Why shoot RAW and JPG

[peety3]

17 minutes ago, isosika said:

I am not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do enjoy great photos.  When I was scuba diving, I shot photos in RAW and I liked what I could do with that format.  This was several years ago, since I was using a 5MP Olympus camera.

 

Now I've gotten older and no longer dive but still have a desire to shoot photos in RAW.  We made three trips to Africa and the animal photos were shot in RAW and JPEG using a Nikon camera.

 

I started to process these photos in Photoshop 5 but found that I needed a plug-in in order for Photoshop to work.  To date I have downloaded 3 different plug-ins and none has worked.  I've become so frustrated that I no longer shoot in RAW, but still have a strong desire to do so.

 

Any suggestions?

Photoshop 5 is from May 1998, and Photoshop CS5 is from April 2010. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history#5.0) If your camera is newer than that, there's a certain amount of "closing the gap" possible with updates to Adobe Bridge and/or Camera Raw, but you could be exceeding the compatibility of your version of Photoshop. Although tedious, you could perhaps use the Nikon software to convert RAW to TIFF, which is an almost ageless format and should be readable by ancient versions of Photoshop.

[kenevenpar]

2 hours ago, isosika said:

I am not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do enjoy great photos.  When I was scuba diving, I shot photos in RAW and I liked what I could do with that format.  This was several years ago, since I was using a 5MP Olympus camera.

 

Now I've gotten older and no longer dive but still have a desire to shoot photos in RAW.  We made three trips to Africa and the animal photos were shot in RAW and JPEG using a Nikon camera.

 

I started to process these photos in Photoshop 5 but found that I needed a plug-in in order for Photoshop to work.  To date I have downloaded 3 different plug-ins and none has worked.  I've become so frustrated that I no longer shoot in RAW, but still have a strong desire to do so.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Denny

 

Is it (5.0) even supported?  If my memory serves, that is a late 90's version.  I'm not a photoshop/lightroom guy, rather paintshop Pro / Aftershot user.

[CT Sean]

On 2/28/2019 at 9:58 AM, isosika said:

...Now I've gotten older and no longer dive but still have a desire to shoot photos in RAW.  We made three trips to Africa and the animal photos were shot in RAW and JPEG using a Nikon camera.
 

 

Nikon's free ViewNX-i software isn't too bad at all for developing their own NEF files. Provides all the basic adjustments and if you don't want to adjust anything, it'll apply the in-camera settings when converting to .jpg.  I used it and Capture NX2 for years before finally opting for Lightroom - mainly because I have Canon that I shoot RAW also and I found the Canon software terrible.  If i never got the Canon, i'd probabyl still use ViewNX-i and Capture NX-D (current version)

[masterdrago]

On 2/28/2019 at 8:58 AM, isosika said:

I am not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do enjoy great photos.  When I was scuba diving, I shot photos in RAW and I liked what I could do with that format.  This was several years ago, since I was using a 5MP Olympus camera.

 

Now I've gotten older and no longer dive but still have a desire to shoot photos in RAW.  We made three trips to Africa and the animal photos were shot in RAW and JPEG using a Nikon camera.

 

I started to process these photos in Photoshop 5 but found that I needed a plug-in in order for Photoshop to work.  To date I have downloaded 3 different plug-ins and none has worked.  I've become so frustrated that I no longer shoot in RAW, but still have a strong desire to do so.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Denny

Affinity Photo is what I've been using on my 3+ yo desktop. I just bought a new laptop and purchased Adobe Premiere and Photoshop together. So the learning curve begins. We are taking a cruise and DIY land tour in May and I've decided to shoot both RAW and Jpeg since these will be photos I cannot go back and replace along with the possibility of strange lighting and contrast issues that might trick the metering in my Nikons. BTW, I've noticed that one of mine will shoot TIFF. Not sure if that would be better than RAW, but I doubt it.

[plettza]

I believe the NEF raw files would be better.  Depending on the cameras, the NEF raw files would be 12 or maybe even 14-bit whereas the TIFF files would be more likely 8-bit.

 

The greater the bit depth, the better the range of tones within an image.

[masterdrago]

I've, over the recent years, shot a lot of stuff with an HDR setting and have really liked the results. Clearly there are limitations as any movement during the two images will appear obvious is the final image. I would shoot all the shots on our upcoming trip this summer in jpeg as I've mostly done in the past, except that I suspect some of the lighting extremes posed by Glaciers/dark green forest will need an extra wide bit depth. I know my D7500 has 14 bit but not the D5100 (12 bit).

[spthealien]

This is why I shoot RAW. If I took this image purely in JPG, there's no way I would have been able to bring back the river rocks in this picture. Most newer cameras have decent dynamic range, but in order to leverage all the dynamic range, you'll need to shoot in RAW.

[pierces]

RAW certainly can pull detail out of shadows if needed and restore colors muted by dim light.

 

 

This, however, is a modern JPEG processed in Camera RAW. Granted, if I needed even more range or had really fracked up the settings, RAW would have provided more latitude (there was more shadow lift available but it didn't want the faux-HDR look). Intelligent exposure algorithms, modern JPEG processing and Camera RAW's indifference to the extension on the file being processed are the main reasons I rarely feel the need to shoot RAW. 

 

It is a matter of preference these days rather than one of necessity as it was in the past. If RAW is your preference, by all means, use it. The point is that it is no longer the only way to get great images.

 

Dave

[spthealien]

48 minutes ago, pierces said:

RAW certainly can pull detail out of shadows if needed and restore colors muted by dim light.

 

 

This, however, is a modern JPEG processed in Camera RAW. Granted, if I needed even more range or had really fracked up the settings, RAW would have provided more latitude (there was more shadow lift available but it didn't want the faux-HDR look). Intelligent exposure algorithms, modern JPEG processing and Camera RAW's indifference to the extension on the file being processed are the main reasons I rarely feel the need to shoot RAW. 

 

It is a matter of preference these days rather than one of necessity as it was in the past. If RAW is your preference, by all means, use it. The point is that it is no longer the only way to get great images.

 

Dave

 

Especially if you shoot any of the more contemporary Sony cameras that have DRO. A JPEG shot with higher DRO levels preserve much of the extreme ends of the histogram. That makes it approach the capability of some processed RAW files. Working with it gives you some serious latitude--but it can be dangerous if you do things like astrophotography or strobe shooting.

Edited March 12, 2019 by spthealien

[Cruise_More_Often]

On 2/25/2019 at 8:26 AM, pierces said:

Since this topic pops up about every 2-4 months, I wrote an article a while ago with an (pretty much) objective presentation of the facts involved in what has become a minor religion.

 

RAW vs. JPEG at PPTPhoto.com

 

Dave

 

Very interesting article, Dave. Thank you for linking to it.

[pierces]

59 minutes ago, spthealien said:

 

Especially if you shoot any of the more contemporary Sony cameras that have DRO. A JPEG shot with higher DRO levels preserve much of the extreme ends of the histogram. That makes it approach the capability of some processed RAW files. Working with it gives you some serious latitude--but it can be dangerous if you do things like astrophotography or strobe shooting.

 

You are correct in your DRO assumption. Typically set to DRO Level 2 and yes, I cancel DRO when doing full night shooting since it usually tries too hard in full shadow areas and introduces noise. Never had an issue with flash, but I seldom shoot with my studio strobes and haven't seen an issue on the rare times I use fill-flash. I really mean rare. Since the A6000, low-light shooting has replaced flash in almost all situations.

 

Dave

[spthealien]

5 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

You are correct in your DRO assumption. Typically set to DRO Level 2 and yes, I cancel DRO when doing full night shooting since it usually tries too hard in full shadow areas and introduces noise. Never had an issue with flash, but I seldom shoot with my studio strobes and haven't seen an issue on the rare times I use fill-flash. I really mean rare. Since the A6000, low-light shooting has replaced flash in almost all situations.

 

Dave

 

Oh--it was no assumption. 🙂

 

 

I have delivered JPGs to clients for print and publishing and even wrote an article embedding nothing but JPEGs (https://alphauniverse.com/stories/completely-mobile/). RAW totally has its place in my workflow, but if I can get by with squeezing a bunch of JPGs in a single email--then even better. Truth is, I shoot RAW+JPG and pick and choose which one to deliver on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by spthealien

[Glaciers]

On 3/12/2019 at 2:37 PM, pierces said:

It is a matter of preference these days rather than one of necessity as it was in the past. If RAW is your preference, by all means, use it. The point is that it is no longer the only way to get great images.

 

Dave

 

For me, RAW works as it's a little more forgiving if I don't get the settings quite right when I push the button. I'm still working on that...

[Vesper2112]

Being COMPLETELY new to all of this, and after reading all the opinions about it, it seems it'd be best to shoot RAW and JPG as a "just in case". As many have said, memory is cheap. I'm going on a trip next week and I can't see a downside to shooting in both since I don't have the experience that you all have. I'm "ok" in photoshop, but I'm thinking that I'll have the shots as jpegs for posting stuff on facebook during or soon after the trip, but will have the RAW files in case I want to mess with them later (in which I'll have all the time I want to do that). Thanks!

[WVHillbilly]

10 hours ago, Vesper2112 said:

Being COMPLETELY new to all of this, and after reading all the opinions about it, it seems it'd be best to shoot RAW and JPG as a "just in case". As many have said, memory is cheap. I'm going on a trip next week and I can't see a downside to shooting in both since I don't have the experience that you all have. I'm "ok" in photoshop, but I'm thinking that I'll have the shots as jpegs for posting stuff on facebook during or soon after the trip, but will have the RAW files in case I want to mess with them later (in which I'll have all the time I want to do that). Thanks!

I found that I prefer the raw files as it gives me the latitude to tweak the image into what I think the pic should have looked like.  I'm often not shooting at the ideal time and am taking shots quickly and may not get the settings correctly.

[chipmaster]

On 8/28/2019 at 6:12 AM, Vesper2112 said:

Being COMPLETELY new to all of this, and after reading all the opinions about it, it seems it'd be best to shoot RAW and JPG as a "just in case". As many have said, memory is cheap. I'm going on a trip next week and I can't see a downside to shooting in both since I don't have the experience that you all have. I'm "ok" in photoshop, but I'm thinking that I'll have the shots as jpegs for posting stuff on facebook during or soon after the trip, but will have the RAW files in case I want to mess with them later (in which I'll have all the time I want to do that). Thanks!

 

Go scan the photography forums at photo buff sites and you'll find long threads praising the virtue of RAW.   I see RAW like shooting film and having your own darkroom.  That electronic darkroom is pretty simple compared to a darkroom, just need a lot more HDD, some serious computational power if you are shooting the latest high pixel cameras, and of course lots of storage cards. 

I guess I used to always take my pictures to the drive up developments decades ago, one-hour photo when we still had them and find JPG good enough, is RAW with another 2-5' peeping and adjusting with a big calibrated monitor better, yeah.    But after a short experiment shooting some low light sports, really never found that JPG was incapable of producing suitable prints up to the 11x17 or larger blow ups even for a lowely 12Meg, LOL

 

Happy shooting and editing, eager to hear when you print, even though you can see the difference, but if you presented the JPG stand alone would most people, of course if you shoot for yourself, and having the best possible pixel data and best possible what makes you happy, go for RAW.

[TagalongWell]

Been a while since I opined, take what I say in the context that my favorite photo software is Adobe Lightroom.  Raw photos give you more to work with in chasing perfection. But unless you perform a default adjustment when you import, your Raw photos will look flat.  The brain in modern camera will produce a good jpeg almost always. If you want a decent photo fast, the camera jpeg is hard to beat. If you enjoy the “digital dark room” (great name) the you want raw.  If you want both, have the camera give you both. You can have your cake and eat it too. But it does take more memory 

 

happy shooting 

[ThelovelyRach]

I like jpg smaller file.  Go on what easier for you with editing.

[donaldsc]

I shoot RAW and JPEG because the RAW files gives me more post processing options.  With new cameras, most of the time the jpeg pictures comes out very well so minimal or no post processing is necessary and I can delete the raw file.  If I don't like the jpeg file, then I will use to make the adjustments to the raw files that you can't make to a jpeg files.  

 

What I am basically saying is that the raw files gives me a backup file just in case.  In the end, you do not have to save both files although storage today is so cheap that you might as well save both.

 

DON

[GUT2407]

I normally shoot hi res JPEG unless it is something important and unrepeatable when I shoot both.

 

So a cruise JPEG a wedding RAW and JPEG.

 

Though I seldom do much post processing the option is there.

[plettza]

Since I got my little RX100 Mark VI, I've pretty much selected RAW+JPG exclusively on that camera as well as my Canon 7D and 5D Mark III.  As the Sony and 7D only use a single card slots, the memory card fills up quicker but I find for snapshot shooting, I can simply copy the JPGs to my Pictures folder and share them as I need.  I'm pretty happy with Sony RX100 VI processing.  On my 5D, I set it to write JPGs to the SD card and the RAWs to the CF slot.

 

In all cases, I do this so if I happen to snap a great image, I can work on it in my RAW editor.  For the remaining JPGs, I don't need to mess around with processing as much.

 

For portraiture, I'll use the RAWs mainly and process them exclusively.

[GUT2407]

1 hour ago, plettza said:

Since I got my little RX100 Mark VI, I've pretty much selected RAW+JPG exclusively on that camera as well as my Canon 7D and 5D Mark III.  As the Sony and 7D only use a single card slots, the memory card fills up quicker but I find for snapshot shooting, I can simply copy the JPGs to my Pictures folder and share them as I need.  I'm pretty happy with Sony RX100 VI processing.  On my 5D, I set it to write JPGs to the SD card and the RAWs to the CF slot.

 

In all cases, I do this so if I happen to snap a great image, I can work on it in my RAW editor.  For the remaining JPGs, I don't need to mess around with processing as much.

 

For portraiture, I'll use the RAWs mainly and process them exclusively.

But fortunately cards are so much bigger now, the only benefit I see in dual slots is redundancy in case you get one of the very rare corrupted cards.

[Ann_on_the_road]

Awakening a dormant thread to add this: when I taught adult learners with their first DSLRs, I would ask them their interest level in learning software. IMHO photo editing software is as steep a climb as navigating aperture/shutter/iso for beginners. Anyone who was interested in post-processing, I suggested shooting both and using the jpg as the reference while learning the tools to process the raw file. It’s easier to learn to adjust sliders by comparing similarities than to judge good/bad (different parts of the  brain at work). Good/bad can wait until you understand how the tools work. Raw+jpg is about a 10% penalty on storage, so once you decide whether you enjoy spending enormous amounts of time in the digital darkroom, you”ll know which file type is best for you. But I warn my students, raw files look super crappy on download. For math reasons, it is  much easier to add saturation, contrast and brightness than to tone it down. So raw files look dull and flat at first download, despairingly so at first. I have a preset in Lightroom that applies a contrast/saturation boost on download automatically because I now know My preferred general starting point for my camera. The only other reason to shoot raw is to not have to think about white balance, but that’s a different class segment, lol. 
 

tl;dr make the raw and jpg match before worrying about making them “good.”

[framer]

RAW is for a tweaker, me.  I use cameras with dual data cards and I set one to RAW and the other to JPG.  I normally just format over the JPG's but if I need a fast image to send it can be used.  I do save what I want to keep in RAW format.  When I print it's always from RAW.  I use Adobe CS6 and DxO OpticsPro 11 to process the RAW files. 

 

Not to be a wiseguy I had to take a shot at fixing that dog photo.

 

 

 

I copied the jpg file from the board and used CS6. 

 

framer

Edited December 6, 2019 by framer

[WVHillbilly]

Happy to see that this thread continually grows legs.  Since my original question, I continue to shoot in jpg and raw.  Most of my photos are taken in auto mode as they are quick shots on excursions/ships, local festivals and car shows.  Tweaking the images in raw makes them standout in my opinion.  I know that many complain that shooting in raw and jpg uses to much memory; I just try to carry extra SD cards and load them to a laptop and an external HD daily and clear the cards for the next days shooting.