RAW+JPG mode

[roleg]

Why RAW+JPG? Why not just RAW or JPG? What kind of benefit from shots in RAW+JPG mode we are have?
Any comments, please and thank you.

[davidwegs]

I use both as the processing is faster.

I keep all RAW's in a file. Uplaod the (slightly adjusted in levels) medium jpegs to smugmug for proofing. When I am asked for shot #'s 1,5,34 and 192, I go to the RAW version and process/cook it to order. :)

[tim]

That's about the only reason I can think of too. I don't do it because i've gotten reasonably quick at RAW processing, and it reduces my buffer something horrible.

[Andy_T]

If you use RAW, you always have RAW+JPG, because you can not see a RAW file (either in the display of your camera or on your PC). You always see the JPG instead - so 'RAW' is actually always 'RAW+JPG', also on the other Canon cameras (G, S series).

The advantage of RAW+Large JPG (only available on DSLRs) is that you don't have to process the RAW, but can use the large JPG if you are in a hurry.

Best regards,
Andy

[snibbetsj]

I shoot RAW and the smallest jpeg. I print the jpegs as proof shots and any editing can be done on the RAW files as necessary. This really speeds up the workload if I have a hundred or more shots, print contact sheet of small jpegs, look for keepers (or deliver contact sheet and let customer pick shots) then edit deliverables as necessary. Eliminates a lot of extra work (for me).

[Nightcrawler]

I used RAW and the smallest JPEG this last weekend because I was storing pics on my laptop that didn't have a RAW viewer/converter on it. That way I could review my shots on the laptop before I got home.

[Marshy]

Raw shots are defo sharper , but downside is size . I use Breezebrowser to extract jpg,s and convert raw files but for the first time i ran the b,browser processing as well and ended up with a 30mb image !!!!!!!!

[pradeep1]

Yeah, RAW+Large JPG eats up CF cards like nobody's business. On the XT I go from 291 Large JPGs to something like 83 RAW+Large JPG when shooting with a 1GB card.

[Longwatcher]

I shoot Raw + M2 level 8 Jpeg. The RAW is for me, the jpeg is for the model.
I used to use the jpeg to review the set and pick which one I work on, but it has lately become easier to pick from the RAW, so I only use my jpegs to give to the models a copy for their use.

I think I would also use jpeg to review an image on location if for some reason I needed to, but haven't had the need yet. The jpeg does not take up much more then the RAW by itself so I feel it doesn't hurt to take the jpeg at the same time.

Just my opinion and what I do,

[robertwgross]

Why RAW+JPG? Why not just RAW or JPG? What kind of benefit from shots in RAW+JPG mode we are have?
Any comments, please and thank you.

My camera shoots RAW, RAW+JPEG, or JPEG just fine.

I just shoot RAW and stop there.

---Bob Gross---

[mdm]

But what do you do with the raw file ? The jpeg looks pretty dang good.

[Deckyon]

I use RAW + S when shooting events. I have one of the Canon CP300 printers with battery. You cannot direct print a RAW file, but when someone wants a print on the spot (who am I to refuse taking their money) I can just print the JPG version, telling them if they want something larger, I can provide it at a later date.

As to taking up space, get a 20GB portable HDD/Card reader and you do not have to worry about it.

When I get home, (or if I have my laptop onsite) I can, in 5 minutes, burn a proof CD for the people. After that, I dump the JPGs

[robertwgross]

But what do you do with the raw file ?

That sounds like a person who has never explored what can be done with a RAW file.

---Bob Gross---

[mdm]

That's just it, I don't know and that's what I want to know. I'm new to this and I'm concerned about the size of the file to save.

[tim]

Raw shots are defo sharper , but downside is size . I use Breezebrowser to extract jpg,s and convert raw files but for the first time i ran the b,browser processing as well and ended up with a 30mb image !!!!!!!!

RAW shots aren't sharper, as JPG has sharpening applied in camera, whereas RAW aren't touched by the camera. If you sharpen on the PC you might get more apparent detail, but i'd not make the assumption that RAW is sharper without a fair bit of testing and/or evidence.

[snibbetsj]

That's just it, I don't know and that's what I want to know. I'm new to this and I'm concerned about the size of the file to save.

The RAW file contains the original, unaltered shot data from each pixel. You can convert in EVU or DPP (or PSCS or RSE or ...) to a TIF/jpg. The RAW will let you change exposure +/- 2 stops, alter the white balance, color saturate/contrast. So if your shooting in weird light and the AWB isn't quite right, you can, fairly easily, adjust in the RAW processing much better than trying to adjust the color tones of a altered jpg.

[SDK^]

I shoot RAW and the smallest jpeg. I print the jpegs as proof shots and any editing can be done on the RAW files as necessary.

I do the same.
If I didn't use RAW+Small then processing 300+ RAW images for proofs would take a lot longer than just sending the small JPEGS to be developed.

[Longwatcher]

As mentioned RAW gives you more capabilties, but some will say but I can do that with jpegs also. True sort of. With RAW you can do the changes without losing quality/resolution. With jpeg every time you save the image it degrades (like making a copy of a copy on the antique VHS format)it a little bit. You can minimize this by only making changes once so you only save the changed version once and the odds are you may not notice any difference, but it will be there.

So for the highest quality you use RAW.

Jpegs primary uses are; almost everyone can view it, smaller file size, and convienence.

[tim]

See also my post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=462948#post462948) from 10 seconds ago, rather than copying and pasting it.

[mdm]

Thanks for helping me and taking the time to explain the difference of the two.

[jkderby]

Man I like this forum. I can always pick up new insights and knowledge from almost every thread. Thanks also for the explainations.

[roleg]

That's about the only reason I can think of too. I don't do it because i've gotten reasonably quick at RAW processing, and it reduces my buffer something horrible.

Hello Tim." reasonably quick at RAW processing" what is it?Can you tell what do you use for it? Thank you.
Best regards Roleg

[robertwgross]

You know what a RAW file is now?

Well, you can view that RAW file, and not change it. But you can convert it to a usable file, like TIF or JPEG. Along the way in conversion, you can choose to convert it directly, which no changes or improvements, or (with some conversion programs) you can choose to convert it with some little tweaks and changes.

When you do this, ideally you will end up with a usable TIF or JPEG file that is slightly better than what the camera could have done on its own. Some things, the camera can think about better. Other things, the human can think about better.

When you first start converting RAW files, you might want to do it directly and not change anything. Then, try converting them with some improvements. After a while, you can do that in your sleep, but it does take a good eye and some practice.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Hello Tim." reasonably quick at RAW processing" what is it?Can you tell what do you use for it? Thank you.

I use Photoshop CS mostly, occasionally I use RawShooter too. I find them good for different reasons, RS is good for first pass selection, but I think I have more control with PS CS. RS lets me recover some images more easily, particularly ones where part of the image is bright and the rest is in shadows.

[robertwgross]

If every shot you take is perfect in exposure and similar qualities, then you may choose not to fool around with tweaking a RAW image. However, during the RAW-to-JPEG or TIF conversion, it is a good time to repair things that may not have been perfect at the shot time. Common tweaks are to exposure, contrast, and sharpening.

About the famous photographer Ansel Adams, it was said that only part of his skill was in capturing the film image in the first place. The rest of the skill came in the darkroom, tweaking the print a little one way or the other.

The same thing applies now in digital photography. The RAW conversion is your "digital darkroom" opportunity to make it more perfect.

---Bob Gross---

[guitarman3]

I'm new to RAW files and their processing. After reading the messages in this thread I was wondering if the end result of a RAW image is likely a TIFF for archiving, why don't they make digital cameras that produce a TIFF file on the CF card originally so one doesn't have to go through the intermediate step of "processing" the RAW files? Is it that a RAW image is better quality than the TIFF? All the tweaks that can be done on a RAW are doable on a TIFF, right? There must be some advantage to creating RAW images over TIFF, right? Thanks for any insights to this.
Dennis

[robertwgross]

I'm new to RAW files and their processing. After reading the messages in this thread I was wondering if the end result of a RAW image is likely a TIFF for archiving, why don't they make digital cameras that produce a TIFF file on the CF card originally so one doesn't have to go through the intermediate step of "processing" the RAW files? Is it that a RAW image is better quality than the TIFF? All the tweaks that can be done on a RAW are doable on a TIFF, right? There must be some advantage to creating RAW images over TIFF, right? Thanks for any insights to this.
Dennis

Dennis, there are some digital cameras that record a TIF file, but they are not common if you operate in the Canon EOS world.

I shoot RAW files, and then I convert them into TIF files, since that is not lossy. The RAW files get archived into CDR, but then I work with the TIF files mostly. At the very end, when there are no more tweaks or changes, then sometimes the TIF files get converted into JPEG for web publishing or email attachment.

TIF files are big, but they are not lossy. JPEG files are smaller, but they are lossy -- to different degrees (the quality setting in JPEG). If you edit and save, edit and save in a JPEG, you are not doing it much good.

---Bob Gross---

[Bodog]

I'm new to RAW files and their processing. After reading the messages in this thread I was wondering if the end result of a RAW image is likely a TIFF for archiving, why don't they make digital cameras that produce a TIFF file on the CF card originally so one doesn't have to go through the intermediate step of "processing" the RAW files? Is it that a RAW image is better quality than the TIFF? All the tweaks that can be done on a RAW are doable on a TIFF, right? There must be some advantage to creating RAW images over TIFF, right? Thanks for any insights to this.
Dennis
Dennis, A RAW file is not an "image" as we think of a TIFF or JPG file, so you can't compare quality with a TIFF or JPEG. It is only the RAW data taken from each photosite on the CMOS sensor. As such it only contains the luminosity value and single color (RG or B) value for each photosite. This is the advantage of a RAW file. The data is "pure". A viewable image could be derived from a raw file, but it would look a little strange, since each pixel could only be red green or blue, with no variation in tone.To make a full color image, with each pixel containing the full RGB triplet, the RAW data must be "processed", or interpolated, either by the camera's built in processor, or a RAW converter.This interpolation process actualy "guesses" the missing two colors for each pixel. The Camera's process also applies any in-camera settings, such as white balance, sharpening, or color balance. So, whether the resulting file is a TIFF or JPEG, these settings can only be later changed at the cost of some image degradation. (Granted, less in a 16 bit TIFF) You can't go back to the camera and "play it again". With the raw file ands a raw converter you can play it again as many times and as many different ways as you want. That's why I shoot raw.

[dredd1]

RAW is good because if you shoot in raw you have the choice of keeping the high resolution RAW image or using the imbeded jpeg. I extract all the embeded jpegs and browse these as it is easier. Then keep my best images as RAW files. The exposure compensation that can be achieved using RAW is way better than jpeg. I have seen in other links that noise can be less with RAW.

[guitarman3]

Thanks for the info on RAW. It helps a great deal! Now I need to practice adjusting some raw images to see what can be achieved. Appreciate it!

[Bodog]

Practice is the key. I've recently been going over images that I took 2 years ago when i first started using RAW. (with a Minolta Dimage 7) The difference between the images converted then and what I can do now is amazing. I know the software has improved, but I think the big improvement is in my own skills. Another advantage of shooting RAW.
Good luck with your photos...

[rbuttrum]

IMO one of the best reasons for capturing RAW is the 16 Bit image as opposed to the 8 BIT JPEG. I generate 16 Bit TIFFS for final processing in Photoshop CS and find it really helps to eliminate posterization (a lack of tonal continuity or "banding").
I make the conversions with the Russll Brown converter - I love it! You can't beat the price
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html
Everyone should experiment with RAW to find a work process that suits them, its worth the effort.
Ralph

[Pelao]

mdm

Have a look at this

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

and this

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

[Jon]

With jpeg every time you save the image it degrades (like making a copy of a copy on the antique VHS format)it a little bit. You can minimize this by only making changes once so you only save the changed version once and the odds are you may not notice any difference, but it will be there.
. . . or by saving the edited file in a non-lossy format, such as TIF. You have to re-save RAW in a different format for the images to be generally usable, too. And good work practices dictate that you never alter the original image; you only work with a copy, regardless of the format. RAW enforces this for you, since you can't save back to the RAW. With a JPEG original, you have to do this consciously. So what you've identified here isn't an inherent weakness of JPEG capture as much as of JPEG editing.