually learned to adjust things (you get better adjustments in RAW than JPEG) in LR and export better photos to JPEG

ahh .. technology

I still use Jpeg from time to time though

 

[SnappingShark]

Hmm, you say the raw has no information in it - but when I import it into Aperture, it's a direct copy of the JPG.

Odd - but I'll give it a go! See what happens!

 

[786soul]

I still use RAW + JPEG. Really because when I'm going through a shoot, I like to preview quickly based on composition, then I choose the RAW and work from there. Eventually the JPEG's get deleted but the visual scanning process picture to picture is faster. JPEGs play no part in my actual editing process however.

 

[WayneF]

Hmm, you say the raw has no information in it - but when I import it into Aperture, it's a direct copy of the JPG.

Odd - but I'll give it a go! See what happens!

I have never used Aperture, so I don't know what it does.

But .....

Raw is raw, there are no camera adjustments in Raw. The reason we use Raw is so there are no adjustments in it, and we can see it first, to know what it actually needs first, and have the proper tools to do it well. The camera settings are in the Exif, but NOT in the Raw file data.

Your sig says Nikon, and I use Nikon, and so I am speaking here about Nikon.

Some software (specifically talking about Adobe Raw) does give White Balance a go, and tries to figure out the Exif. Nikon does NOT make this be easy.
For one thing, color temperature degrees K is not in the Exif. Color is encoded, so to speak. It was actually worse ten years ago, see
nikon white balance encryped - Google Search Note this is ten years old.
Adobe went around and around with Nikon, and Nikon no longer encrpyts. Photographers do think their picture is their own property.

Nikon still does not disclose how to access their encoded data, but at least they do not encrypt it now. Point is, this is no easy problem.

Adobe Raw takes a good crack at WB (only WB, nothing else), close but no cigar. Bottom line, we still have to address WB ourself.

Even if we could access WB, the camera WB was just a crude setting, never really right for the actual light, and bottom line, we still have to address WB ourself.
This is the beauty and purpose of Raw, so we can see what it needs done.

Nikon Raw software does (can) use the Exif settings in the converted JPG image. They know how to access Nikon Exif settings.

I don't know what Aperture does, but raw is raw, the meaning is, there are no settings performed in the raw file.

Surely you will want to give it some attention before outputting the JPG copy.

 

[Derrel]

Hmm, you say the raw has no information in it - but when I import it into Aperture, it's a direct copy of the JPG.

Odd - but I'll give it a go! See what happens!

I would surmise that Aperture is importing the RAW data and is applying a series of changes to the data, such as applying a tone curve, and maybe sharpening the image a bit, and also using the color profile the camera is set to shoot to. If a person has Lightroom or Aperture set to IGNORE the camera settings, RAWs imported usually look pretty "flat" and often kind of "dismal", because one of the MAIN things done is to take the data and change it from a linear representation, to one that has a tone curve applied. Poke around in the preferences for Aperture, and you'll probably find this.

 

[DM110]

Hmm, you say the raw has no information in it - but when I import it into Aperture, it's a direct copy of the JPG.

Odd - but I'll give it a go! See what happens!

Standard RAW doesn't have adjustment information in it, but NEF files do contain an additional instruction set that contains the settings the camera had at the time the image was captured (white balance, picture control setting, etc.). Nikon Capture software definitely reads this information and, if nothing is changed, will output an image that looks like the JPEG. Don't know if other software can read the instruction set too, but it appears that Aperture might from your observation. Of course, like any RAW file, all the settings can be changed within the Capture software.