RAW + jpeg or just RAW

[BRN1]

I have PS elements 9 and I have just started shooting RAW + jpeg. Until recently I have only used jpeg.
Do I need to save both file types? Is there an advantage to this or am I just wasting memory? Can I convert or save a copy of a raw file as a jpeg file later?
I think that sums up my 1st question! Haha. BTW this is with a D7000.

The second question is when opening raw files with PSE 9, are the raw files converted to something else? It seems that PSE changes them to another file type when I import them.

Also I have just recently started using PSE 9.

Thanks in advance!

 

[KmH]

JPEGs only have an 8-bit color depth, and are already edited in the camera, which leaves little if any editing headroom outside the camera.

Raw files are made in the D7000 with a 12-bit or 14-bit color depth. You can choose one or the other, plus loss-less or loosey compression of the Raw files. The smallest Raw files will be 12-bit with the lossey compression.

PsE 9 has a de-featured version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), but it is still a decent Raw converter.

Check out this group of tutorials and do further research on the subjects: Bit depth, and file types - Photo Editing Tutorials

 

[Garbz]

There's no reason to save a JPEG too (well there are very specific cases where there is a reason but they are quite niche). If you want a perfect JPEG as the camera creates then use Nikon View NX to convert the image.

 

[amolitor]

Ctein has made a good case that the JPEG image has in-camera noise reduction applied, which is often better than what you can do outside the camera.

For situations where you're using high ISOs or long exposures, raw+jpeg is a good idea, then. You can do whatever you normally do with raw, but you can then blend with the jpeg as needed for noise reduction.

 

[pgriz]

Much of my shooting is snapshootery (family, local events, aids to memory), with some "professional" stuff for documenting my company's work, and then there's the artistic/hobby stuff. In that mix, having both JPG and RAW is useful - JPG for immediate review and sharing, RAW if better editing/processing is needed. My daily shot count is rarely more than 200, and those fit easily onto a 8GB card, even when shooting RAW + large, fine JPG. I also carry around additional cards, so "if" I ran out of space, I'd just change cards. In any case, my work flow is to process (ie, download to external storage, backup, apply preliminary processing, final backup) the images each day. That basic housekeeping also allows me to flag the shots that may benefit from further work, and those that can be safely discarded.

If I was shooting bursts (as in sport and action photography), I may want to consider doing JPG only, as the burst rate on my camera is rather slow, but I rarely do that kind of shooting. I've gone through some experimentation of shooting RAW only or shooting JPG only, and found that shooting RAW only reduced my ability to share the images the same day, while shooting JPG only reduced my ability to "rescue" poorly exposed images, or to reprocess some promising images. So for my shooting style and practice, shooting both makes sense. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[JohnTrav]

I always figured if you have the size and write speed just shoot in raw+jpeg. You can always delete the shots you don't like or want of space is an issue on your computer.

I also like that with windows at least you don't get I preview the raw images before you open them so I can just preview the jpegs quicker than raw's. Then I can just edit the ones I want to. You can also do that in bridge though but I personally don't always do that.

 

[Derrel]

I shoot RAW + JPEG a LOT of the time. I find the JPEGs very useful for editing purposes, as a stand-in for the raw files. When shooting B&W in-camera, RAW + JPEG is standard operating procedure for me. The better cameras make very nice JPEG files if the parameters are adjusted as appropriate.

 

[480sparky]

When I made the transition to shooting raw, I shot raw + JPEG. After a few months, I realized I was merely clogging up my hard drives with useless JPEGs. Now, 99.95% of my actuations are raw only. I will only shoot JPEG if I'm taking the shot solely to post or email.

 

[Big Mike]

The only time I shoot RAW+JPEG is when working with a particular wedding photographer. We both shoot in RAW + small jpeg, and then at the reception, he downloads all the small jpegs and cranks out a slideshow.

 

[BRN1]

Thanks for all the posted answers!
One question about light room. Does it do a better job converting to jpeg than PSE 9?

 

[KmH]

Lightroom has more tools/features/functions than the de-featured Camera Raw in PsE 9. PsE 9 is consumer grade software, which why it's Camera Raw is de-featured.

Otherwise, Camera Raw and Lightroom use the same edit rendering engine Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).

So the difference would be in the editing that can be done in Lightroom vs PsE 9 Camera Raw, rather the output of a JPEG.

 

[BRN1]

JPEGs only have an 8-bit color depth, and are already edited in the camera, which leaves little if any editing headroom outside the camera.

Raw files are made in the D7000 with a 12-bit or 14-bit color depth. You can choose one or the other, plus loss-less or loosey compression of the Raw files. The smallest Raw files will be 12-bit with the lossey compression.

PsE 9 has a de-featured version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), but it is still a decent Raw converter.

Check out this group of tutorials and do further research on the subjects: Bit depth, and file types - Photo Editing Tutorials

Thanks KMH. I just started reading those tutorials. I may finish them in the next long time. there is lot of info on that site.

 

[uflraptor]

I have only been shooting digital for just over a year now.

Very early on I was given advice from trusted professional mentor. He told me to always shoot RAW. Told me you can always get jpg or anything else out of the RAW file but can never have more than just a JPG if that is all you shot it as to begin .

I usually shoot RAW + JPG because I can. My cards are large enough and so is my hard drive. I can always delete the extra files later.

I figure I can always save the RAW forever and use the JPG files to be able to shoot out though email and such very quickly.

 

[BRN1]

Ctein has made a good case that the JPEG image has in-camera noise reduction applied, which is often better than what you can do outside the camera.

For situations where you're using high ISOs or long exposures, raw+jpeg is a good idea, then. You can do whatever you normally do with raw, but you can then blend with the jpeg as needed for noise reduction.

Thats above my pay grade. LOL. I think you mean something like adding a layer with the jpeg image?

 

[Garbz]

Ctein has made a good case that the JPEG image has in-camera noise reduction applied, which is often better than what you can do outside the camera.

Hogwash. Cameras feature very limited processing capabilities that must fit in nicely with their small slow chips and desperate need to crank through a photo in a fraction of a second. Noise reduction on a computer using a program such as Nikon CameraRAW can produce a better result from the simple reason that more processing power can be dedicated to the task. But even that is nothing compared to the highly customisable noise reduction options that are available on a computer to tackle all manner of noise.

Try it yourself one day. Compare a photo with NR in camera to a program that allows you very fine control over how the noise reduction is applied. I'll be very surprised if you couldn't pickup a copy of noise ninja or some other dedicated program and produce a better result than the incamera solution without even reading the manual.

And that's not even taking into account that noise reduction should be done AFTER all tone adjustments are completed as tone adjustments change the noise distribution on an image.