RAW + JPG?

Why do cameras offer the RAW + JPG setting? Will photo-shop elements 9 convert a RAW file or do I need to convert with DPP and then take it to PS (I have just downloaded the trial). Finally, for simple image processing, I am finding I prefer some tools in DPP while another tool in zoombrowser. Does anyone ever go back and forth between programs when processing? Maybe PS will eliminate the need for this? Now, for the super newbie question...does it even make sense to convert a RAW image and then process it as a JPG or does that defeat the purpose of shooting in RAW? Hmmm, more questions in this post than I meant to put. Thanks everyone.

Probably several reasons, but one is: depending on what software you are using, even browsing RAW files can take a long time. The combo gives you the best of both worlds: quick access to your shots and the added benefits of RAW if you need it (the reasons for "if you need raw" changes from person to person, some people rarely use raw, other use it exclusively).

I personally just shoot raw and use ACDSee to browse them (which is very fast).

idsurfer wrote in post #11671328
Why do cameras offer the RAW + JPG setting?

Because they can. Actually, there are times that this is handy.

idsurfer wrote in post #11671328
Will photo-shop elements 9 convert a RAW file or do I need to convert with DPP and then take it to PS (I have just downloaded the trial).

Can't help, not a Elements user so I'm guessing, but I believe Elements does include ARC, the Adobe raw processor.

idsurfer wrote in post #11671328
Does anyone ever go back and forth between programs when processing?

I routinely go back and forth between DPP, Lightroom, or ARC. Each raw processor does some things well but not everything. Also, many times after the raw conversion, the image requires other post processing before it's final form.

idsurfer wrote in post #11671328
Now, for the super newbie question...does it even make sense to convert a RAW image and then process it as a JPG or does that defeat the purpose of shooting in RAW?

A raw image is exactly that and must be processed into some format that is usable by others. Think of a raw image as your digital negative. All the information needed to generate an image is there, but not in a form that you would hang on a wall. So before it becomes a usable image, you'll have to convert it to some other form other than raw.

That said, there is one instance where you can keep it as raw and that is if your only use of the image will be to view on your own PC but even there, you're not viewing the raw image, but the embedded jpeg image.

gjl711 wrote in post #11671422
A raw image is exactly that and must be processed into some format that is usable by others. Think of a raw image as your digital negative. All the information needed to generate an image is there, but not in a form that you would hang on a wall. So before it becomes a usable image, you'll have to convert it to some other form other than raw.

That said, there is one instance where you can keep it as raw and that is if your only use of the image will be to view on your own PC but even there, you're not viewing the raw image, but the embedded jpeg image.

I guess my question is do you loose anything by converting an image to another form before processing it or should you try to do all processing before hitting the "convert and save" button in DPP? thanks folks...

idsurfer wrote in post #11672216
I guess my question is do you loose anything by converting an image to another form before processing it or should you try to do all processing before hitting the "convetr and save" button in DPP? thanks folks...

JPG is, by definition, "Lossy compression." Each time a JPG is opened, modified and re-saved, a little detail is lost. Most tools allow you to select your jpg compression rate, thus low compression means very little loss (but not zero).

RAW is not lossy, you pay for every pixel (and then some) in disk space.

idsurfer wrote in post #11672216
I guess my question is do you loose anything by converting an image to another form before processing it or should you try to do all processing before hitting the "convert and save" button in DPP? thanks folks...

It depends on what format it's being converted to. There are formats, like tiff, that are also lossless and as pointed out, jpeg looses data. The first conversion looses color data as you are converting from a form that uses 14 bits to represent a color to one that uses 8. Those bits are gone forever. You also loose some detail in the compression process.

If you're going to process a photo, it is best to do so before compressing the photo. Do as much as you can using your raw converter tool of choice. If more processing is needed, open the image as a tiff and do your editing there. A tiff can be opened and edited multiple times without loss of data. When you have everything as you want, then converting to jpeg/gif/webp or another lossy formats for display is best. Keep the uncompressed image if you thing further editing may be needed.

First, I agree with the above comments to process your Raw files to get as much quality as you can from them. If you need to do "serious" editing in an image editor such as Elements, you can convert to a tiff with no compression loss and then open in Elements. "Best practice" is to only convert/save as a jpeg as a final copy for the Web/sharing or print.

idsurfer wrote in post #11671328
Why do cameras offer the RAW + JPG setting? Will photo-shop elements 9 convert a RAW file or do I need to convert with DPP and then take it to PS (I have just downloaded the trial). Finally, for simple image processing, I am finding I prefer some tools in DPP while another tool in zoombrowser. Does anyone ever go back and forth between programs when processing? Maybe PS will eliminate the need for this? Now, for the super newbie question...does it even make sense to convert a RAW image and then process it as a JPG or does that defeat the purpose of shooting in RAW? Hmmm, more questions in this post than I meant to put. Thanks everyone.

Now as to Elements: Elements has the Adobe Camera Raw processor as a plug-in that you can open with a Raw file from the organizer (or Bridge if you are using a Mac). Camera Raw has some great capabilities, and the organizer has tools such as keywords and other organizing capabilities that you can test during the trial period, so spend some time collecting Raw shoots into the organizer and working with the Raw processor.

You should know, though, that Adobe Camera Raw and DPP don't "share" as far as Raw processing goes -- if you process a Raw file in DPP and then open the same file in Camera Raw you won't see the processing, and vice versa. You'll want to choose which path to take for your final results. For now, you have Elements on a trial, so you may want to keep using DPP as your "main" processor where you will be able to keep track of your work, unless and until you decide to stick to Elements, in which case you may decide to focus on that and Elements will store its Raw processing in its own way.

A big reason people use RAW+JPEG is when they need or want to speed up their post processing but still have the "negative" (i.e. RAW) to provide more customized editing to photos that may need it. Here's an example (loosely based on an actual scenario). Let's say I'm shooting pictures at a marathon (insert just about any other sports event) where I plan on selling the photos to the participants. I have a laptop set up where I can quickly download the jpegs for the potential customers to view. Since the camera has done some of its own post processing to the jpeg according to the settings in the camera, I'm going to get a pretty good photo straight out of the camera. Now, the customer can place his/her order, and I can go home and make any necessary adjustments to the RAW image (or just use the jpeg if it already looks good), have the photos printed and mail them to the client. That is of course just one example to give you an idea where it can be useful.

I'll agree that there are times when Raw+jpeg shooting can be useful, even necessary (such as when you need to immediately deliver photos to a client or an editor).

Consider your needs and act accordingly. If you don't need to deliver a jpeg immediately, then consider the possibility that having jpeg copies of every Raw file will "clutter up" your system! That happened to me when I decided to try the Raw+jpeg approach for some sports shooting I was doing. It wasn't for a client and therefore I didn't need to deliver jpegs to anyone any time soon. I got home that evening and imported hundreds of shots into Lightroom and was faced with the duplications of every shot -- I am in the habit of working with Raw and the jpegs just ended up as baggage and so I deleted them.

So, for most people that's a consideration. For people new to shooting Raw though, shooting Raw+jpeg can be used as a "cross-reference" tool to compare the Raw processing to an out-of-camera jpeg. Assuming that your shot was properly exposed and you had your in-camera settings (Picture Style, White Balance, etc) properly set up, the jpeg can be the "standard reference" for your Raw processing. The end result of your Raw workflow is to equal or better the out-of-camera jpeg, so having both can be helpful and instructive.

The alternative to that approach, which I favor, is to use DPP as the reference -- DPP renders a Raw file using those camera settings so right off the bat you see what the out-of-camera jpeg would look like. You are then free to use either DPP or Camera Raw/Lightroom to, again, equal or exceed that jpeg rendering quality.

I shoot RAW + small fine jpeg. My wife uses the jpegs because she doesn't want to stuff around with post work before she uploads to facebook etc... I use the raw files on the rare occasion I actually take a decent picture to then tweak it a little and re-export etc.

I also started out shooting RAW+jpeg and quickly decided the jpegs were just clutter.
So for me it's: shoot in RAW, do first processing in DPP or ACR, then save as a tiff and finish up in Elements. (And by the way, RAW files can be opened directly in the Elements editor (assuming you have ACR), it's not necessary to use the organizer.)

ncjohn wrote in post #11673948
I also started out shooting RAW+jpeg and quickly decided the jpegs were just clutter.

Me too. Also, when I do PP, I save a JPG with the same name, but different extension. So I like not having all of the JPGs already sitting there where I want to put my PP's jpgs. If there is a JPG, I know at a glance which shots I already determined where worth some PP work.