Are you able to shoot RAW AND jpg together?

Chaz Photos said:
You can still do that from the RAW file, a simple task for any software if you have photoshop or lightroom its all done for you at a press of a button. And you gain the extra space and faster shooting.
Click to expand...

Faster shooting isn't a problem, Canon 1D Mk 4 has twin card slots and sufficient processing power to write both images without a noticeable slow down in shooting thanks to a reasonable buffer size, and to be honest I've never really found it a problem on a camera with a single card.

There is however a significant time saving at the computer at the end of the shoot. Using a RAW + small JPG I can filter out the rejects quickly, then bulk upload the small jpgs to a web gallery rather than wading through the full RAW version, resizing, exporting and then uploading. Yes, there is a minor increase in storage requirements, but the JPGs can be ditched as soon as the gallery is live.

The time "wasted" during the shoot may be measurable in seconds, but the time "saved" in front of the computer is certainly measurable in minutes, possible even hours.
 
andrewc said:
Faster shooting isn't a problem, Canon 1D Mk 4 has twin card slots and sufficient processing power to write both images without a noticeable slow down in shooting thanks to a reasonable buffer size, and to be honest I've never really found it a problem on a camera with a single card.

There is however a significant time saving at the computer at the end of the shoot. Using a RAW + small JPG I can filter out the rejects quickly, then bulk upload the small jpgs to a web gallery rather than wading through the full RAW version, resizing, exporting and then uploading. Yes, there is a minor increase in storage requirements, but the JPGs can be ditched as soon as the gallery is live.

The time "wasted" during the shoot may be measurable in seconds, but the time "saved" in front of the computer is certainly measurable in minutes, possible even hours.
Click to expand...

I do not know what computer you have or what software , but I can see all my raw files on my windows computer when in windows viewer or Lightroom or Photoshop/bridge.screen saved jpg, every raw has a jpg embedded in it.
I can sort all photos as fast as any jpg's.
If I want any small jpg for web so simple I hit a key and its done and all saved to drobox or where ever I want them on line..
That's what is so good with computers you just do it once and save the action, processes or perset, what ever your software calls it, Job done as fast you will.
Can you not see your RAW files with out PP ?
 
Yes I can see all RAW files, and automated actions are useful, but to get a set of images online in the quickest time the best way is to use an in camera picture style that simulates your normal processing style, or batch processing and FTP'ing of the small JPG, and processing only the master RAWs on the images that customers are ordering or for your own personal projects.
 
Chaz Photos said:
But your forgetting the time it take to process the raw to jpg this WILL add time over just saving a RAW file.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Even if you just shoot raw the camera will still process the raw data to produce a jpeg image. This image is then stored inside the raw file.
 
Chaz Photos said:
This is like keeping a 5x4 print and disposing of the negs :(
Click to expand...
Surely its no different to just shooting in fine Jpeg tho, The Togs at Sochi all shot Jpeg only! Granted they had thousands of pounds worth of cameras and lenses compar but I doubt its like keeping a 5x4 print and disposing of the negs.
 
Chaz Photos said:
But your forgetting the time it take to process the raw to jpg this WILL add time over just saving a RAW file.
Click to expand...

Chaz Photos said:
every raw has a jpg embedded in it.
Click to expand...

This seems a ridiculous argument in general. But you seem to be tripping up on your own words here? How can it take longer to process a jpg with "Raw + jpg" but yet raw files render their own jpg in the file anyway when shooting raw? Seems a silly single minded argument to me.

Anyway, there are loads of reasons to shoot jpg and there are loads of reasons to shoot Raw. Then there are loads of reasons to shoot both. Unless you're a sports photographer then a quick rate of continuous fire shouldn't be an issue - unless your crap and machine gunning.

I shoot both because I'm lazy and don't know when I will want a quick jpg OR when I want a raw file I can play with.
 
george g said:
This seems a ridiculous argument in general. But you seem to be tripping up on your own words here? How can it take longer to process a jpg with "Raw + jpg" but yet raw files render their own jpg in the file anyway when shooting raw? Seems a silly single minded argument to me.

Anyway, there are loads of reasons to shoot jpg and there are loads of reasons to shoot Raw. Then there are loads of reasons to shoot both. Unless you're a sports photographer then a quick rate of continuous fire shouldn't be an issue - unless your crap and machine gunning.

I shoot both because I'm lazy and don't know when I will want a quick jpg OR when I want a raw file I can play with.
Click to expand...
Well I think you don't understand RAW files, there is no processing done its a sidecar file that embedded with the RAW file with the settings you had set in camera. ( ie a set of instructions only) Nothing is done to the image unlike a jpg which will be processed and had much data removed from the file to end up with you jpg. The embedded one is NOT processed only your setting saved along with it, and then processed in your computer when you open it.
So a RAW file is just that all the data plus a tiny file with your camera settings embedded, where as RAW + jps is A RAW file plus the settings + a processed file making a jpg. there for much more work and spaced needed.
Also my computer is much better computer then the tiny one in camera.

I was assuming you understood how the files of a camera worked Sorry for assuming this....
 
Chaz Photos said:
Well I think you don't understand RAW files, there is no processing done its a sidecar file that embedded with the RAW file with the settings you had set in camera. ( ie a set of instructions only) Nothing is done to the image unlike a jpg which will be processed and had much data removed from the file to end up with you jpg. The embedded one is NOT processed only your setting saved along with it, and then processed in your computer when you open it.
So a RAW file is just that all the data plus a tiny file with your camera settings embedded, where as RAW + jps is A RAW file plus the settings + a processed file making a jpg. there for much more work and spaced needed.
Also my computer is much better computer then the tiny one in camera.

I was assuming you understood how the files of a camera worked Sorry for assuming this....
Click to expand...

In all fairness, regardless of how they are made in camera or what's embedded where, this argument is ridiculous and off topic. Your uncompromising stance of "only shoot raw" is crackers, as proven by the plethora of top level photographers shooting in all manner of modes.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Well I think you don't understand RAW files, there is no processing done its a sidecar file that embedded with the RAW file with the settings you had set in camera. ( ie a set of instructions only)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't understand raw files. There is a full-sized jpeg image embedded in the file alongside the raw data. It is this embedded jpeg that the camera displays on its LCD and that programs like FastStone or IrfanView display. The camera doesn't produce a sidecar file, so your description is impossible.
 
Last edited:
I agree there is a place for jpeg. It is needed when shooting sport and need to quickly send an image to a paper or what not. Or when a client needs to see the image right away for example. But other than this shooting jpeg is often due to people being to lazy for edit raw files. An edited raw image will always look better than a jpeg and personally I would always respect a photographer more for shooting raw, the same I would anyone shooting manual modes.
 
Hardly ever use RAW files our way to big and slow down all types of software. I don't want to spend hours resizing images for weddings and no need for Raw at all in Studio controlled set up. Unless you are doing some major Corp product or advert work. Trusty lightmeter is never wrong..... Well, almost never.... well unless I set it wrong..... well..........
Cup cake anyone?
 
hollis_f said:
I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't understand raw files. There is a full-sized jpeg image embedded in the file alongside the raw data. It is this embedded jpeg that the camera displays on its LCD and that programs like FastStone or IrfanView display. The camera doesn't produce a sidecar file, so your description is impossible.
Click to expand...
You will see that is is only a thumbnail and NOT a full size JPG I referred to a side-car as this is used in many places and mad it easier to understand that it is not part of the image but a file in its own right attached to the sensor data.
A JPG can be added if you want too.

Raw files contain, by necessity, the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data. The structure of raw files, including the ISO standard raw image format ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP, often follows a common pattern, that is:

  • A short file header which typically contains an indicator of the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data
  • Camera sensor metadata which is required to interpret the sensor image data, including the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA and its color profile
  • Image metadata which is required for inclusion in any CMS environment or database. These include the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date (and, optionally, place) of shoot/scan, authoring information and other. Some raw files contain a standardized metadata section with data in Exif format.
  • An image thumbnail
  • Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format, which can be used for a quick preview
 
george g said:
In all fairness, regardless of how they are made in camera or what's embedded where, this argument is ridiculous and off topic. Your uncompromising stance of "only shoot raw" is crackers, as proven by the plethora of top level photographers shooting in all manner of modes.
Click to expand...
Name them
 
barratt1988 said:
An edited raw image will always look better than a jpeg.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's crap - the quality of an edited raw image will depend on the skill level of the editor - if they are less proficient in rendering an image from raw data than the camera firmware then the picture will look worse than the comparable jpeg.

There is definitely a place for Raw, just as there's a place for jpeg - the raw/jpeg argument is just so much verbal flatulence just like canon/Nikon , DSLR/CSCand digital/film (and from the old days print/slide)

Personally my respect for a photographer is based on the quality of the image they produce and/or the conditions they endure/risk to get the image - not on what file type they use or what mode their camera was set to
 
Chaz Photos said:
You will see that is is only a thumbnail and NOT a full size JPG I referred to a side-car as this is used in many places and mad it easier to understand that it is not part of the image but a file in its own right attached to the sensor data.
A JPG can be added if you want too.

Raw files contain, by necessity, the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data. The structure of raw files, including the ISO standard raw image format ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP, often follows a common pattern, that is:

  • A short file header which typically contains an indicator of the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data
  • Camera sensor metadata which is required to interpret the sensor image data, including the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA and its color profile
  • Image metadata which is required for inclusion in any CMS environment or database. These include the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date (and, optionally, place) of shoot/scan, authoring information and other. Some raw files contain a standardized metadata section with data in Exif format.
  • An image thumbnail
  • Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format, which can be used for a quick preview
Click to expand...

It would appear Chaz is in a competition to be the wrongest person on the Internet.

I've just extracted a full-size JPG from a Nikon D700 raw file. Not a reduced size thumbnail, the full 4256x2832. And it looks fine.

For some reason this Chaz has a big liking for processing raws. Fair enough. But Nikons, Fujis, Olympuses, and goodness knows how many others, put out lovely-looking JPGs which can take quite a while to emulate in Lightroom or PS or whatever. It can take fiddling with pre-made custom profiles or a lot of trial and error just to get a result as good as that which popped out of the camera in the first place. As long as the exposure and lighting is good to start with, JPG is capable of portraying stunning imagery.

There is, of course, a lot more data in a raw, and if you need that data then you need that data. Low-light work requires all the data it can get. Recovering blown highlights is far more effective in raw.

But to say shooting in JPG is like sticking the camera on Auto is just so wrong. Indeed, I would go as far as to say a talented photographer could create great work all day long in JPG. An average photographer might have to rely on raw to get results.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
As already stated there is no right or wrong it just depends on what you are doing and what you prefer
I shoot raw because I'm sometimes in difficult lighting with my macro, zoo and wildlife stuff
maybe someone with more experience than me could get the white balance right each time
its easier for me to shoot raw and sort it out later
But when shooting in good light and if the exposure is correct I don't think that there's much difference
 
Last edited:
I shoot RAW only now. Only really because I rarely want to just upload an image without playing with it first (don't feel at a level where I get it right in camera often enough), and there were enough times in the past where I wished I'd shot in RAW when I'd shot in JPG. I tried shooting both for a while, but just found I never touched the JPGs.

Regarding the embedded JPGs in RAW files. I'd love to see a comparison between a JPG taken in the camera and a JPG taken from a RAW file. Just to see which quality level the embedded JPG is.
 
Last edited:
DBT85 said:
Regarding the embedded JPGs in RAW files. I'd love to see a comparison between a JPG taken in the camera and a JPG taken from a RAW file. Just to see which quality level the embedded JPG is.
Click to expand...

Easily done with Canon.
  • Shoot a scene in raw
  • Use Instant Jpeg from Raw to extract the embedded jpeg (Example)
  • Use DPP, with its default settings, to process the raw and save the resulting jpeg image, which will be identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced. (Example)
  • Compare

The first thing you'll notice is that IJFR (2MB example) gives you a smaller file than the DPP method (10MB example). That must mean it's using higher jpeg compression. However, you may find it difficult to see any difference.
 
Last edited:
Put me straight, or am I missing something. :).

I set my camera up to take a jpeg i.e.

Aperture, shutter speed, ISO. Having pre set WB, sharpness, noise, highlights, shadow detail, colour and whatever else I deem necessary.

I take the shot; my expectation is that it will be as good as my experience has taught me.
If belt and braces are necessary, I will bracket either side of the set exposure.

If it’s a raw shot, or if the camera is set to take one of each simultaneously, the setting up would be the same.

I then save the finished image as a Tiff and a level 12 jpeg.

Is this the norm?

Because from what I’m reading, I take it that people do not set the camera up to take jpegs? leaving the camera to sort it.


Call me old fashioned but I still think in film, and as a sh*t under the fingernails mechanic,(engineer) I couldn’t afford to waste film or darkroom chemicals, so “Get it right in the camera.” was a mantra to be heeded.


LCPete, I think that you can correct the white balance of a jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw. (I think). :).

Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Rhodese said:
LCPete, I think that you can correct the white balance of a jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw. (I think). :).
Click to expand...

You can, but there's nowhere near as much leeway as with a raw file. It's the same with exposure, you can do a much better job of recovering blown highlights from a raw file than from a jpeg.
 
Rhodese said:
me straight, or am I missing something. :).

I set my camera up to take a jpeg i.e.

Aperture, shutter speed, ISO. Having pre set WB, sharpness, noise, highlights, shadow detail, colour and whase I deem necessary.

I take the shot; my expectation is that it will be as good as my experience has taught me.
If belt and braces are necessary, I will bracket either side of the set exposure.

If it’s a raw shot, or if the camera is set to take one of each simultaneously, the setting up would be the same.

I then save the finished image as a Tiff and a level 12 jpeg.

Is this the norm?

Because from what I’m reading, I take it that people do not set the camera up to take jpegs? leaving the camera to sort it.


Call me old fashioned but I still think in film, and as a sh*t under the fingernails mechanic,(engineer) I couldn’t afford to waste film or darkroom chemicals, so “Get it right in the camera.” was a mantra to be heeded.


LCPete, I think that you can correct the white balance of a jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw. (I think). :).

Rhodese.
Click to expand...


Yes you are right you can but as Frank said you have more leeway with a raw
Also with my camera a 7D I expose to the right, slightly over expose then darken it back again on converting the raw
This gets rid of any noise, its amazing since learning about this i havent had to use any noise reduction program on the images
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
I expose to the right, slightly over expose then darken it back again on converting the raw
This gets rid of any noise
Click to expand...
Expose 'to the right' if you like but a blown highlight is a blown highlight, and generally speaking far worse than a noisy shadow. It's all about striking a balance - lighting circumstances vary, and it's as well to be sensitive to them and adjust accordingly. There's no 'one size fits all' solution.
 
droj said:
Expose 'to the right' if you like but a blown highlight is a blown highlight, and generally speaking far worse than a noisy shadow. It's all about striking a balance - lighting circumstances vary, and it's as well to be sensitive to them and adjust accordingly. There's no 'one size fits all' solution.
Click to expand...


Yes I know what you mean but I watch the highlights :)
I go to just before the point when I get blinkies
You are of course right sometimes the correct exposure is not always to the right but i do aim to do it when i can
 
Last edited:
Rhodese said:
Put me straight, or am I missing something. :).

I set my camera up to take a jpeg i.e.

Aperture, shutter speed, ISO. Having pre set WB, sharpness, noise, highlights, shadow detail, colour and whatever else I deem necessary.

I take the shot; my expectation is that it will be as good as my experience has taught me.
If belt and braces are necessary, I will bracket either side of the set exposure.

If it’s a raw shot, or if the camera is set to take one of each simultaneously, the setting up would be the same.

I then save the finished image as a Tiff and a level 12 jpeg.

Is this the norm?

Because from what I’m reading, I take it that people do not set the camera up to take jpegs? leaving the camera to sort it.


Call me old fashioned but I still think in film, and as a sh*t under the fingernails mechanic,(engineer) I couldn’t afford to waste film or darkroom chemicals, so “Get it right in the camera.” was a mantra to be heeded.


LCPete, I think that you can correct the white balance of a jpeg in Adobe Camera Raw. (I think). :).

Rhodese.
Click to expand...


How many bits does your camera save a file as in raw and in jpeg?
 
droj said:
Expose 'to the right' if you like but a blown highlight is a blown highlight
Click to expand...

This is true for jpegs, but not for raw.

Here's a jpeg I shot with the wrong exposure and WB...

Grass.jpg


Quite a bit of the image is totally overexposed and irretreivable. However, the raw file (I shot raw + jpeg for this test) allowed me to produce this image from LR...

Grass%20Proc%20Raw%20LR4.jpg


So, when I can be totally certain of getting all the in-camera settings 100% perfect every single time - that's when I'll stop shooting raw. And the first jpeg I'll shoot will be of a porcine squadron flying over the frozen wastes of Hell.
 
A blown highlight in a RAW file is a blown highlight. The meaning of blown is non-recoverable. The RAW format is not infinitely accommodating.

Sometimes it's allowable to let the highlights blow for the sake of the rest of the picture - it depends what and where they are in the frame. We have to excercise judgement and sometimes that judgement will be not to attempt the photograph.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
A blown highlight in a RAW file is a blown highlight. The meaning of blown is non-recoverable. The RAW format is not infinitely accommodating.

Sometimes it's allowable to let the highlights blow for the sake of the rest of the picture - it depends what and where they are in the frame. We have to excercise judgement and sometimes that judgement will be not to attempt the photograph.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree a blown highlight in raw is still blown
You do however get a larger margin for error with raw the shot can be slightly overexposed with slightly blown highlights and its perfectly recoverable in raw as Franks example shows
Obviously completely blown out is still lost and I wouldn't deliberately over expose anywhere near like in his example but he did it just to show what you can get back if you have to
What I'm trying to say is that I expose for the highlights and the rest will be fine
I've been photographing Red Pandas at the zoo these are difficult subjects with white faces and red and black bodies I try to meter from the face but still sometimes get slight overexposure I just darken slightly in post processing and it comes out just right reducing the exposure in post also reduces any slight noise in the black area's
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
How many bits does your camera save a file as in raw and in jpeg?
Click to expand...

Hi there,

I hope this is what you are asking. (I’m not tech savvy)

The RAWs are 14-bit
A 4:3 4000x3000 fine RAW is 20 MB.
A 4:3 4000x3000 fine RAW+JPEG is 25.1MB.

Whatever that means?

Rhodese.
 
OK my point was a jpeg image produced by the camera has 8 bits. Most raw files use 12 or 14 bits.

Keeping it simple
If you use 12 bits then you have 4096 levels available for each colour channel, 14 bits gives 16384 but a jpeg uses 8 bits so then you have 256. If you convert from the raw to jpeg in camera, you are throwing away data/information about the image to achieve the smaller image. This extra data is why raw files are more recoverable, they have more data which can be used.
 
Yes, I agree completely,
I am not saying that JPEG is better than RAW.

My point being that if “my” PP skills cannot produce a better image than a well-exposed, well thought out, in camera processed RAW to JPEG, then what is wrong with using it.
After all when I have processed a RAW, what do I do, I save it as a JPEG, TIFF or some other accepted format, to print or otherwise.

My first post was just my rationale on the subject; it was not intended as a challenge to anyone else’s methodology.
I apologise if it has come over as anything other than that.

Rhodese.
 
Rhodese said:
Yes, I agree completely,
I am not saying that JPEG is better than RAW.

My point being that if “my” PP skills cannot produce a better image than a well-exposed, well thought out, in camera processed RAW to JPEG, then what is wrong with using it.
After all when I have processed a RAW, what do I do, I save it as a JPEG, TIFF or some other accepted format, to print or otherwise.

My first post was just my rationale on the subject; it was not intended as a challenge to anyone else’s methodology.
I apologise if it has come over as anything other than that.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...


No need to apologise
Its always interesting the different ways that people so things
There is no right or wrong just what suits what you are doing and you're happy with:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top