# Why I shoot Raw + Jpeg, but need advice on workflow



## MarkB (May 18, 2012)

Greetings everybody!

I could use some friendly advice from folks, but first let me explain my philosophy to put things in perspective.  I know a lot of people question why you would want to shoot raw+jpeg, and here is why I do it...

Raw files are essentially data straight off the camera sensor.  I want this so I have maximum post-processing power.  They are like negatives from film days.  Use the same negative to print a bunch of different versions of that captured moment.  Here is a quote from Ansel Adams: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance.  Each performance differs in subtle ways."  To me, the raw file is like the score, and the jpeg is like a performance.  Of course, jpegs are a little different in that you can capture that performance and throw away the score (jpeg only) and still be able to produce additional "performances" from it.

If all I ever wanted from my expensive camera was raw files, I wouldn't need all of the camera's features for white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc.  However, I do have those features in my camera; I paid for them and I want to use them.  So, I look at raw+jpeg as a way of producing an output image quickly, and if I used those features well on my camera, I'll get some pretty good results.  In fact, there are many times that I will work on a picture in LR only to find out that after exporting it, I like the jpeg from the camera better.

So, I usually shoot both raw and jpeg.  However, there are times (such as when I need high-speed bursts) that I choose to shoot jpeg only, out of necessity.  So, here is where I get to my workflow problem...

When I'm done with a shoot, I end up with many pictures that are raw+jpeg and many that are jpeg only.  Ideally, I want my initial workflow to look like this:

1. Grab all of the jpeg files and store a copy of them in my "final output" folder structure.  After all, these are fully-baked "prints" as far as I'm concerned.
2. In LR, import all of the raw files AND any jpegs that do NOT have corresponding raw files.  These are essentially my "negatives".

So, I end up with two copies of the jpeg-only pictures, one in a LR folder somewhere and one in my "final output" folder structure, which correspond to a negative and a print.  And, for the raw+jpeg pictures, I also end up with a "negative" and a "print".

However, I can't figure out an easy way to quickly perform step 2 above in a non-error-prone way.  I have to manually find files that have both raw+jpeg and delete the jpeg prior to import, without deleting the jpeg files that were taken as jpeg-only.

So, I'm just curious if anybody has thoughts on how to do this efficiently.  Or, if you think I'm just a crazy person who doesn't have a clue, feel free to tell me that as well - as long as you offer up a different approach that is less crazy. 

Thanks!


----------



## clee01l (May 19, 2012)

Welcome Mark to the forum. 
Let me suggest this approach.  Let LR manage everything.  When you do this there is no "final output" folder  Your "fully baked" JPEGs are cataloged in LR and managed in LR.  If you need a print or need a copy, there is the LR export process. You can export the original as one of your options if you like or a derivative containing LR Adjustments crops etc.  Additionally, LR will Keyword your JPEG originals as well as ad Titles and Captions to the JPEG metadata.   When you use LR as an image manager, there is no need to hunt for files using the file system and not need to manually track outside of LR.


----------



## Replytoken (May 19, 2012)

Welcome to the forum!  While I personally do not agree with all of your work flow decisions, I respect that you have given some thought to the issue and will offer my advice based on what you have described.  I would suggest that you copy your files from your card to a hard drive and let Windows Explorer help you sort accordingly.  You could segregate the different types of files into folders and then import them into LR.  This is not necessarily streamlined, but it is safe since you will have the card as a temporary "backup" until you have concluded your import and backup.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## MarkB (May 19, 2012)

clee01l said:


> ...
> You can export the original as one of your options if you like...



Hmmm... Perhaps I'm missing something in all my time spent with LR...  So, let's say I import everything from my shoot.  I now have some pictures that show cr2+jpeg and other files that are jpeg only.  I typically have LR treat the cr2+jpeg as one file, not separate.  So, if I want to export the original jpeg file (and it really is just sitting out there on disc already), how do you choose that version to export?

- MarkB


----------



## MarkB (May 19, 2012)

Replytoken said:


> Welcome to the forum!  While I personally do not agree with all of your work flow decisions...



Thanks for the feedback!  Can you tell me what you disagree with and why?  Do you shoot raw only?  If so, why?
- MarkB


----------



## clee01l (May 19, 2012)

Mark,  You need to set the preferences to treat JPEGS next to RAWs as a Separate file,  This will import both files not just assign the JPEGs as a sidecar to the RAW.  JPEGs as sidecars can not be used or accessed by LR.  If the JPEG is cataloged as a separate file not as a sidecar, on Export choose in the file settings section to export as a JPEG (which while get any LR adjustment applied) or as a PSD, TIFF DNG, or as the Original which has no LR adjustments applied. 

Importing JPEGs as sidecars is a curious option. It preserves the JPEG but LR is unable to access it directly. I do not know of any use for JPEGs as Sidecars.  I'm not sure why Adobe offers this option at all in LR.


----------



## MarkNicholas (May 19, 2012)

MarkB said:


> If all I ever wanted from my expensive camera was raw files, I wouldn't need all of the camera's features for white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc.  However, I do have those features in my camera; I paid for them and I want to use them.
> 
> if you think I'm just a crazy person who doesn't have a clue, feel free to tell me that as well
> 
> Thanks!



Lightroom will do a lot better job with those adjustment features when converting RAW to Jpeg than your camera, and Lightroom has many more adjustment features than your camera has. Also with your camera you only get one chance at getting those limited camera settings right (or to your liking) when creating Jpegs. With Lightroom and the RAW file you can have as many attempts at adjusting the settings as you like all in a non destructive way. You can also have multiple Jpegs of the same photo with completely different settings, e.g. black and white etc. Of course you can "post process" your camera produced Jpegs but you will get far better results and have greater flexibility with the RAW file.

Are you crazy ? Goodness no. I think you are just experiencing Camera Jpeg to RAW transition withdrawal symptoms. When I switched to RAW I continued for a short while to also shoot Jpeg.


----------



## clee01l (May 19, 2012)

MarkNicholas said:


> Are you crazy ? Goodness no. I think you are just experiencing Camera Jpeg to RAW transition withdrawal symptoms. When I switched to RAW I continued for a short while to also shoot Jpeg.


Until I became comfortable with my own capabilities, I too shot RAW+JPEG.  I think Mark Nicolas is correct, it is a natural transition from JPEG Shooter to RAW shooter.


----------



## MarkB (May 19, 2012)

Cletus, thanks so much for your feedback.  I've been using Lightroom ever since 1.0 came out.  I used the RawShooter product by Pixmantec prior to that (Adobe purchased) and that entitled me to a free copy of Lightroom 1.0 when it came out.  Perhaps because of this, I think my perception has always been to use Lightroom more as a raw processor than as a catalog/organization tool.  I think of it as my darkroom.  This is why I have maintained a separate folder structure for my "negatives" and for my "prints".  Perhaps this is the fundamental flaw in my workflow thought process.

I guess I have to do some further thinking on this.  Workflow has always been the hardest part for me to manage.  I'm constantly flip-flopping in my thoughts on how I should do things.  So, any continued advice from folks is definitely welcome.

- MarkB


----------



## MarkB (May 19, 2012)

MarkNicholas said:


> Lightroom will do a lot better job with those adjustment features when converting RAW to Jpeg than your camera, and Lightroom has many more adjustment features than your camera has. Also with your camera you only get one chance at getting those limited camera settings right (or to your liking) when creating Jpegs. With Lightroom and the RAW file you can have as many attempts at adjusting the settings as you like all in a non destructive way. You can also have multiple Jpegs of the same photo with completely different settings, e.g. black and white etc. Of course you can "post process" your camera produced Jpegs but you will get far better results and have greater flexibility with the RAW file.
> 
> Are you crazy ? Goodness no. I think you are just experiencing Camera Jpeg to RAW transition withdrawal symptoms. When I switched to RAW I continued for a short while to also shoot Jpeg.



But this isn't a new transition thing.  I've been shooting Raw for 7 years, and I've always shot raw+jpeg.  I agree that there is a lot more control from LR, but I can't post process everything I shoot, and frankly, even though I've gotten much better at the post processing work over the years, I still find that often the jpegs from the camera have a quality to them that I can't reproduce in LR.  I like what my camera can do!  Plus, there are times that I need to shoot jpeg only (see the O.P.).


----------



## Replytoken (May 19, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Thanks for the feedback!  Can you tell me what you disagree with and why?  Do you shoot raw only?  If so, why?
> - MarkB



Hi Mark,

I think that the other Mark best summed up some of my disagreements in his post above.  I do shoot raw for the most part, unless its "grip and grin" stuff that needs to be made available immediately, usually for web posting.  In cases of the latter, I shoot jpeg, and in rare cases of extremely bad lighting, I will resort to raw+jpeg.  There are some reasons to shoot raw+jpeg, but managing them can sometimes be a hassle depending on your work flow.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (May 19, 2012)

MarkB said:


> ...I still find that often the jpegs from the camera have a quality to them that I can't reproduce in LR.  I like what my camera can do!.



I did not see this post as I was somewhat delayed in responding to your earlier post.  I think you have hit on two related issues that are frequently a sore spot for many LR users.  First, many cameras have the ability to produce nice jpeg images.  While I primarily shoot raw images with a Nikon D300, I do have to admit that the two Olympus digital cameras that I have used were capable of producing some amazing jpeg images.  Granted, I have not tried to reproduce them from raw files, since I did not shoot raw at the time I had one of the cameras, but I can understand the appeal.

Second, IMHO, learning how to "mimic" the look of a camera jpeg with a raw file in LR is not that simple for many people.  It would be great if we could throw up the jpeg and tell LR to make a raw image look the same, but that is not how things work.  Personally, I like working from a raw image.  It allows me the opportunity to decide how I want the final image to look, not how an engineer or marketing manger at the camera company thinks it should look.  And as much as I am not a fan of all of the "app effects" available on smartphone and tablets, I do find them a refreshing fad from the never ending march towards over saturation that took off when Fuji announced Velvia.

--Ken


----------



## bobrobert (May 23, 2012)

Quote MarkB

 I agree that there is a lot more control from LR, but I can't post process everything I shoot,

Unquote

This is something you should think about. Not everything you shoot is a keeper. If I shot 100 images and if I thought that 6 of them were worth processing then I would be happy. Nothing wrong with the rest. Some of them would be bracketed shots. Sort out the keepers from the also rans is a skill.Keep the also rans and in a week or two when you look at them you will find "one or two" more keepers. I read about photographers who try to process all of their images, or most of them, and wonder why they aren't more selective?


----------



## erro (May 23, 2012)

I agree with Robert above. I don't develop all my photos, but i *handle *all photos, several times. And that's where LR shines.

All my photos have to be handled for:
- import
- backup
- culling
- renaming
- keywording
- grouping

Some of the photos are then developed

Some of the photos are exported

My JPG/RAW path has been like this:
- started by shooting JPG only
- read about RAW and switched to RAW only
- finding the RAW-process too cumbersome (this was before I started using LR, I used manufacturer supplied RAW converter or Camera RAW and Bridge, basically handling one image at a time)
- switching to RAW+JPG
- finding that having two copies of all photos was too cumbersome
- started deleting either RAW och JPG copy, keeping only the one I needed (keep good enough JPG, keep RAW for the others)
- finding that process of culling and deleting too cumbersome
- read about LR and realized that image *handling *could be done in a way that fit with my way of thinking and wanting thinks to work
- switched to RAW-only (and JPG-only for the compact camera that doesn't even have RAW capabilities)

Today i shoot with 4 different cameras: 2 DSLR's with RAW-only, one compact with JPG-only and a phone with JPG-only. All photos get imported into LR. Every photo exists only in one copy. Everything can be handled by one program and in the same way.


----------



## Brad Snyder (May 23, 2012)

bobrobert said:


> Quote MarkB
> I read about photographers who try to process all of their images, or most of them, and wonder why they aren't more selective?



I shoot events. Every single shot is a possible sale. Therefore every single shot is a keeper. (except the proverbial foot, or lens cap shots). Even the technically crappy ones, the ones that even Lr can't save, are sellable. People are buying the 'frozen instant in time' and not the 'artsy fartsy' contrast curves, lens correction, and all that other crap. Trust me, brown horses, green grass, blue skies, all the rest is negotiable, if it's mostly in focus/frame and well-timed.  

If I have to reject more than 2% of my 1000+ event shots, I've had a bad day. And I post-process every single one of them in Lr. (twice)


----------



## joemontana57 (May 24, 2012)

I know exactly what you're saying Brad. I shoot dog agility events, I usually shoot 3-4 thousand shots in a weekend, I run them all through LR, for the noise reduction if nothing else. Most of the events are held in dark horse barns, I have a 70-200 f2.8 L lens, and have to usually shoot at 6400 (last weekend I had to go to 12,800

I  do NOT have time to pixel peep; all I can do with that many shots is to make them as presentable as possible and put them in galleries on my website. 



Brad Snyder said:


> I shoot events. Every single shot is a possible sale. Therefore every single shot is a keeper. (except the proverbial foot, or lens cap shots). Even the technically crappy ones, the ones that even Lr can't save, are sellable. People are buying the 'frozen instant in time' and not the 'artsy fartsy' contrast curves, lens correction, and all that other crap. Trust me, brown horses, green grass, blue skies, all the rest is negotiable, if it's mostly in focus/frame and well-timed.
> 
> If I have to reject more than 2% of my 1000+ event shots, I've had a bad day. And I post-process every single one of them in Lr. (twice)


----------



## erro (May 24, 2012)

Joemontana said:


> I know exactly what you're saying Brad. I shoot dog agility events, I usually shoot 3-4 thousand shots in a weekend, I run them all through LR, for the noise reduction if nothing else. Most of the events are held in dark horse barns, I have a 70-200 f2.8 L lens, and have to usually shoot at 6400 (last weekend I had to go to 12,800
> 
> I  do NOT have time to pixel peep; all I can do with that many shots is to make them as presentable as possible and put them in galleries on my website.



But do you go through all 3-4000 photos one by one, applying individual amounts of noise reduction? Or do you take them all as a batch? That's two very different approaches.


----------



## bobrobert (May 24, 2012)

Brad Snyder said:


> I shoot events. Every single shot is a possible sale. Therefore every single shot is a keeper. (except the proverbial foot, or lens cap shots). Even the technically crappy ones, the ones that even Lr can't save, are sellable. People are buying the 'frozen instant in time' and not the 'artsy fartsy' contrast curves, lens correction, and all that other crap. Trust me, brown horses, green grass, blue skies, all the rest is negotiable, if it's mostly in focus/frame and well-timed.
> 
> If I have to reject more than 2% of my 1000+ event shots, I've had a bad day. And I post-process every single one of them in Lr. (twice)




You are very much in a minority when it comes to shooting. 

Quote People are buying the 'frozen instant in time' and not the 'artsy  fartsy' contrast curves, lens correction, and all that other crap Unquote

I wonder why you are using LR? Do you catalogue all of your " keepers" and if your "keepers" are so good out of the camera I think you wasted your dollars buying the program.


----------



## Brad Snyder (May 24, 2012)

I beg your pardon?


----------



## gregDT (May 24, 2012)

I used to work for someone who required this type of 'keep everything' approach. We used to photograph charity fun runs where we'd try to get shots of each runner at certain points along the run and obviously as they crossed the finish line. While we tried to take the best photographs we could and there was a minimum quality we'd not sell below, the fact was that people would buy a picture of themselves regardless of how how wonderful the shot looked or how much we post processed. In fact as we were offering several thousand images per event we couldn't possibly process then apart from some batch processing. For this LR was a great tool. It batch processes very fast and allowed the boss to keep track of all the images from all the events. Using his own file renaming policy and Lightroom's powerful search features made finding and exporting images a far less painful experience than it might have been. On the other hand for my current commercial requirements I would be broke and out of work if I didn't use Lightroom's 'artsy fartsy crap'. 

But to state that these editing tools are either essential or irrelevant is being perhaps a little foolish. Lightroom is highly flexible and meets the needs of a variety of different photographers. There's no write or wrong, just what works for the individual photographer.


----------



## bobrobert (May 25, 2012)

Brad Snyder said:


> I beg your pardon?



I think calling the advanced tools crap was possibly insulting to the users of LR? It wasn't till after my initial post I noticed you are a moderator with a large number of posts and it made the comment more surprising:(


----------



## Brad Snyder (May 25, 2012)

Your opinion is noted. Thank you.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 25, 2012)

gregDT said:


> Lightroom is highly flexible and meets the needs of a variety of different photographers. There's no write or wrong, just what works for the individual photographer.



Greg, I think you nailed it.  I'm sure each member of this forum uses Lightroom slightly differently,  depending on their style of photography.  Many working photographers  only need the basic controls and spending time tweaking each photo in  detail is unnecessary and uneconomical.  Other photographers choose  to do detailed post-processing on a small number of images.  But those differences make photography interesting.  It's simply a matter of context.


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm going to take this discussion in a little bit different direction. It seems to me that a lot of people get their first camera will shoot raw images, and suddenly consider themselves on the verge of being professional photographers who will except nothing but the finest photography. And they shoot in raw, convinced that raw is the only way to get quality images. And with all this expertise that they purchased, they question why others would even consider shooting JPEG images under any circumstances. There are two images in this message, one shot in raw, the other shot in JPEG normal (not even the highest quality JPEG that the camera is capable of taking). I will admit that there are some slight tonal differences. However, for pictures like this which I admit is not a great picture, it's not one that I would never want to spend a lot of time doing anything to. And my point is that for these types of images, even family pictures at a summer picnic, or kids playing in the yard, or the dog running through the hose, or-whatever, JPEG is a reasonable choice (preferable choice, for me) because it eliminates a lot of work. And I don't believe anyone can tell which one was the raw image initially. My final point, raw snobbery is ridiculous. Today's cameras take excellent JPEG images. And in many instances, shooting JPEG can save a lot of unnecessary work.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 1, 2012)

That's a really well explained point Jim.  It certainly depends, not only on the situation, but also on the photographers skills.  It can reduce the amount of editing time, although a number of times I've found that odd 'grab' shots which aren't technically perfect (ok, really quite bad.... ) end up being some of my favourite shots, and they've only been usable because they were shot in raw.  I think, as with most things, it's a case of understanding the pros and cons for each situation and deciding accordingly.


----------



## MarkB (May 18, 2012)

Greetings everybody!

I could use some friendly advice from folks, but first let me explain my philosophy to put things in perspective.  I know a lot of people question why you would want to shoot raw+jpeg, and here is why I do it...

Raw files are essentially data straight off the camera sensor.  I want this so I have maximum post-processing power.  They are like negatives from film days.  Use the same negative to print a bunch of different versions of that captured moment.  Here is a quote from Ansel Adams: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance.  Each performance differs in subtle ways."  To me, the raw file is like the score, and the jpeg is like a performance.  Of course, jpegs are a little different in that you can capture that performance and throw away the score (jpeg only) and still be able to produce additional "performances" from it.

If all I ever wanted from my expensive camera was raw files, I wouldn't need all of the camera's features for white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc.  However, I do have those features in my camera; I paid for them and I want to use them.  So, I look at raw+jpeg as a way of producing an output image quickly, and if I used those features well on my camera, I'll get some pretty good results.  In fact, there are many times that I will work on a picture in LR only to find out that after exporting it, I like the jpeg from the camera better.

So, I usually shoot both raw and jpeg.  However, there are times (such as when I need high-speed bursts) that I choose to shoot jpeg only, out of necessity.  So, here is where I get to my workflow problem...

When I'm done with a shoot, I end up with many pictures that are raw+jpeg and many that are jpeg only.  Ideally, I want my initial workflow to look like this:

1. Grab all of the jpeg files and store a copy of them in my "final output" folder structure.  After all, these are fully-baked "prints" as far as I'm concerned.
2. In LR, import all of the raw files AND any jpegs that do NOT have corresponding raw files.  These are essentially my "negatives".

So, I end up with two copies of the jpeg-only pictures, one in a LR folder somewhere and one in my "final output" folder structure, which correspond to a negative and a print.  And, for the raw+jpeg pictures, I also end up with a "negative" and a "print".

However, I can't figure out an easy way to quickly perform step 2 above in a non-error-prone way.  I have to manually find files that have both raw+jpeg and delete the jpeg prior to import, without deleting the jpeg files that were taken as jpeg-only.

So, I'm just curious if anybody has thoughts on how to do this efficiently.  Or, if you think I'm just a crazy person who doesn't have a clue, feel free to tell me that as well - as long as you offer up a different approach that is less crazy. 

Thanks!


----------



## erro (Jun 1, 2012)

JPG works fine many times. But RAW is handy for those shots where a JPG would blow out the whites. RAW is also handy since you don't have to care about white balance at the time of shooting. And I personally shoot RAW-only just to get a consistent and streamlined workflow.


----------



## Replytoken (Jun 2, 2012)

JimHess43 said:


> And my point is that for these types of images, even family pictures at a summer picnic, or kids playing in the yard, or the dog running through the hose, or-whatever, JPEG is a reasonable choice (preferable choice, for me) because it eliminates a lot of work. And I don't believe anyone can tell which one was the raw image initially. My final point, raw snobbery is ridiculous. Today's cameras take excellent JPEG images. And in many instances, shooting JPEG can save a lot of unnecessary work.



I have to respectfully disagree, and Victoria already touched upon my response in her post.  Some shots are only usable because they were shot in raw.  I ask you to look through your jpeg images and find a shot taken in marginal light or with an incorrect white balance, for example.  Tell me if you think that you could get the same results from editing a jpeg as you could from a raw file.

More importantly, there are some instances where, as a photographer, you may not know in advance that you will have challenging conditions requiring the flexibility of a raw file.  Its really not fun finding out about these challenges after the shoot.  As far as unnecessary work for images that are are not artistic, it takes me just a couple of minutes to process an image in LR, if that.  For me, its a very small price to pay for being able to salvage an image that may turn out to be needed.  And for the record, I do not consider myself a "raw snob".  When shooting "grip and grin" images that get turned over immediately without any editing, I shoot jpeg, but you can bet that I "chimp" a whole lot more while shooting.

Ultimately, as Victoria said, its important to focus on the pros and cons and decide accordingly.  For me, the flexibility and "safety net" that raw offers is to too valuable for me to trade away for a small gain of convenience.  YMMV.

--Ken


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 2, 2012)

My main reason for continuing to shoot raw, is that I believe that raw processing software is still a rapidly improving technology. I am surprised by the improvements I can achieve by reprocessing raw files that I captured 5 years ago. The difference between LR 1 processing and LR 4 is unbelievable. Think of what you can do with LR 8 with your raw files captured today. Your jpeg files would not have the same opportunity for improved processing.


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 2, 2012)

You can respectfully disagree with me all you want, and you can pat yourself on the back reassuring yourself that your way is best. And it probably is. However, I must be different in that I'm not striving to be a professional photographer. If I go out and take a bunch of pictures and one or two or 10 of them don't turn out, it's no big deal. Just keep shooting and there will be a few of them at least that will be yet. The other night at my granddaughter's high school graduation, I shot raw with my D90, my son-in-law shot JPEG with his. Both cameras got very good images. It was a tossup as far as keepers was concerned.


Don't get me wrong here. If I'm on a once-in-a-lifetime trip, or visiting one of my favorite photo spots, I will shoot nothing but raw. No question. I just get a little annoyed when someone mentions they shot a JPEG image and some want to be professional asks the very pointed question, "May I ask why you shot in JPEG?"


I won't bother you with my opinion on this matter, nor will I defend it anymore. If your mind is made up, then so be it. That's the neat thing about photography and Lightroom. There isn't a right answer.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jun 2, 2012)

Jim,

I would like to defend the RAW data file: Why would anyone of sane disposition choose to let their relatively inferior RAW conversion device (the camera) convert priceless RAW data into fossilised Jpegs and then (and this is the worse part) Throw away all that RAW data. Why oh why ? The camera has very limited (and non upgradable) RAW conversion software compared to Lightroom and you only get one chance to get it right in camera... in terms of exposure and other RAW conversion settings such as contrast, white balance, sharpness etc. If just one of those parameters are off then its too late ! You are stuck with your camera produced Jpeg. Yes you can still make some adjustments to this camera produced Jpeg but such adjustments are very limited compared to the adjustments that can be made to a RAW file.

And with the RAW file you can keep coming back to it and have another go such as when your favourite software producer brings out a new version of its RAW conversion software, for example LR4.

When I first started using RAW I initially did not want to let go of also shooting Jpeg but I quickly realised how inferior these camera produced Jpegs are (in terms of adjustment potential).

If you want to continue delegating one of the most important activities in the modern photographic process (RAW conversion) to your relatively inferior camera device then please feel free to do so. We won't laugh... promise.

I am a RAW snob and very proud of it


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 2, 2012)

Why oh why would you want to shoot everything in raw forcing you to devote postprocessing time to almost every image that you shoot? If I can shoot JPEG on certain events and not have to do that postprocessing because the camera will do the work, that is why I would shoot JPEG.


I don't think any of you really took the time to read and comprehend what I wrote. I am not arguing in any way whether or not raw is superior to JPEG. It clearly IS, no question, no argument. And if I'm in the Grand Tetons, or Yellowstone Park, or the Grand Canyon, or Monument Valley, or shooting a wedding, or trying to get a good family photo I'm going to shoot raw. I won't even bother to shoot raw plus JPEG. All I'm saying is that for snapshots like the ones I posted I think JPEG is a good choice. It minimizes the need for postprocessing and the images are fine. I am a raw snob when shooting what I consider to be important images. But for the type of images that I posted here I would just as soon take them in JPEG, download them, and post them. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. But the thing is, I don't care like you seem to.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 2, 2012)

I agree with your point of view and that is fine. Its possible when shooting raw and have appropriate develop settings in Lightroom to achieve immediate access to a matching or improved rendition on import, without much additional effort.

To each his own, as they say, I am sure an Iphone user will say his images display better and faster on the cloud than jpegs from a Canon 5D Mk111.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jun 2, 2012)

JimHess43 said:


> You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. But the thing is, I don't care like you seem to.



I wouldn't say that Jim. You come across as rather passionate about this issue


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 2, 2012)

Well, I guess you're right. But until you send the digital image police to arrest me, I'm still going to do it my way. In a way I'm just sort of having fun with all of you. But in another way I'm just trying to get the point across that there is still a good reason to shoot JPEG images. So we can argue about it as long as we want to. I'm holding my ground.:bluegrin:

In the meantime, go ahead and take this challenge. Tell me which one of the two images I posted came from the raw file. And, tell me how you figured it out.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 2, 2012)

Okay, so I'm going to refer back to my original post here and state that you all are just validating my approach for me.  The back-and-forth that I see here is exactly why I choose to shoot Raw+Jpeg.  To me, it is the best of both worlds.  If I'm going to keep a picture, but don't have the time to do PP on the raw, I have a Jpeg.  If I want to make major, creative adjustments in post, I can do that with the raw.  If I really only have a simple snapshot that I know I don't care to ever re-visit, I can throw the raw away.  If I had things set on the camera poorly and hate the jpeg produced there, I can throw away the jpeg and post process the raw.  I believe that you have all convinced me that I was right to begin with.    I see value in all the opinions expressed here, so I'll just stick with straddling the fence and continue to shoot both (unless I need jpeg-only for burst speed reasons).

Now, the thing no one discussed was a good way to handle the workflow I'd like to utilize which deals with separating the raw from the jpegs on import.  I think I've got a decent plan for how I'm going to do this though.


----------



## erro (Jun 2, 2012)

JimHess: your two photos are not difficult to shoot, so of course a JPG from the camera will do just fine. BUt if you instead compared JPG and RAW while having a burned out sky? Or wrong white balance?

I shoot only RAW, and have a default develop setting that makes most of my RAW's look pretty good automatically. So I don't have to individually post-process each and every image. But if I want to, I have a greater ability to do so than if I had shot JPG.

But the important thing is that everyone think about what they need, and find a solution that works for them.


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 2, 2012)

This debate is about 10 years old without a positive answer. Why did the poster choose to bring it up? Who knows? He is obviously happy with his workflow. Unfortunately "preaching" that he is correct goes against the consensus of opinion regarding flexibility.:(


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 2, 2012)

JimHess43 said:


> Well, I guess you're right. But until you send the digital image police to arrest me, I'm still going to do it my way. In a way I'm just sort of having fun with all of you. But in another way I'm just trying to get the point across that there is still a good reason to shoot JPEG images. So we can argue about it as long as we want to. I'm holding my ground.:bluegrin:
> 
> In the meantime, go ahead and take this challenge. Tell me which one of the two images I posted came from the raw file. And, tell me how you figured it out.



A pointless exercise. One reason is because they are now both jpegs and both are now compressed images and both have information that has been thrown away.


----------



## gregDT (Jun 2, 2012)

I was lucky enough to have been able to spend a little time learning from arguably the finest photojournalist working today, Joe McNally. One of his best quotes and I'm paraphrasing him here was "Love the art but don't get hung up on the tool box". His point was that everything we use in photography are just tools that help us get the job done. Cameras, lenses, strobes, software. It's all just stuff, just our hammers and spanners. We become the best photographer we can be when we treat our photographic gear as tools in the toolbox. The more tools we have the more options we have but it's pointless humping around a bit of kit we're never going to use. Likewise it's wrong to be locked into a shooting format or work flow that doesn't quite work for us. We need to be continuously asking ourselves "Why do I do it this way? Why not do it that way?".

The differences between RAW and Jpeg are well documented and each comes with a set of pluses and minuses. The skill of the photographer is knowing which format to use in which situation to get the result they're searching for. That depends entirely on the individual photographer and their ability to honestly assess what result they want to achieve and how much work they feel is justifiable in achieving those results. It's just us working with tools to create our pictures. I don't think we should get emotionally attached to them. If we do we're in danger of becoming blind to their shortcomings and we'll never adapt and change our methods as we develop as photographers and picture makers.

So RAW or Jpeg, Nikon or Canon, strobes or sunlight, consider everything as a potential option and reject nothing out of hand.

Here end'eth the sermon.... sorry


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 2, 2012)

The fact that both images that I posted are JPEG images goes directly to my point. But none of you seem to have really stopped to consider what I said. And since I am the one who is out of line, the one who has jeopardized all of my photography, the one who is really uninformed and suffering from inferior work, I'm stepping out of this discussion. You are belittling me for my workflow, but you don't even know what my workflow is.


It's my fault, I know. But this has turned into a really stupid discussion that doesn't go anywhere.

So, let me conclude with a little description of my "workflow" as you refer to it. Sunny day, no blown skies, manual exposure (which I like to work in), pictures I want to get out in a hurry, I like to shoot JPEG. Same day, evening, granddaughter's high school graduation, pictures outside late dusk, a little bit of sky light, once in a lifetime event, I shoot raw images.


When my youngest daughter got married I begged my son-in-law to shoot raw images for me. We had a number of family members with good cameras and it turned out that we got as good of images as the "professional" that we hired. Despite my begging, my son-in-law shot JPEG images. It was a sunny day with some cumulus clouds that could blow the JPEG's, and that's exactly what happened. My son-in-law's JPEG images were the only ones that were blown to the point that I couldn't recover some of them. Again, a once-in-a-lifetime event, only a fool would choose to shoot JPEG images.


The only point I was trying to make is that under the right circumstances, and with proper handling of the camera's features, shooting JPEG can be a viable alternative for quick snapshots that you want to get out in a hurry. My experience is that the JPEG images tend to require less postprocessing and, in SOME instances, can lighten the workload and enable me to get images out more quickly. I really don't think I am quite the idiot that some of you seem to think that I am. There, I have said it. And I won't bother you and your superior workflows anymore.


----------



## Replytoken (Jun 2, 2012)

I do not think that you are an idiot, out of line, or suffering from inferior work flow.  On the contrary, you are a very well-informed photographer who has a point that is not easy to convey in a forum.  You clearly understand the issue quite well.  As I see it, the area where we are all getting hung up on is what is considered a "throw away" image that should be shot as a jpeg file.  If the image is not going into my LR catalog, it is probably going to be shot as a jpeg, such as if I am providing a photo to a business documenting something, like a defect in their product.  I guess that our decisions are subject-dependent, and we each draw the line where it is most convenient for us.  The reason that I originally responded to your post, is because it was not clear to me where the line was being drawn, and I was concerned about a reader who is researching this issue and not understanding what a raw file can offer - a greater ability to recover some marginally shot images than the jpeg format offers.

I am not sure if I inadvertently belittled you in my posts, but if I did I would like to apologize.  I have read some of your other posts and given your knowledge about scanning, I hope you continue to post in the forum.  You have a lot to contribute, and I am eventually going to be scanning a large number of negatives and slides when I finally get caught up on my backlog of work.  I am hoping you will be able to offer advice when that time comes.

Respectfully,

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 2, 2012)

Well said Ken.  As far as I see it, that is the point entirely - understand the pros and cons and make a personal decision accordingly, depending on the situation.  Raw vs. JPEG is a web-war, just as much as Mac vs. Windows, but I'd like to think that we can have an adult conversation about those pros and cons here and respect each others decisions too.


----------



## Duncanh (Jun 2, 2012)

To my mind there's not a right or wrong it depends on the purpose of the shoot, the complexity, how much the situation is challenging your equipment, the knowledge of the photographer etc etc etc.

Me - I'm an Event photographer, what do I shoot. jpeg only, raw only or raw+jpeg.

Events - We can shoot 3,000 images in a day that we display straight away so we need to shift them around quickly and can't spend time processing them: we are too busy selling them. Other than social evening events we can't control the shooting environment. What do we shoot ? always jpeg and usually between 1.5 and 3 meg files. We produce quality results by knowing how the camera processes the images and changing the many processing setting there are in the camera if needs be.

Personal family and snapping - jpeg nearly all the time, I don"t want to spend hours post processing, I just want to capture the memory and enjoy it with the family. If I am in a difficult shooting environment I will shoot jpeg + raw but because of what I have leant from shooting events that's not too often.

When I'm shooting for myself (a project or something I just really like) - I'll shoot raw all the time, then enjoy the post processing.

IMHO it's just a flick of a switch, know the differences and select what is right just like every other setting on the camera.


----------



## gregDT (Jun 2, 2012)

Which is exactly my point. RAW and Jpeg are two formats for shooting pictures. Both have benefits and failings. Both have a potential place in a work flow model. It's up to the individual photographer to decide what works for them best in a given situation. As long as we don't hold on to photographic techniques like they are sacred cows but are willing to assess how we work and adapt as necessary then we'll hopefully be using the correct format for our specific needs. 

My problem is that I'm not super organised and the idea of trying to manage both a Jpeg and a RAW version of each shot would be problematic. I'd rather shoot RAW and batch process them to Jpegs on output but that's just my work flow choice. When I shoot for some clients (sports) I'm required to provide Jpeg out of the camera and so that becomes my work flow choice. I agree completely that you have to make a choice based on what you're trying to achieve without holding onto a format for pointless reasons. RAW is NOT the best format for every situation and neither is Jpeg. No photographer is going to shoot every conceivable type of picture and so many will never meet the shoot where Jpeg is the better choice. The problem would be when someone did come to a shoot which required either RAW or Jpeg but stuck the their 'preferred' format to the detriment of their photography either through poor quality results or an over complicated work flow.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2012)

bobrobert said:


> This debate is about 10 years old without a positive answer. Why did the poster choose to bring it up? Who knows? He is obviously happy with his workflow. Unfortunately "preaching" that he is correct goes against the consensus of opinion regarding flexibility.:(



I'm the original poster, and I know this debate is ancient, and I never "preached" that I was correct.  If you bothered to read the original post, you would see that it was NOT a post asking "which is better, Raw or JPEG?"  Nor was it one stating that my way was "the best."  I was asking a question about how to deal with the workflow for someone who chooses to shoot Raw+JPEG.  However, the responses got religious.  I would argue that your post about what topics are being discussed is more preachy than my original post.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2012)

To everyone that has become sucked into this never-ending debate, I apologize.  It was not my intention to go down this rabbit hole.  I was actually looking to see if someone thought about OOC jpegs the way I do and had a good import workflow for it.  As it stands now, I'm going to be writing a script of my own to handle the separation of files just before importing to LR.  The religious debate hasn't changed my mind on which way to set the image quality switch on my camera, but it has reinforced my previous decisions on why I set it the way I do, when I do.


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 3, 2012)

My reply was aimed at JimHess. Unfortunately he hijacked the thread and it descended into confusion. Why he did it and why it was allowed to continue then only the Moderator can answer that.


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 3, 2012)

MarkB said:


> To everyone that has become sucked into this never-ending debate, I apologize.  It was not my intention to go down this rabbit hole.  I was actually looking to see if someone thought about OOC jpegs the way I do and had a good import workflow for it.  As it stands now, I'm going to be writing a script of my own to handle the separation of files just before importing to LR.  The religious debate hasn't changed my mind on which way to set the image quality switch on my camera, but it has reinforced my previous decisions on why I set it the way I do, when I do.



Mark you made this point earlier on in one of your posts.

>I guess I have to do some  further thinking on this.  Workflow has always been the hardest part for  me to manage.  I'm constantly flip-flopping in my thoughts on how I  should do things.  So, any continued advice from folks is definitely  welcome.<

I can see a contradiction in the two posts?

This whole thread has - imo - become a mess without any positive resolution and should now be locked by the Moderator?:(


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 3, 2012)

bobrobert said:


> This whole thread has - imo - become a mess without any positive resolution and should now be locked by the Moderator?:(



I disagree. There are many issues which divide the digital photography world, some of them quite old, and no doubt they will continue to create debate without any positive resolution for quite a while. Think Raw vs DNG, save XMP or not, file renaming, folder organisation, Canon vs Nikon, Apple vs MS, etc, etc, etc. So should we lock those threads as well? How do those of us who are less certain about our workflow learn the pros and cons and reach our own conclusion about what it right for us? 

Sure, if you've already made your own mind up, such recurring threads which go over the same ground may seem a little tiresome. But in that case I think the easy answer is to simply stay away from the discussion it there's nothing constructive to contribute, not locking the thread.

BTW, I didn't see any preaching from JimHess....I saw a reasoned point of view put forward, with a few people then trying to tell him why they thought he was wrong. Yes it got a bit religious after that, as is often the case.....but while it remains civil I personally see no need to lock the thread. Victoria may disagree of course.


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 3, 2012)

It is clear that I have offended some of you. I really didn't mean to "suck" anyone into a debate. Since I have been the offender, I will officially declare this debate ended, and I will no longer interject my annoying comments. I truly am sorry. Enjoy your day.


----------



## MarkB (May 18, 2012)

Greetings everybody!

I could use some friendly advice from folks, but first let me explain my philosophy to put things in perspective.  I know a lot of people question why you would want to shoot raw+jpeg, and here is why I do it...

Raw files are essentially data straight off the camera sensor.  I want this so I have maximum post-processing power.  They are like negatives from film days.  Use the same negative to print a bunch of different versions of that captured moment.  Here is a quote from Ansel Adams: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance.  Each performance differs in subtle ways."  To me, the raw file is like the score, and the jpeg is like a performance.  Of course, jpegs are a little different in that you can capture that performance and throw away the score (jpeg only) and still be able to produce additional "performances" from it.

If all I ever wanted from my expensive camera was raw files, I wouldn't need all of the camera's features for white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc.  However, I do have those features in my camera; I paid for them and I want to use them.  So, I look at raw+jpeg as a way of producing an output image quickly, and if I used those features well on my camera, I'll get some pretty good results.  In fact, there are many times that I will work on a picture in LR only to find out that after exporting it, I like the jpeg from the camera better.

So, I usually shoot both raw and jpeg.  However, there are times (such as when I need high-speed bursts) that I choose to shoot jpeg only, out of necessity.  So, here is where I get to my workflow problem...

When I'm done with a shoot, I end up with many pictures that are raw+jpeg and many that are jpeg only.  Ideally, I want my initial workflow to look like this:

1. Grab all of the jpeg files and store a copy of them in my "final output" folder structure.  After all, these are fully-baked "prints" as far as I'm concerned.
2. In LR, import all of the raw files AND any jpegs that do NOT have corresponding raw files.  These are essentially my "negatives".

So, I end up with two copies of the jpeg-only pictures, one in a LR folder somewhere and one in my "final output" folder structure, which correspond to a negative and a print.  And, for the raw+jpeg pictures, I also end up with a "negative" and a "print".

However, I can't figure out an easy way to quickly perform step 2 above in a non-error-prone way.  I have to manually find files that have both raw+jpeg and delete the jpeg prior to import, without deleting the jpeg files that were taken as jpeg-only.

So, I'm just curious if anybody has thoughts on how to do this efficiently.  Or, if you think I'm just a crazy person who doesn't have a clue, feel free to tell me that as well - as long as you offer up a different approach that is less crazy. 

Thanks!


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 3, 2012)

TNG said:


> while it remains civil I personally see no need to lock the thread. Victoria may disagree of course.



I'm  happy to leave the thread open, as long as it remains civil.  Threads  do go off topic, but rabbit trails often turn out to be the most  interesting.  

I'm not  happy, however, to allow this to become personal.  This is not a kids  playground.  We're all adults who can have a well-reasoned discussion,  without any finger-pointing, name-calling, or personal attacks.

There have been some very interesting comments, and even if we don't all agree, we can learn from each other and respect each others  viewpoints.

All I ask is that everyone involved remember that one of the aims of this forum is to keep a safe, friendly and positive atmosphere that all can enjoy.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 3, 2012)

So coming back round to the original topic, I'm trying to understand what you're wanting to end up with.  There's a bit of your workflow that I think I'm missing.  You said "In LR, import all of the raw files AND any jpegs that do NOT have  corresponding raw files.  These are essentially my "negatives"."  The bit I'm missing is why any JPEGs wouldn't have raw files in this mix?  And are you wanting to import them from the card to a new location at this stage, or just import them into LR?



MarkB said:


> As it stands now, I'm going to be writing a script of my own to handle the separation of files just before importing to LR.



There are 2 ideas floating around.

Downloader Pro might be of interest to you, as it offers much more flexible file-movement, and may save you the effort of writing the script.

But also, if the photos are already on the hard drive, then deselecting the 'import raw+jpeg photos as separate photos' in preferences would import just the raw files for those that have raw+jpeg, and the JPEGs for those that are missing raw files.  But I may be missing something in your plans.


----------



## Gasport (Jun 3, 2012)

[URL="http://www.breezesys.com/Downloader/" said:
			
		

> Downloader Pro[/URL] might be of interest to you, as it offers much more flexible file-movement, and may save you the effort of writing the script.
> 
> .



Any suggestions for an alternative to Downloader Pro for Mac users?


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jun 4, 2012)

Jim,

I don't see how you could have possibly offended anyone with your posts. You have certainly not offended me  I recognised your friendly banter immediately but others were clearly oblivious to it.

I would just like to take issue with the statement made on this thread a number of times that both RAW and Jpeg have advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion this is not the case. In my opinion RAW does not have any "disadvantages". The common so called disadvantages that are often quoted by the Jpegers are "file size" and "the fact you have to spend time processing the file". In my view neither of these represent a disadvantage or if they do they are of such minor consequence as to be insignificant. The latter of these is, in my opinion, is a distinct advantage and benefit.

Another fallacy is that you somehow choose between shooting RAW or Jpeg. In my view there is no such concept. All cameras shoot RAW. The decision you have to make is whether you allow the camera to convert that RAW data in Jpegs or whether you choose to do it yourself using your computer and favourite software.

May the debate rage on


----------



## MarkB (Jun 4, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> So coming back round to the original topic, I'm trying to understand what you're wanting to end up with.  There's a bit of your workflow that I think I'm missing.  You said "In LR, import all of the raw files AND any jpegs that do NOT have  corresponding raw files.  These are essentially my "negatives"."  The bit I'm missing is why any JPEGs wouldn't have raw files in this mix?  And are you wanting to import them from the card to a new location at this stage, or just import them into LR?



Victoria, thanks for asking about this - I respect your opinion.  The reason that some JPEGs wouldn't have an associated raw file is that sometimes I end up shooting JPEG only.  Usually this is when I need more burst capability, since JPEGs are faster to the card, but sometimes I simply choose to shoot JPEG only for many of the same reasons that have been debated in this thread.  Preferably, I'd have a raw file for every shot, but this isn't always practical.

My pattern has always been to throw files into two "buckets": Source and Processed.  Source files are raw if I have one, and jpeg if I don't.  Any jpegs that come out of the camera are always considered to be processed, so they go in the processed bucket.  So, when I shoot jpeg only, that jpeg gets duplicated into both source and processed.  This is why my import workflow requires something more complicated.



Victoria Bampton said:


> There are 2 ideas floating around.
> 
> Downloader Pro might be of interest to you, as it offers much more flexible file-movement, and may save you the effort of writing the script.
> 
> But also, if the photos are already on the hard drive, then deselecting the 'import raw+jpeg photos as separate photos' in preferences would import just the raw files for those that have raw+jpeg, and the JPEGs for those that are missing raw files.  But I may be missing something in your plans.



Downloader Pro might be an option, but I'll have to investigate.  As for importing into LR with both raw+jpeg treated as a single import- that is how I have tried to do things in the past.  But, I still end up with the OOC jpeg getting "lost" inside LR and still need some external means of pulling that version of the image out into my "processed bucket".  Export from LR won't ever give me the OOC jpeg.

Hopefully this makes sense.  I know that some people would argue that perhaps I should just shoot raw when I want raw and jpeg only when I need to, but I still feel that the camera has a lot of good features for producing excellent processed images and I want to use them.  As was discussed in other parts of this thread, there are lots of tools to use.  Post processing in LR is one, and processing in camera is another.  There are also other tools I can use for processing my images, and I might want to use all of those different tools on the same image to see what results I like the best. 

- Mark


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 4, 2012)

MarkNicholas said:


> In my opinion RAW does not have any "disadvantages". The common so called disadvantages that are often quoted by the Jpegers are "file size" and "the fact you have to spend time processing the file". In my view neither of these represent a disadvantage or if they do they are of such minor consequence as to be insignificant. The latter of these is, in my opinion, is a distinct advantage and benefit.



Well, both JimHess and Duncanh have already explained why the LR processing time saving of using Jpeg *IS* an advantage to them, and in Duncanh's case it's perfectly clear that he doesn't have a choice. He has to shoot Jpeg at the events. I'm sure he's not alone.



> All cameras shoot RAW. The decision you have to make is whether you allow the camera to convert that RAW data in Jpegs or whether you choose to do it yourself using your computer and favourite software.



Simply not true. Ever tried getting a Raw file from a smartphone or tablet? Many (most?) P&S cameras will also only shoot Jpeg.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 4, 2012)

Gasport said:


> Any suggestions for an alternative to Downloader Pro for Mac users?



You could take a look at ImageIngester and Ingestamatic.  http://basepath.com/site/ingestamatic-comparison.php  Actually Mark, looks like there's a Windows version too, so that might help if Downloader Pro won't do it.



MarkB said:


> This is why my import workflow requires something more complicated.



Yeah, that makes perfect sense Mark.  You're right, I think you'll probably need an external sorting stage before they hit LR.  Ingestamatic also has an extract-jpeg-from-raw tool, which may save you some card space on occasions when you're a little tight.


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 4, 2012)

I would have thought that in order to obtain a jpeg then raw data - commonly known known as a raw file - has to be captured? Because you can't access the raw it doesn't mean that it isn't there. The Nikon Coolpix 4500 camera which came on the market about 10 years ago was supposedly a jpeg only camera. Somebody devised a way to extract  
 the raw information. I have the camera but didn't try the method.

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

I think you have led a sheltered life?


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 4, 2012)

@bobrobert I am sure you are correct all capture raw data, some cameras just do not provide the option to save the raw data to the card and just save the processed jpeg.
Then it all depends what you understand by "capture". By the sensor or saved to disk?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jun 4, 2012)

Thank you for the clarification, I'm sure that's got to be helpful to someone.


----------



## bobrobert (Jun 4, 2012)

Denis de Gannes said:


> @bobrobert I am sure you are correct all capture raw data, some cameras just do not provide the option to save the raw data to the card and just save the processed jpeg.
> Then it all depends what you understand by "capture". By the sensor or saved to disk?



Captured by the sensor. From what I have read it is computer code, binary 0 + 1. In camera it is rendered to a jpeg. Compressed to a lower value by mostly throwing away information from the blue channel. In lightroom and ACR you aren't actually processing the raw information but a rendered non linear version of the raw information. Earlier cameras used jpeg exclusively to save space on the card. When I started out 12 years ago a 32mb - yes mb - cost £64. Nowadays it would probably get three raw images on the card. This discussion is futile because people will do what suits them and it isn't worth falling out with each other.


----------



## JimHess43 (Jun 4, 2012)

bobrobert said:


> I would have thought that in order to obtain a jpeg then raw data - commonly known known as a raw file - has to be captured? Because you can't access the raw it doesn't mean that it isn't there. The Nikon Coolpix 4500 camera which came on the market about 10 years ago was supposedly a jpeg only camera. Somebody devised a way to extract
> the raw information. I have the camera but didn't try the method.
> 
> I am replying to this at the risk of being accused of sucking you into a raw/JPEG debate. That debate is over, I won't discuss it again. But your concept of all cameras shooting raw is not correct. It's not what the camera captures, it's the type of file that is created and what has to be done to process the data. The raw files are completely different. The data must be processed through a raw processor such as Lightroom, or ACR, or software provided by the camera maker, or other third-party raw processors, before it can be displayed as an image. This simply is not true of JPEG images. Any image viewing software is capable of taking JPEG images straight from the camera and displaying them.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jun 4, 2012)

Ok, so in summary:

Not all cameras will allow the photographer access to the raw data, so for some people it's not even an option.  For those who do have access to raw data, there are pros and cons, many of which have been outlined in this thread.  I think it's time to call it a day now.


----------

