RAW + JPEG fine

[Avengerx77]

Hi everyone. So I now know the cons/pros for shooting in RAW vs JPEG and why for picture details and editing is far better to shoot RAW. Now, what I was not able to find yet is the difference between those two vs the option that combines both in the camera. Aside from creating a larger file (I assume it combines or saves two pictures, one in RAW and another in JPEG). So question here is, what are the benefits, if any, to use this RAW+JPEG fine option, or should I still be aiming to use RAW only?

Thanks.

 

[Derrel]

Works GREAT when shooting for an eventual B&W final image made from the RAW data--because you can literally SEE, on the LCD how the subject, composition, and the lighting actually work as a B&W. Many subjects look better with different lighting in B&W than in color.

Works GREAT as a way to make archives of small images that can be used as indexes for 20-times-larger RAW files. As a way to have smaller, faster-loading, smaller files for making large libraries of images that can be open and viewed by basically ANY software, on any device that can show an image. As RAW formats change, many older software apps can not handle them.

 

[sscarmack]

If I were to shoot in RAW and JPEG, it would only be JPEG small....I don't see the point in have two large files for one photo. Unless you have a dual card slot and you want a back up of something important.

Reasons to shoot both, maybe you want to quickly share a photo from a shoot on the go and you don't want to import to LR, edit quickly, export, etc.

As with the JPEG small, you can just send it off to social media and forget about it.

 

[WayneF]

Hi everyone. So I now know the cons/pros for shooting in RAW vs JPEG and why for picture details and editing is far better to shoot RAW. Now, what I was not able to find yet is the difference between those two vs the option that combines both in the camera. Aside from creating a larger file (I assume it combines or saves two pictures, one in RAW and another in JPEG). So question here is, what are the benefits, if any, to use this RAW+JPEG fine option, or should I still be aiming to use RAW only?

Thanks.

All Raw files already include a Large JPG internally, which is what is shown on the rear LCD preview, and allows zooming there, and is what the camera histogram is computed from (raw data is not yet compatible with those RGB operations). Some crude editors, claiming to open raw files, merely show this internal JPG.

The option to output Both a raw file and a JPG file seems sort of pointless, since we can always create any JPG we want from the raw file, After we have corrected color and exposure, and improved the image. Maybe some cannot wait, or are unsure if they can do it. But of course, they settle for less when it is easy to do it.

So IMO, Both files are just for those unsure in their ability to process the raw file. Or, it could allow a fast preview of the file in the computer before processing it, however the camera manufacturers (I'm sure of Nikon, and assume the others too) offer a free codex for Windows that will show normal thumbnails for raw files too.

 

[jaomul]

Quite often I find that the jpegs come out of camera and I don't feel the need to adjust them. It's handy then. Some cameras that have 2 cards can use 1 card raw, other jpeg, in which case the jpegs are a backup if the raw card fails

 

[Ysarex]

Instant JPEG from Raw

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Scarmack brings up a good point...RAW + JPG Basic (in Nikon-speak) is handy, especially for the archiving use I mentioned. On some cameras, RAW+ JPEG allows you to set several paramenters....High, Medium, or Low levels of compression, and three different sizes, as well as a color filter effect, like yellow filter efect, and a toning, like cold-tone, warm tone, or netral.

I like the Basic JPEGs for their creation dates.

On "some cameras", the Medium-sized or even Small-size in-cam created JPEG look great if the Tone Curve and Sharpening are set appropriately. In-camera JPEG has come a hell of a long ways, but taking 36 million or 24 million or even 12 million pixels, and then down-sizing that data can allow for a good noise reduction by way of down-rezzing, with in-camera noise reduction that the engineers have tuned for the specific camera.

One thing some people miss: not everybody is a raw-file-conversion savant like Ysarex is...a LOT of people have shall we say, poor to middlin' image processing skills. My D3x in RAW + JPEG Medium, level 7 sharpening, and Auto TOne curve in Matrix metering can create SOOC JPEG images that look as good...or better than, what I could create in 2013 with Lightroom.

I tried it at some parties and reunions I shot all-ambient light, and two weddings in craptastic light, all-ambient much of the evening...wow! The SOOC images looked...almost exactly like MY Lightroom exports did...

If you are not a particularly software-adept Noise Reduction specialist, your camera might actually be better than you are. ***Modern*** d-slr cameras make far, far different SOOC JPEGS than the older ones do--especially on the newer, vastly better, Sony Exmor-generation 24 and 36 MP sensors. For many people of only modest skill, the Nikon Active Dynamic Lighting on HIGH will create a lower-contrast JPEG that will hold tremendous detail over a wide dynamic range, and then can be adjusted somewhat.

Also...the Picture Control options..those really DO have an impact on the SOOC JPEGs that the camera creates, and there are MASSIVE variations possible. Nikon's Vivid for example...oh The Ghost of Velvia 50... Direct Print...pretty good!

Bottom line: many 'experts' say that the SOOC jpeg files are not good, and they trot out a few example to prove their point..but I would wager the majority of them have never spent more than a little bit of time actually TRYING to understand how the cameras can work. These are the same "experts" that use center-point-only AF on a 51-point AF system and wonder why they cannot get a focus lock in sh**** light, or why their sequences drift in focus point so often. The idea that we will hand-convert every image and spend 3 to 6 minutes per frame...with years' worth of experience...just NOT the way many people work, and frankly, beyond the skill level of many people. On forums you'll seldom hear the other side of the coin...

Jpeg BAD, RAW is KING!~

Medallio D' Oro espresso ground canned coffee brewed in a simple French press, using canned coffee packed in Mexico versus high-elevation grown, hand-picked by rescued orphan pickers, environmentally friendly, non-exploited worker, fair-trade, artisan-roasted, hand-ground with BURR grinder only, gold-filter-Malita-brewed, single cup brewed coffee.

 

[WayneF]

One thing some people miss: not everybody is a raw-file-conversion savant like Ysarex is...a LOT of people have shall we say, poor to middlin' image processing skills.

I usually always agree with you, but not this time if I understand your meaning correctly. But yes, it is true that "editing" is a very spooky word for many of us. The tools in most editors are in fact poor, and Photoshop requires some advanced degree first.

But raw editors are so easy, and so good, and so fast. It couldn't be easier. Color is off? We can see it, so we just try different white balances and methods, and we see the result, and choose a good one. Exposure is off? We just move the little slider until it looks great. Picture Control? We just try a few and decide which is the best, based on what we can see it does, and what we want to see. We simply adjust it to look good to us, after we can see it. Even cropping - it is lossless edits, so if we change our mind, we can simply put it back. A few seconds should do most pictures, or in some cases, even large batches of pictures. It can take a minute to output a large batch of JPG then, but we can go get coffee instead of waiting.

JPG in the camera definitely does NOT work that way. We have to choose something (everything) before we see anything. Bright sun is about the only white balance we can even hope works right. We can see the rear LCD result, but that's not the same as deciding later on the big monitor at home. If we care, raw is a big plus, easily improving our results.

 

[KmH]

Most Raw files embed a JPEG Basic to display on a camera,s rear LCD, and for use to look at as an editing application builds previews.

 

[table1349]

The only time you might need it if you are shooting an event and need to pull a few quick shots say for a deadline.

 

[snowbear]

JPG in the camera definitely does NOT work that way. We have to choose something (everything) before we see anything. Bright sun is about the only white balance we can even hope works right. We can see the rear LCD result, but that's not the same as deciding later on the big monitor at home. If we care, raw is a big plus, easily improving our results.

I would suggest (not argue) that with JPEG, we have to choose something or the camera chooses it for us.

For me, straight raw works just fine: I'm not doing production (read Pro) work and I don't print or post everything I take, so tweaking everything that is posted or printed in LR is not a big chore. If I'm shooting in burst mode (not very often), I'll use JPEG simply because it's an older camera and the buffer is small.

 

[Didereaux]

One important function of the jpeg option is that many, and I mean many sports and events photographers who are feeding a news line shoot jpegs which are sent immediately to the editors.

Of course it must be kept in mind that these people are VERY good photographers and know their equipment so all the jpegs are correct WB, in focus, the right framing the whole ball of wax, and they change the settings on the fly as conditions change. If you ever have a chance to go to a pro basketball game you see what I am talking about,,,forget the game and watch the photographers.

 

[soufiej]

Considering you can buy a 16 to 32G card for a few dollars nowdays, storage capacity isn't much of a problem for most photographers.

Shoot in both formats for awhile and see what happens with your usage. You can determine better than anyone else how you will use your files. Once you delete the file, then you've feed up that space on your card for more files.



I'd say, consider Jpegs to be quick and dirty files that you might send on social media or for other quick and dirty uses. Most modern DSLR's turn out acceptable Jpegs, some better than others, and you can control what the camera does to process the file. If you like really saturated colors or high contrast etc, that's fairly easy to accomplish with Jpegs. You're far less likely though to enlarge a Jpeg beyond maybe a 5X7.

If you have the ability to edit and work with RAW files, then you'll find there's not much real world editing you'll do with a lower quality image file. That, IMO, makes the additional file very redundant for no good reason in most cases.

If you find you aren't using the Jpegs, then switch your camera back to RAW only.

 

[sscarmack]

32???? I have 256 hahahahah

 

[Braineack]

I see no reason to save a copy -- in a format you cant do much with -- of an image. My RAW files are already 30-40MB each, and I've recently had to upgrade to 5GB of extra storage space in my PC to handle all my cat pictures.

having a JPG copy is completely useless to me. I'll run my processing and save out jpgs of the images I want to share, in the size/quality I want to share them at.

@Derrel did bring out good points, that makes me want to reevaluate things: I have a fairly powerful cpu and gpu, but yet my thumbnails can take time to load...