RAWs and Jpegs

My camera (5D3) will record to two cards simultaneously; I record full-size raw to one, and medium jpeg to the other.

I almost never do anything with the jpegs. Once I've got the raws imported and backed up, I'll throw away the jpegs.

I once had a card failure* and lost the raws, and had to process and deliver the jpegs. They weren't my best work; the lower resolution jpeg gave me somewhat less latitude in portrait editing. The client didn't notice any difference.


* card failure = human error regarding the card. ahem. glad I had two copies.

The only reason I would shoot .jpg is for convenience sake. Where either expediency or technical issues keep me from doing a proper conversion.

john crossley wrote in post #17770666
So what is the point of that? You might as well record RAW to both cards.

I should, but I have a bunch of large SD cards and no large CF cards. So I put raw on the SDs and jpeg on the CF.

I was going to write, "Why would you shoot RAW + jpeg instead of just RAW - why would you ever want an out-of-camera jpeg?"
But then I saw Jon's post:

Jon wrote in post #17768253
I still shoot RAW + JPEG because

1. Even when the OS on a given computer doesn't recognize the RAW format for my camera, I can view the files in a directory without having to open an editor.
2. Some of the computers I work on don't have photo-editing software that recognizes the file format either.
3. It's quicker and easier to email someone a JPEG right off the card than to extract one from the RAW, resize it and then mail it.

I currently have no reason to shoot a jpeg. . I would never want to download an unedited photo to a computer that didn't have a RAW converter. . I would never want to upload an unedited photo to a program other than a RAW converter. And I have no desire or need to ever send an unedited photo to anyone, or to share an out-of-camera photo anywhere. . I really don't want to ever do anything at all with a photo until I have edited it to the very best of my ability. . And I assumed that any other serious photographers would feel the same way....until I read Jon's post. . So I guess that there are some good valid reasons for some folks to shoot a jpeg copy along with the RAW. . I just never thought of doing any of that stuff with my photos.

I need to keep in mind that others may use photos in different ways than I do. . But for me, I still don't have any reason to have jpegs, or to do anything at all with a photo before it has been fully edited. . I would suggest that you not shoot jpegs anymore, unless you have a specific reason for doing so. . But, if you do have a need for out-of-camera (unedited) jpegs, I would be interested in knowing what it is...........maybe there's something you are doing with your files that would be a good addition to someone else's workflow.

A ciouple of things to keep in mind:

1) Each raw file of late model Canon cameras contains the full size JPG as part of the payload, and you can use some free 3rd party tools that will extract the JPG out should you ever just need JPG.

2) For onesy/twosey needs for JPGs from raw, you can edit the raw in camera on some of the newest models and produce a JPG that you can then send around, etc. In fact, you can change exposure by 1 stop either direction, apply a new picture style, etc.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17770962
...... I would suggest that you not shoot jpegs anymore, unless you have a specific reason for doing so. .But, if you do have a need for out-of-camera (unedited) jpegs, I would be interested in knowing what it is...........maybe there's something you are doing with your files that would be a good addition to someone else's workflow.

My wife and I do road trips that could last 10 days to 2 weeks. That keeps me away from any serious editing capabilities other than my laptop. While away, we like to keep our family, friends and work associates up-to-date on our progress (and safety) with a daily stream of photos via email or on my website.

I shoot raw and jpeg when travelling because I want to be able to do this without spending hours in a hotel room editing pictures on a laptop.

When travelling in our local area, however, its raw only for me.

My 5D is perfect with just JPEG1 at ISO 1600, don't need RAWs at all from it.
500D seem to be better in terms of noise in RAWs with ISO6400 and low light.
Have to try RAW for 5D at 3200, where it is noisy in dark areas in JPEG1.

I shoot RAW, with jpegs going to the SD card as a back-up. I keep my RAW files, but I also keep processed and converted jpegs. Every once in a while, I go through and cull both. When you look at the images after 6 months or better, it gives you fresh eyes as to whether they're really worth keeping or not. That's just me; opinions will vary.

There you have a point! No denying RAW files are huge.

ebiggs wrote in post #17769282
If you have PSE, do you really need LR? Just wondering why you think you do.

If you are shooting RAW and have any desire to edit/process in RAW then you need LR or ACR. The version of ACR that ships with PSE is crippled. It doesn't contain any of the colour adjustment, local adjustment etc tools. It is fine if you just want to tweak the global exposure but for actually editing a RAW file it is useless. The only way to do any serious editing in PSE is to export the image from ACR to the Editor and that means converting to an 8 bit tiff/psd.

I'm not sure why all the hate towards jpeg. How does it hurt to shoot both? I know that many sports photographers shoot only jpeg in order to keep the buffer from filling up. The bottom line is shoot whatever you want no matter what anyone else thinks or does.

longbeachgary wrote in post #17772501
I'm not sure why all the hate towards jpeg.

Not sure where you're seeing all the hate. Folks are voicing their opinions in response to the OP's question.

OK .

Well, there are those who are saying that there's simply no reason to shoot both. While for them, maybe there isn't, for others there is. Sure there are tools that can let you simply and easily extract a JPEG from a RAW, but that's not always an option, nor is it as simple and easy as just clicking on the JPEG the camera recorded as a second file.

longbeachgary wrote in post #17772501
I'm not sure why all the hate towards jpeg. How does it hurt to shoot both? I know that many sports photographers shoot only jpeg in order to keep the buffer from filling up. The bottom line is shoot whatever you want no matter what anyone else thinks or does.

If there is hate for .jobs its because most of us know that shooting .jpgs handicaps your ability to get the most from an image. But most of the responses admit there are times when convenience is more important than Retaining editing flexibility.