JPEG, RAW or Both ?

[srtiwari]

Having a camera with Raw capability almost always makes me want to shoot JPEG and RAW- mainly in the hope that I might capture one or two really great pictures that I can optimize from RAW. However, many cameras ( like my x100s) produce very nice JPEGS straight OOC. So many a time the JPEG might be adequate. However, importing RAW is the safety net, I guess.
And the, after importing into LR5, one can either use the JPEGs or work on the RAW, at the end of which, the image may not be much better. All this takes a lot of time, to say nothing of then having to purge some from the Catalog, and rename the files to maintain sequencing.
I wonder what most people do ? (Please vote the Poll )

 

[johannielscom]

Awaiting the poll and I will vote in it, but answering already.

I used to shoot RAW-equivalents only with my Fujifilm S3 Pro, Nikon D300 and Leica M8.

But since I started shooting the Ricoh GXR-M (with electronic EVF) I shoot RAW and JPEG combined, since it allows me to set the camera to B&W and I get a monochrome image in the finder and on the LCD. Which makes it much easier to find lights and darks in an image, it's like shooting the final image straight away. If I decide to keep the imported RAW file in color later, I still benefit from better exposed photographs since the balance between lights and darks is so much easier found while shooting.

And yes, I do discard the in-camera JPEG's altogether, having the RAW file and fine-tuning that later is much more versatile IMHO.

Not quite an answer that fits your question I think, but it's an answer...😉

EDIT: I chose the option that was closest...

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

When I first got a DSLR I was advised to record both RAW and jpeg, even though I didn't know what RAW meant at the time.
I have just about every RAW photo I've ever taken stored somewhere on my HD or portable HD, or on CD's.
Never know when I'll make use of 'em, but at least I've got 'em if I need 'em.
My D7000 records both without any problem.

 

[dogberryjr]

Depends on the camera: X Pro - jpg; DP2M - RAW; D700 - either/or.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

Both raw and JPEG except on an M8 where saving both file types bogs the camera down unacceptably.

On the M8, I just save DNG files.

 

[srtiwari]

Awaiting the poll and I will vote in it, but answering already.

I used to shoot RAW-equivalents only with my Fujifilm S3 Pro, Nikon D300 and Leica M8.

But since I started shooting the Ricoh GXR-M (with electronic EVF) I shoot RAW and JPEG combined, since it allows me to set the camera to B&W and I get a monochrome image in the finder and on the LCD. Which makes it much easier to find lights and darks in an image, it's like shooting the final image straight away. If I decide to keep the imported RAW file in color later, I still benefit from better exposed photographs since the balance between lights and darks is so much easier found while shooting.

And yes, I do discard the in-camera JPEG's altogether, having the RAW file and fine-tuning that later is much more versatile IMHO.

Not quite an answer that fits your question I think, but it's an answer...😉

EDIT: I chose the option that was closest...

This would lead me to assume that the JPEGs from the GXR-M are never good enough (since you throw them all away)?

 

[johannielscom]

This would lead me to assume that the JPEGs from the GXR-M are never good enough (since you throw them all away)?

Hm, that's one way of looking at it! 🙂

In fact, the JPEGs are good enough to keep. Thing is, JPEG files always have a more narrow tonality embedded in the photograph, meaning that if I decide to edit differently later, I will be restricted to what the JPEG contains. RAW simply contains much more and as a result I have more (head)room when editing it later.

My RAWs all end up in Lightroom and from there I can export them to JPEGs anytime so there's no need to keep the JPEGs alongside the RAWs or keep the RAWs only.

 

[srtiwari]

My RAWs all end up in Lightroom and from there I can export them to JPEGs anytime so there's no need to keep the JPEGs alongside the RAWs or keep the RAWs only.

Never thought of that, but I agree. No matter how good the JPEGs are, the developed from RAW in LR5 will always be at least as good. So why keep the RAW ? I will do this from now, but that raises a question. If the X100s allows me to "see" a Monochrome image by EVF, and still shoot only in RAW, why should I shoot JPEG at all ?

 

[Murchu]

RAW. Jpeg appeals as a means to wean myself away from a computer as much though.

 

[mdarnton]

Up to my D300 I shot jpg and felt guilty about it, because there was a real difference, but after I bought the D300 I ran a few tests, and I no longer felt guilty shooting only jpg.

 

[benlees]

Why not shoot both? Memory cards are big and fast, as are hard drives. That said, I use jpegs 99.9% of the time.

 

[Contarama]

I have my camera so fine tuned with it's jpeg settings and my personal style that I feel I get better shots OOC than I can make with my post production skills. The jpegs are much faster for me too and that makes a difference for my photography.

I am very interested in this idea of Johannielscom's though...I am going to try that technique out as it sounds promising to me.

 

[DNG]

Only RAW...
Easy as pie,

 

[erikhaugsby]

But since I started shooting the Ricoh GXR-M (with electronic EVF) I shoot RAW and JPEG combined, since it allows me to set the camera to B&W and I get a monochrome image in the finder and on the LCD.

Substitute "GXR" for "GR (V)" and you've got the same procedure as me. That and I'm completely okay with the OOC B&W from the GR and, when I publish to web, they (the jpgs) get used more often than converted-by-me DNG files.

 

[Frankd]

I choose to only shoot raw. Then I convert to jpegs or tiffs depending on who they are going to. I don't convert all of the files that I shoot. I edit to the ones that I like and only convert those. If I did both then I would have jpegs of ones that I have no use for. I like having all the raws in case I need them later. It's kind of like saving all your negatives.

 

[mfunnell]

There's no option that really describes what I do. I always shoot RAW+JPEG and keep both versions. My usual practice is to use the JPEGs to generate a "digital contact sheet" on fairly cheap paper (Canon High Resolution Paper or similar) from the JPEGs and do my selects from there. This is a two-stage process - picking which files to include on the "contact sheet" means I've reviewed them on screen, after printing them I've reviewed them on paper (albeit in small size). The photos I do select are then worked on from RAW.

That's my main use for JPEGs, but I also use them when for some reason (eg. an event, a sporting match) there's a need to print or otherwise circulate files swiftly (faster than I can process finals from RAW). I have a couple of Photoshop actions I've put together to do some standard edits to take things from the way I set the in-camera JPEGs up (generally a bit flat and certainly unsharpened) to produce immediately-usable/printable files (understanding that "printable" means "not too horrible as 6x4s").

...Mike

 

[daveleo]

There are some excellent discussions around here on this topic, and I won't repeat what I've stated elsewhere.

At the moment I shoot only jpg's. Waiting for the Gimp to go to 16-bit color,
at which point, I will make a large change in my life, upgrade and calibrate
my system, and shoot RAW + jpg thereafter. (For the long version, track
down those other threads.)

 

[peterm1]

When I can I usually shoot both. Except for the M8 where I only shoot RAW as the jpgs have a poor reputation. If I have both and the jpg is good quality I will usually use that. But if there are any blown highlights etc I use the RAW file so I can pull the maximum information from it. Having said this it does not matter much as all all of my images RAW or jpg get post processed. There have been one or two cameras I have had in my life where I specifically prefer the jpgs. The Panasonic L1 is such a camera. Its processing of jpg images was superb.

 

[Rob-F]

Great question! We all know that RAW files are "better," right? They extract more detail, and a RAW file is not compromised when adjustments are made.

But some of us have bought Leica versions of Panasonic cameras because we are told that Leica tweaks the images to make them Leica-like, or up to Leica standards, or something like that. Take me, for instance. I have a D-Lux 3; D-Lux 4; and now, a D-Lux 6. I always ran the D-Lux 3 and D-lux 4 in RAW. After all, RAW is better, right?

But then I bought the D-Lux 6 and found out that Aperture won't open its RAW files. So I've been shooting JPEGS, and feeling cheated. Could I find anything wrong with the JPEGS? Not really. But there is this uneasiness: They aren't RAW files. Not good enough. I really must update, upgrade so I can shoot my D-Lux 6 in RAW.

Wait a minute. Leica tweaks the camera to Leica standards. Where does that tweak live? In the RAW file? I guess not: the RAW file comes out of the camera just as it comes off the sensor, right? So what's to tweak? There's something in the camera they brag about; what is it called? I think it's the "Venus Engine." I hope I have that right. The entity inside the camera that interprets the RAW file into a JPEG. So the tweak is in the Venus Engine? The JPEG?

OK, that means if I want to get the benefit of the extra 200 bucks I paid for the Leica version, over the price of the Panasonic version, then I should be shooting JPEGS, right? So I'm done? I don't need to upgrade to Mountain Lion so I can upgrade Aperture to accept D-Lux 6 files?

Does this mean I can just go take pictures now?

 

[craygc]

My only digital is the Sony Nex 5n. If Im shooting the kids its always jpeg. If I shooting for me - which means it will end up as B&W - RAW only. Without RAW I cannot contain highlights from blowing out then get my shadows back after. I've also spent a lot of time on devising and refining my B&W conversion workflow and I am now at a point where there are a number of uncharacteristic adjustments I perform on the image before I start any conversion. Without RAW the image wouldn't hold up in many cases.