# Why shoot RAW+JPEG?



## Selwin (Oct 8, 2013)

Hi folks,
I regularly meet people asking questions about how to organise their JPEG files when they also shoot RAW. I quit shooting JPEG after getting my first dSLR (Canon 5D) because in my view JPEG files are not useful when the RAW versions are there to edit and export.

Still many shoot both formats nowadays. Could anyone tell me for what reason? Clearly it is not my intention to troll, it is to learn what I apparently don't see.

thanks!

Selwin


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 8, 2013)

Many because they _can_ do so, and for no good reason. Some want Lightroom to make their images look like their cameras' little LCD screens, and for no good reason. Some nail it in camera, but shoot the raws just in case they aren't as good as they think they are. A few have evidential / forensic reasons. Others need to transmit or use their pictures without having the time to process them, which is a perfectly good reason but seems to be in decline (press guys transmit directly from the camera nowadays and the last time I saw it was a wedding photographer selling prints at the event). Whatever, it's enough trouble managing one set of files without cluttering up your system with JPEG copies too. If there isn't a good reason, why make life so hard?

I imagine we're in agreement.

John


----------



## clee01l (Oct 8, 2013)

I think that I had a valid reason for shooting RAW+JPEG when I did.  I also feel that I have a valid reason not to now that I don't. 
Initially, I shot RAW+JPEG when I was not so comfortable with my post processing abilities, and some times the JPEG was "good enough" for the general "run of the mill" Snapshot,  Never knowing when that "prize winning" photo was going to come along, the RAW was there for insurance.   Another very good reason was for the instant gratification of seeing a finished image without having to run them through a number of post processing steps.  My wife was the reason for the instant gratification part as she wanted to see something as soon as I unloaded the camera. ("Chimping" one step removed") 

Now I am more comfortable that I can produce a post processed image better or at least as good as the SOOC JPEG.  Also I have a different camera that permits me to use an Import Develop Preset that will produce an acceptable image without additional post processing.  So, hanging on to more than the embedded JPEG thumbnail in the RAW is unnecessary.


----------



## Av8Chuck (Oct 9, 2013)

If your using an application like CamRanger on a tablet then shooting Raw+JPEG works well, the JPEGS upload much quicker than the RAW so that you have a useful "tethered" wireless workflow.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 9, 2013)

Hi John and Cletus,
Very valid points, I agree. There was a time when I shot jpegs just to see how they look like, but that was just a couple of times. Later I realised I could simply process any RAW file through DPP (I shoot Canon) to get the exact same look as the OOC jpegs. So after that I never bothered.

Hi Chuck,
I agree with you too, tablet use is another topic. This adds to the discussion of smart previews (does Adobe intend to use them for tablet apps too) and yes jpegs load a lot faster.

Any more opinions?

thanks!
Selwin


----------



## JCJR (Oct 9, 2013)

I started shooting both for insurance but soon stopped due to wasting disk space. Then there were situations where I needed the jpeg to share right away.

Now I shoot both on my camara and only import to LR the raw. I delete the jpeg if I didn't need.

I read somewhere that some shoot in B&W to use focus eaking more efficiently. The viewfinder will be in B&W


----------



## MarkNicholas (Oct 10, 2013)

The reason I have done this in the past is to compare the result I get with Lightroom and the result from the camera Raw converter. Having quickly confirmed that I can get far preferabler results in Lightroom I stopped shooting Jpegs.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 11, 2013)

Bill Guy said:


> This is really a good reason to Not Shoot Raw + Jpeg.  In Lightroom if you are shooting Raw you can go to the Camera Calibration panel at the bottom of the Develop section and ...


Almost, but not quite. The settings you mention were created by Adobe to match the looks of the camera manufacturers as closely as possible. However, there are subtle differences. If you really must proces your image in LR exactly like say "Nikon Vivid", it can be uselful to have that jpeg for comparison. In my experience, this is a one time thing anyway, like Mark Nicholas points out above. If ever one needs this jpeg but shot oly RAW, one can generate it by using the camera man. software, like DPP for Canon or Capture for Nikon.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 11, 2013)

JCJR said:


> ...there were situations where I needed the jpeg to share right away. Now I shoot both on my camara and only import to LR the raw. I delete the jpeg if I didn't need.


Now this sounds sensible. I never realised I could shoot both in camera (just to have jpegs ready to send/share) without the hassle of having both versions in LR. I suppose having small jpegs would be ideal in that case.


----------



## dcmackintosh (Oct 25, 2013)

Here's my reasoning for NEF+jpeg. I use a D3 with two 32GB CF cards for shooting sports and other events.  I write NEFs to Card 1 (I can fit about 2,200) and at least Medium Normal jpegs to Card 2.  I have DSLRdashboard (free!) on my Galaxy S4 (Android phone) and can plug in a USB cable and download the jpegs, edit a few in Snapseed, and share nice images on facebook or wherever almost immediately.  The jpegs also serve as a backup in case I lose the NEFs for some reason, and if I do fill Card 1 (I haven't yet in one day) there will still be quite a bit of room on Card 2 so I can then switch to writing NEFs on that one to finish the event.  When I go to a new event I format both cards in the camera to start fresh.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 25, 2013)

Hi dc,
Well thought out. Hey I may go and shoot jpegs for the first time in over 5 years. Based on the replies so far, if I would start a new topic "why have both RAW and JPEG in Lightroom" not many would say they are doing that.


----------



## dcmackintosh (Oct 26, 2013)

I did shoot Large Fine jpegs for one event as an experiment and I was pretty disappointed with what I could with them.  My feeling is that if you're going to do any post-processing beyond a quick crop, the only reason to choose jpegs would be if storage was a huge issue.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 26, 2013)

Well, they load and sort much quicker, especially on low spec'd machines like my Macbook Late 2008. I always shoot RAW, don't get me wrong, but today I advised in another topic to shoot jpegs on a separate card to speed up the sorting process. If you only need that speed for a couple of Facebook or press images, it may be worth shooting the JPEGs alongside the RAWs. However, I would not import those JPEGs in LR. Maybe view and rate them in Bridge quickly to publish within 10 minutes...


----------



## sayhibob (Oct 30, 2013)

No reason to shoot jpg if you are only going to import into Lightroom (Proxy jpg via eye-fi mobi being the exception).  Just be willing and prepared to spend the time to post process in LR/PS---very precise, but also time consuming.    On the other hand, if you simply want snapshots, then why get a DLSR to begin with? Use your smartphone.

If you are shooting for paying clients, then shoot RAW.  It is the most flexible way to shoot.  Do not bother with the camera settings (other than focus modes, exposure, pixel density, etc.)--then you can individually "develop" the RAW pics, in post.  Infinitely better, and outside the heat of battle!  You can ultimately make all the jpgs you want while retaining the flexibility of the edit capabilities of the original RAW image and its (usually mega-hi image density) data.


----------



## Selwin (Oct 30, 2013)

Hi Bob (I said) 
you are absolutely right. That is why I was struggling with why many photogs still shoot RAW+JPEG and there are some situations where speed for publishing is mandatory, that JPEG still offers advantages. But I agree that RAW is always the most flexible when it comes to PP work.


----------



## darky (Nov 5, 2013)

Hello, I am also shooting RAW only, but I extract the embedded full size previews as separate JPG files from the RAW files during my import workflow. These previews have lower quality and files size than the possible camera JPGs, but are good enough for most DAM tasks (comparing, viewing, ...). With this I can save memory space on my camera SD card, the camera is faster with processing/storing and the file transfer from SD card to PC is faster. I use the extracted full size JPGs also to generate cropped, resized and sharpened 16:9 JPGs through an automatic ImageMagick batch process. The generated FullHD-JPGs are synced immediately with my NAS system. So my familiy can see very soon and convenient and fast all photos from NAS on a PC or TV. Of course later on (after LR RAW processing) additional processed (and better) JPG files are added or replaced on the NAS.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 6, 2013)

Good thinking!


----------



## keithz829 (Nov 14, 2013)

I've read this thread with a great deal of interest and thought I'd toss a dime into the conversation.  Because of the type of photography I do, I shoot RAW only in one of my cameras and RAW&JPEG in two of my cameras.  I shoot a lot of infrared and black & white and have specific uses for each camera in order to achieve specific results.

The one that is RAW only is converted to fulltime IR with an 830nm filter and I've found that JPEGs are virtually worthless for anything after the shoot.  

One of the two cameras I shoot RAW&JPEG is also converted to IR, but with a 720nm filter and I can use the JPEG in my version of Photoshop to convert them to false-color IR TIFF files.  

My third camera has not been converted and the JPEGs are used to create quick travelogues in Photoshop while the RAW files are often converted to B&W.


----------



## N Moffitt (Nov 23, 2013)

Interesting thread. I've been using an Eye-Fi card inside a CF adapter in my 7D to shoot RAW+JPG. The Eye-Fi is configured to send only the small JPG to an iPad for better in-field preview.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 23, 2013)

Hi N Moffitt,

That is nice. How much time does it take for the small jpeg to arrive at the iPad?


----------



## N Moffitt (Nov 25, 2013)

Hi Selwin,

The small jpegs transmit in only a couple seconds. I do mostly landscape, so rate is not critical (I wonder what an 8 fps burst would do). I was looking at Canon's WFT, but simply could not justify the cost, let alone for both 5D and 7D. If you're interested, I bought the Extreme CF Adapter (3rd gen) from some source on Amazon to mount the Eye-Fi. Setup of the Eye-Fi was a bit tricky, since I wanted to transmit only the small jpeg (that part was easy) and wanted the Eye-Fi to talk only to my iPad in a peer-peer configuration, rather than to my home's wireless network. It's probably slower to transmit RAW this way (I have not tested) but it satisfies my goal if in-field previews.

I really enjoyed your gallery, by the way. Beautiful!


----------



## Selwin (Nov 25, 2013)

Thanks for having a look and for your compliment 

Do you think the Eye-fi would be suitable for studio work? I'll take the home wifi network option then. I typically shoot short sequences of about one to six images in a row and then I want to check focus and maybe show my subjects how one or several images turns out. Those six images should be on the iPad almost instantly (say within two seconds) or it won't work.


----------



## GDRoth (Nov 26, 2013)

I shoot Fuji X cameras (X100S and X-E2) both with the Fuji X-Trans II sensor. Many people are moving to these from Canon and Nikon DSLR (also including X-Pro1) because of the great OOC JPEGS. Some of the professionals using the X Cams are working only in JPEG. I'm still not confident (and experienced) enough to go JPEG only, so I still shoot RAW. Lately I've been shooting RAW + Fine JPEG and importing both into LR 5.3RC, but mostly as a test to see if I can match the processed RAW with the OOC JPEG.
Dave


----------



## phcorrigan (Nov 27, 2013)

Selwin said:


> Do you think the Eye-fi would be suitable for studio work?



It depends. There is a bit of a delay, but only about 30-40 seconds for my 24 MP RAW files. I used the Eye-Fi for product photos I recently shot for a book, and it was much faster and easier than pulling the card from the camera and importing using a card reader. I convert to DNG, and there is really no way to automate that process with Lightroom. For this project, however, I used FastStone Image Viewer to evaluate the images and only imported those I was going to use into Lightroom, which saved quite a bit of disk space.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 28, 2013)

Hi phcorrigan, welcome to the forum and thanks for posting! In my case I would need a delay performance of under 1 second per small jpeg. That is a totally different image size, well under  1MB. I only need a 2000 pixel jpeg, be it with strong compression to make the image size even smaller, I merely would like to quickly view the image on my iPad.


----------

