Author Topic: JPG, RAW or Both? (Read 6009 times)

Handheld · « **Reply #50 on:** December 08, 2011, 02:37:49 PM »

Mostly raw but it depends on the subject, camera and purpose. In situations where the camera buffer fills up quickly, such as sports, smaller JPEG files help. Situations where fast image turnaround is required, such as workshops, also favor JPEG. Added to that, a couple of my cameras do not shoot raw. Otherwise, raw files are nice to have for more flexible processing--now or years from now when my skills and tools will be different. In the end, output is almost always JPEG or prints, so I shoot raw just because I can.

However, raw has several disadvantages. The master, plus the converted and processed file(s), plus all the backups take up significant storage space. File management can become a real hassle. Second, raw converters are all a bit different and introduce their own "style" into the photos, so I always have to tweak the file somewhat to get what looks good to me. Lastly, I'm pretty sure JPEG files will be recognizable many years from now but I can't say the same for the camera-specific raw formats.

mynameisjonas · « **Reply #51 on:** December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM »

I think file management is much easier with RAW. Before, I used to have one folder with the original JPEGs, one folder with the processed files (large PSD files) and one folder with the web/print ready files. Now I only have the RAW file + web exports (prints can be made directly from Lightroom ). It may take up a bit more space (although I'm not so sure it does), but I have a significantly lower amount of files, and they can all be accessed and managed easily via Lightroom.

As long as I keep a copy of the software + OS I use now that recognize these formats, I seen no reason to worry about future software compatibility. If camera-specific RAW goes tits up in favor of a standardized format, I'm sure there will be plenty of tools available to convert the old files.

Handheld · « **Reply #52 on:** December 09, 2011, 09:50:52 AM »

Quote from: mynameisjonas on December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM

I think file management is much easier with RAW. Before, I used to have one folder with the original JPEGs, one folder with the processed files (large PSD files) and one folder with the web/print ready files. Now I only have the RAW file + web exports (prints can be made directly from Lightroom ). It may take up a bit more space (although I'm not so sure it does), but I have a significantly lower amount of files, and they can all be accessed and managed easily via Lightroom.

You're comparing two different workflows. If you shoot JPEG and process in Lightroom, JPEG will definitely have much smaller file storage needs than raw. For example, using E-P1 files with a couple of backups, raw can require 40 MB compared to around 15 MB for JPEG, not including any processed files. At that rate, storage requirements are more than double for raw.

Quote from: mynameisjonas on December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM

As long as I keep a copy of the software + OS I use now that recognize these formats, I seen no reason to worry about future software compatibility. If camera-specific RAW goes tits up in favor of a standardized format, I'm sure there will be plenty of tools available to convert the old files.

As we upgrade hardware and software, support for older versions and even media drops away. There is not much reason for software manufacturers to support obsolete cameras and their highly-specific raw formats. True, in the future there may be tools somewhere that can read old files, but it may be a lot of work to find them and get them running. I already have some compatibility problems with old files as I discovered when I was reviewing photos I took in the late 90s. With the life-cycle of cameras getting increasingly short, I think it prudent to at least be aware of potential problems. It is one reason to shoot raw + JPEG.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #53 on:** December 09, 2011, 10:02:47 AM »

Quote from: Handheld on December 09, 2011, 09:50:52 AM

Quote from: mynameisjonas on December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM
I think file management is much easier with RAW. Before, I used to have one folder with the original JPEGs, one folder with the processed files (large PSD files) and one folder with the web/print ready files. Now I only have the RAW file + web exports (prints can be made directly from Lightroom ). It may take up a bit more space (although I'm not so sure it does), but I have a significantly lower amount of files, and they can all be accessed and managed easily via Lightroom.
You're comparing two different workflows. If you shoot JPEG and process in Lightroom, JPEG will definitely have much smaller file storage needs than raw. For example, using E-P1 files with a couple of backups, raw can require 40 MB compared to around 15 MB for JPEG, not including any processed files. At that rate, storage requirements are more than double for raw.

Quote from: mynameisjonas on December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM
As long as I keep a copy of the software + OS I use now that recognize these formats, I seen no reason to worry about future software compatibility. If camera-specific RAW goes tits up in favor of a standardized format, I'm sure there will be plenty of tools available to convert the old files.
As we upgrade hardware and software, support for older versions and even media drops away. There is not much reason for software manufacturers to support obsolete cameras and their highly-specific raw formats. True, in the future there may be tools somewhere that can read old files, but it may be a lot of work to find them and get them running. I already have some compatibility problems with old files as I discovered when I was reviewing photos I took in the late 90s. With the life-cycle of cameras getting increasingly short, I think it prudent to at least be aware of potential problems. It is one reason to shoot raw + JPEG.

You can always convert the RAW to a TIFF before any editing is done, if needed.... It is a generic RAW after all... OR a DNG for future capability...
YES, even more storage space is needed.....

Handheld · « **Reply #54 on:** December 09, 2011, 09:09:13 PM »

Quote from: M5-User on December 09, 2011, 10:02:47 AM

You can always convert the RAW to a TIFF before any editing is done, if needed.... It is a generic RAW after all... OR a DNG for future capability...
YES, even more storage space is needed.....

Is converting thousands of files into large TIFF versions a reasonable option? That would certainly make me think of another pastime besides photography!

I have used DNG only a few times and it seemed to have compatibility problems of its own. From what I can gather, DNG has many of the same limitations as raw in that any program reading it needs to understand the source camera.

mynameisjonas · « **Reply #55 on:** December 10, 2011, 02:42:24 AM »

Quote from: Handheld on December 09, 2011, 09:50:52 AM

Quote from: mynameisjonas on December 09, 2011, 02:25:27 AM
I think file management is much easier with RAW. Before, I used to have one folder with the original JPEGs, one folder with the processed files (large PSD files) and one folder with the web/print ready files. Now I only have the RAW file + web exports (prints can be made directly from Lightroom ). It may take up a bit more space (although I'm not so sure it does), but I have a significantly lower amount of files, and they can all be accessed and managed easily via Lightroom.
You're comparing two different workflows. If you shoot JPEG and process in Lightroom, JPEG will definitely have much smaller file storage needs than raw. For example, using E-P1 files with a couple of backups, raw can require 40 MB compared to around 15 MB for JPEG, not including any processed files. At that rate, storage requirements are more than double for raw.

Good point. It's just that I've never been able to get good results using Lightroom to process JPEGs.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #56 on:** December 10, 2011, 10:20:37 AM »

Quote from: Handheld on December 09, 2011, 09:09:13 PM

Quote from: M5-User on December 09, 2011, 10:02:47 AM
You can always convert the RAW to a TIFF before any editing is done, if needed.... It is a generic RAW after all... OR a DNG for future capability...
YES, even more storage space is needed.....
Is converting thousands of files into large TIFF versions a reasonable option? That would certainly make me think of another pastime besides photography!

I have used DNG only a few times and it seemed to have compatibility problems of its own. From what I can gather, DNG has many of the same limitations as raw in that any program reading it needs to understand the source camera.

I was bringing that up for future compatibility issues with updated software.....
I realize that in 10 years, you may have 2 or more RAW converters for older cameras. So, converting "The Keepers" to a universal file.... "TIFF".... But keeping the Cameras OEM raw converter CD in a safe place will allow you at least work with them in the future...

I only shoot RAW (G3/RW2), And Capture One 6.3.2 is their latest version.... so, I'm set... I do have SlikPix 6x also, but I don't use it....not a very good GUI as far all tools that are available.

But, everybody has the same issue with future software upgrades.... at one point, you'll have buy a FULL version to save your last versions RAW compatibly to older cameras.

Don't know why these upgrades can't keep ALL PAST compatibility for RAW files...and just add the new ones....... BUT, with Major Changes in Programs, a complete program upgrade is needed, and you have to buy a full version at a discount, and keep your old version also.....

You can convert RAW to JPG w/o developing, but, it will have the in-camera settings for JPG in the conversion...
It is a conundrum for sure... What to do......

I don't worry about it.... Use what you have, keep the OEM RAW Converter, every 10 years you'll probably buy a Full Version for the next 10 years.... Keep the latest old Version for files you probably won't open again..... Your kids don't care about the RAW, they will keep your JPGS as an inheritance to share and archive.

Buy a 32gig SDHC/XD and shoot RAW/JPG is an option

lisandra · « **Reply #57 on:** December 10, 2011, 11:44:52 AM »

Quote from: Handheld on December 09, 2011, 09:09:13 PM

Quote from: M5-User on December 09, 2011, 10:02:47 AM
You can always convert the RAW to a TIFF before any editing is done, if needed.... It is a generic RAW after all... OR a DNG for future capability...
YES, even more storage space is needed.....
Is converting thousands of files into large TIFF versions a reasonable option? That would certainly make me think of another pastime besides photography!

I have used DNG only a few times and it seemed to have compatibility problems of its own. From what I can gather, DNG has many of the same limitations as raw in that any program reading it needs to understand the source camera.

converting a raw file and fine tuning it to what I originally envisioned as perfect is part of the passion side of photography, I've used everything from 5d2s to 1d4s to a55s to pens and panasonics and I've yet to find the perfect or even impressive jpeg. But if its just a hobby or pastime I guess I can understand.

Handheld · « **Reply #58 on:** December 11, 2011, 07:40:19 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on December 10, 2011, 11:44:52 AM

converting a raw file and fine tuning it to what I originally envisioned as perfect is part of the passion side of photography, I've used everything from 5d2s to 1d4s to a55s to pens and panasonics and I've yet to find the perfect or even impressive jpeg. But if its just a hobby or pastime I guess I can understand.

The subject of raw versus JPEG comes up often. There are passionate proponents of both, one of those things that makes the technical side of photography so interesting. Of course, the personal reasons we make photographs is even more to the point. It has been said that the passion is the purpose.

In that respect, the hobbyist may actually have more time to perfect an image because they are not under pressure to make a living at it. Some pros shoot JPEG--a minority but a significant number--because it saves time and money. Others shoot raw but have assistants do much of the processing and if the resulting JPEG passes inspection, it goes to the customer and they are done with it.

I envy photographers who are all about the moment and have no need for raw. I find raw to be irresistibly seductive because I can go back and redo an image later, something I can't do in real life. The challenge is how to store and manage all that data.

JPG, RAW or Both?

Poll

Do you shoot JPG, RAW or both?

Author Topic: JPG, RAW or Both? (Read 6009 times)

Handheld

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

mynameisjonas

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

Handheld

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

Em5 Pete

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

Handheld

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

mynameisjonas

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

Em5 Pete

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

lisandra

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

Handheld

Re: JPG, RAW or Both?

JPG, RAW or Both?

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery