# Any meaningful benefit in taking both RAW+JPEG?



## New Daddy (Jun 8, 2015)

I've been taking both RAW & JPEGs, thinking that for friends, I'll just send JPEGs without development, and for my own family, I'll take time to develop the RAWs.

But managing RAW & JPEGs is becoming more of a headache.

Is there any meaningful benefit in taking both RAW+JPEG that I may not have realized? If not, I think I'll drop JPEG and shoot only RAW.


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jun 8, 2015)

Benefits (in my opinion)-
1. An 'Instant' jpg to give to friends. (But it will not have the benefit of your aims for perfection in post processing!) 
2. An image that has been Camera processed (by using a 'style' mode) for comparing with edits to a raw file.

Cons-
1. More storage needed (for both jpg & raw)
2. Confusion over two images the same.

 For me I quickly decided to shoot only 'raw'. It is so easy with presets to selectively create exported jpg files at any time. Send them your "Best".!!

Without using LR there is available a great program that can also create 'instant' jpgs from raws.-
http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html


----------



## clee01l (Jun 8, 2015)

As I was beginning to learn the skills needed to post process RAW images, I took both.  One reason was to try to surpass the JPEG in quality.  The other reason was to have a fall back incase I could not post process the image satisfactorily. After a while I developed a preset that rendered an acceptable image from the RAW when applied on import.  At that point the JPEG became redundant and I stopped shooting RAW+JPEG. Now, I think my post processing skills are much better than those in the camera.


----------



## Hoggy (Jun 8, 2015)

I also used to do both when learning, but then realized that better could be done with the raw and then did away with JPG entirely - even converting all files to DNG and therefore foregoing any possibility of using the camera manufacturers' software, since I only wanted to learn 1 program for all cameras.  BUT I only have 1 friend that lives far away and don't see family anymore, so I can generally take the time with the development. (And as you may have noticed, pretty much ALL raw files need development since the camera isn't applying its manufaturer's proprietary processing.)

One thing you could do if you know you might want to send a quicky for family/friends is only shoot raw+jpg at those times.  Another thing you could do is make sure in the LR preferences under the general tab, that "treat jpg files next to raw files as separate photos" is UNchecked - that way you'll only see one copy of each file, and the jpeg will essentially be invisible to LR.


----------



## Luc (Jun 8, 2015)

I use both mainly to deliver quick stuff to friends but I'm gonna try the program posted here... If it works fine I'll change to Raw only.


----------



## tspear (Jun 9, 2015)

Raw only. Lr can generate an acceptable JPEG easily enough, plus even has the ability to email the JPEG from the program if needed.

Tim


----------



## Hoggy (Jun 9, 2015)

Luc said:


> I use both mainly to deliver quick stuff to friends but I'm gonna try the program posted here... If it works fine I'll change to Raw only.



I looked at the guide from "Instant Jpeg From Raw" and found that all it does is extract the embedded jpeg preview from the raw.  For me that's not possible, since upon import I convert to DNG with no embedded preview - so it wouldn't work.
And anyways, I think there is a plugin for LR that does just that - from JF if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Luc (Jun 9, 2015)

Hoggy said:


> I looked at the guide from "Instant Jpeg From Raw" and found that all it does is extract the embedded jpeg preview from the raw.  For me that's not possible, since upon import I convert to DNG with no embedded preview - so it wouldn't work.
> And anyways, I think there is a plugin for LR that does just that - from JF if I'm not mistaken.




I don't convert to DNG so it might be helpful for me but I'll look into the plug-in


----------



## DaveT (Jun 12, 2015)

I use both because I usually take lots of photos from which I select the best one. It is usually much faster to flip through the JPG photos in a viewer than it is for the RAW files. Once I have selected the one photo I like best, I delete all the JPG files.


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jun 13, 2015)

Just a follow-up on my suggestion of the program 'Instant' jpgs from raw'. True it has severe limitations (for LR users that know better!)
1. True it does NOT work from DNG files.
2. It works independently of LR.  In Windows Explorer you right-click a raw file to see the option "instant jpg from raw".
3. True it does NOT give a full-size pixel image.  eg. a Canon .arw file 3987x2620px produced a .jpg 1660x1080px -"all it does is extract the embedded jpeg preview"

This program is of use only if you need a quick jpg without loading LR. (or for friends with raw images and no program to view them)


----------



## Swandy (Jun 14, 2015)

My only reason for shooting RAW+JPEG is that when I am out I like to use a Canon and Olympus iPhone apps to check the photos and upload some to my iPhone 6. But unfortunately neither app will work with their camera's RAW files. So I have both cameras I use set to RAW+JPEG, but the JPEGs are a lesser quality as far as size and compression.


----------



## Ian.B (Jun 15, 2015)

you could try this...make yourself a basic preset that will convert most raw files to look  a jpg>>export as a jpg and you still have the raw/dng files to seriously edit. Saves the hassle of two  files.

The preset could be something like
cont...............+40
h/light......... -30
shad.............0
white...........+29
black...........-17
clarity ...........+40
vibrance ..........+20

fiddle with detail panel to suit
maybe set lens correction (that tends to kill my LR5 :(]
size could be set into the export preset
two or three clicks and it's mostly done to send pics to where ever

You will need to make the preset to suit you and camera

I use my presets  as a start to editing


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jun 16, 2015)

Nice suggestion Ian.B

Your 2 or 3 clicks might be-
Select images in grid view, Click the "Quick Develop" panel to choose the Custom "Develop" Preset (as you show)
Right-click on a selected image , choose "Export > Your Export to JPG Preset"
Done.


----------



## MrPlow42 (Jun 16, 2015)

Yes one can easily create an acceptable jpg in LR. For most, creating a develop preset  to give the jpgs a general look you like is also easy. On the other hand, the embedded jpg has the manufacturer's color mode. If one likes the effect, why not use it instead of an approximation? There are command line tools (e.g. exiftool) and GUI front ends for such tools (e.g. "instant jpg from raw") that make it easy - and worth the effort, IMHO.

I shoot raw. My usual workflow is delete the unworthy then give individual attention to the keepers. Move the keepers from the YYYY-MM-DD folder to a Keepers folder, leaving the raws for images I retain for something other than asthetic value. Outside of LR a batch file extracts their jpgs, moves them to the auto-import folder and deletes the raws. Back in LR,  export with my preset that scales down and sharpens the jpgs, then deletes the extracts.


----------



## Ian.B (Jun 16, 2015)

Yeah; OK Mr Plow; I will need to think about that w/flow for a while (??)


----------



## Tony Jay (Jun 17, 2015)

My opinion:
The way one shoots (or should shoot) JPEG and RAW are completely different.
Shooting JPEG is very similar to shooting slide film as far as exposing goes.
One also does not anticipate doing much editing to these files.
Shooting RAW, by definition assumes a file not ready for publication.
Ideally, shooting RAW means exposing completely differently to the way one shoots a JPEG.
The idea is to maximise the capabilities of the sensor.
Straight out of the camera these files usually look horrible but appropriately edited in Lightroom (or whatever) the magic of RAW becomes apparent.

So, onto shooting both RAW and JPEG.
Fundamentally, as explained above, an ideal exposure for RAW and an ideal exposure for JPEG almost never intersect.
Shooting a JPEG exposed optimally for a RAW file often results in a completely unusable file.
Shooting a RAW file optimally exposed for a JPEG just leaves tons of image quality on the table.

My advice: in any one situation shoot either RAW of JPEG, never both!
JPEG is ideal for situations where a rapid turnaround is the paramount issue.
If image quality is the key issue go for an optimally exposed RAW image.

More advice: If one is trying to learn how to shoot in RAW, then, well, shoot in RAW!
All the time!
Learn from mistakes and move on - get thoroughly familiar with the art and science of RAW exposure.
Shooting RAW + JPEG condemns one to forever being mired in the wrong mindset for learning RAW exposure.

This is a somewhat editorial post that broadens the original question but is nonetheless worthwhile.

Tony Jay


----------



## tspear (Jun 17, 2015)

Tony,

Curious why you say that a picture is optimized for one or the other.
I used to have a preset which pretty dam close to matching what Canon did in the Camera when shooting JPEG. 
Over the years I started in JPEG, then went to both, then only in RAW. 
As my skills progressed, the amount of time editing a picture has decreased, both because I am faster at the editing and know more, and because my pictures require less "touch ups". 
So I am trying to see how you adjust your shooting technique based on the image format?

Tim


----------



## Ian.B (Jun 17, 2015)

If using JPG only it's often a good idea (when particle) to bracket exposures, especially in tricky lighting. 

Before RAW became easier to edit or acceptable  some top shelf l/scapers bracketed all the time and some even change things like WB and Picture style in the camera and took more bracketed files. They would then get a 'perfect' file in camera plus have some other options to sell. Today LR makes it soo easy to use RAW I doubt any would do it apart maybe from some wide bracketing which is often good insurance 

And Tony; we may have meet before somewhere, possible on tassie-ricks forum (??)


----------



## MrPlow42 (Jun 17, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> My advice: in any one situation shoot either RAW of JPEG, never both!
> JPEG is ideal for situations where a rapid turnaround is the paramount issue.
> If image quality is the key issue go for an optimally exposed RAW image.


JPEG is ideal for any situation where the image quality is good enough. If the JPEG exposure is not acceptable, having shot RAW+JPEG provides one a chance to save the image.


----------



## mcasan (Jun 18, 2015)

I shoot only in raw.  I shoot mostly landscapes and wildlife.  I don't want  to spend camera CPU cycles, card space, or writing bandwidth on creating and writing jpg. I had much rather have all the resources for shooting high frame rate sequences of wildlife in motion.  The same would apply to sports.  I can always use LR to create a jpg on an as needed basis later.

If I want to share an scene with someone instantly, that would be with my iPhone sending a jpg.


----------



## Hoggy (Jun 18, 2015)

mcasan said:


> I don't want  to spend camera CPU cycles, card space, or writing bandwidth on creating and writing jpg.



Very true..  And plus I think most, if not all, camera-raw's already have a full-size jpg embedded in them anyways - made from all the current settings of the camera when captured.  Which, if one is not converting to DNG with no preview and disposing of the proprietary raw, will be stuck in there anyways.  A perfect scenario for IJFR-type extractors.

I know all my cameras (at left) store full-size jpgs.  So when I convert them, I rid them of their previews in the process - and save a relatively hefty amount of space.


----------



## rob211 (Jun 19, 2015)

Many cameras will allow you to create a JPG from a RAW upon review in the camera, which might be good if you only occasionally need to share a photo right away.

I had to do RAW+JPEG for a while since I needed photos that were perceived as "original" from the camera and not at all processed within a computer I controlled. Having the camera do the rendering was seen as less user-controlled than running the photos through something on a computer. But it was a pain and I'm glad I no longer have to do that.


----------



## tspear (Jun 20, 2015)

rob211 said:


> Many cameras will allow you to create a JPG from a RAW upon review in the camera, which might be good if you only occasionally need to share a photo right away.
> 
> I had to do RAW+JPEG for a while since I needed photos that were perceived as "original" from the camera and not at all processed within a computer I controlled. Having the camera do the rendering was seen as less user-controlled than running the photos through something on a computer. But it was a pain and I'm glad I no longer have to do that.



Rob,

I am kinda curious. What was the context where this was required?

Tim


----------



## rob211 (Jun 20, 2015)

tspear said:


> Rob,
> 
> I am kinda curious. What was the context where this was required?
> 
> Tim


Legal work.

Juries aren't at all happy with a witness saying "I just used Adobe Lightroom to punch up the reds and bring out some of the shadows" when "photoshop" is a verb for faking photos....


----------



## tspear (Jun 20, 2015)

Rob,

 
Sounds interesting work, but somehow kinda morbid. Probably because I have a few friends who are forensic technicians that deal with mostly major felony cases in a big city. 

Tim


----------



## New Daddy (Jun 8, 2015)

I've been taking both RAW & JPEGs, thinking that for friends, I'll just send JPEGs without development, and for my own family, I'll take time to develop the RAWs.

But managing RAW & JPEGs is becoming more of a headache.

Is there any meaningful benefit in taking both RAW+JPEG that I may not have realized? If not, I think I'll drop JPEG and shoot only RAW.


----------



## Replytoken (Jun 21, 2015)

tspear said:


> Rob,
> 
> 
> Sounds interesting work, but somehow kinda morbid. Probably because I have a few friends who are forensic technicians that deal with mostly major felony cases in a big city.
> ...



I would not necessarily assume morbid.  Sometimes the viewing audience just needs to know that the image (and subject matter) was not manipulated, and while this is not exactly the best method, it is among the most commonly accepted, especially if there will be no comparison of the original raw file (if one exists).  I do find it a bit amusing that a talented photographer with access to lighting could really create a variety of images between controlling the lighting and setting the various picture controls in the camera.

--Ken


----------



## Tony Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

tspear said:


> Tony,
> 
> Curious why you say that a picture is optimized for one or the other.
> I used to have a preset which pretty dam close to matching what Canon did in the Camera when shooting JPEG.
> ...



Tim, as explained above, shooting JPEGs requires an approach to exposure that is almost identical to shooting slidefilm in the old days.
The ideal way to shoot RAW files however is to maximise the dynamic range of the sensor for any particular lighting situation.
This is referred to as ETTR - *E*xpose *T*o *T*he *R*ight.
Practically what one does is to push the histogram as far to the right as is possible without blowing the highlights.
This approach is only practical at the base ISO of one's camera.
The reason one does this is to push the shadows to the right to minimise the effect of the noise signature of the sensor.
The noise signature is fixed for a particular sensor and the way to minimise its effect is to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, and, moving the exposure of the shadows to the right does just that.
The result of this is that the midtones do not come out of the camera as midtones but usually much brighter (in fact the image in general looks overexposed - but it isn't).
The problem with shooting in such as a way with JPEG's is that the JPEG file is only an 8-bit file (while modern RAW formats are 14- or 16-bit files) and cannnot handle the editing required to get the midtones back to midtones.
So, editing a RAW file in a good RAW converter (such as Lightroom) shot according to the principles of ETTR will result in an image with little or no discernable noise in the shadows and also good tonal separation in the shadows.

It is not possible to shoot according to the principles of ETTR and get a good JPEG out-of-the-camera (it will just look plain awful - likely horribly overexposed) and if one shoots to get a good JPEG out-of-the-camera the the quality of the RAW file will be lacking.

It is true that shooting with late-model cameras, especially those containing Sony sensors (Sony, Nikon, and others), but not current Canon models, that these cameras exhibit what is often referred to as ISO-less behaviour and seem to be able suppress the gain in noise with the gain in ISO to a large extent. The corollary is that one can shoot what appears to be very underexposed RAW files at base ISO and push the exposure in one's favourite RAW converter (likely Lightroom) without the image dissolving into a muddy noisy mess.
For someone like myself who often shoots at the extremes of light and scene dynamic range a sensor that behaves like this is simply manna from heaven.

BTW for disclosure I shoot with both Sony and Canon cameras and don't regard myself a fanboi.

Tony Jay


----------



## tspear (Jun 22, 2015)

Tony,


Interesting; I have heard of ETTR, but mostly in reference to high contrast lighting shots. Such as taking portraits with the light at the targets back. 
Is this your area of focus? I rarely take high contrast lighting shots like this. 

Tim


----------



## Tony Jay (Jun 23, 2015)

tspear said:


> Tony,
> 
> 
> Interesting; I have heard of ETTR, but mostly in reference to high contrast lighting shots. Such as taking portraits with the light at the targets back.
> ...



Actually high-contrast scenes will often exceed the dynamic range o fthe camera sensor making ETTR impossible.
ETTR is for those situations where one can shift the exposure to the right without blowing important highlights.

Tony Jay


----------



## jmj2001 (Aug 23, 2015)

I mostly shoot RAW+JPEG with my cameras.  Now I even have a phone that makes DNG files although I mainly use it for JPEGs.   As others have said already, the JPEGs are handy for sending photos quickly to social media or friends.  Nowadays I sometimes move them from the camera memory card to Lightroom Mobile on my tablet while on a trip.  Sometimes, also, the JPEG is quite good enough to keep (either the camera has done a good job or the photo is just not worth working on) so I delete the RAW and save some disk space and effort.  The only trouble is the complication of the workflow and making sure that you keep one version of every photo.  I made an external tool which helps with this.


----------

