Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 22, 2009, 9:07 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Default why shoot in both raw and jpeg?

I am a real beginner in the field of RAW photography, but can see the advantages of using it when taking pictures. What I cannot understand is, why do so many people recommend taking pics in both RAW and JPEG? Afterall, you can convert any RAW files easily enough to JPEG on your PC having first done any editing you want to them. Why take up precious space on your memory card to record both? please can someone enlighten me?
simonbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 22, 2009, 10:37 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
BinaryGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 25
Default

I personally shoot only RAW myself, but there's one thing that I read and one thing my brain managed to come up with. The one thing that I read is that some people say it improves their workflow. JPEGs are faster to work with overall and the one thing I thought of based on a recent experience ties into this.

If I pass my photos to a client to proof, then I need to convert each RAW file to JPEG, otherwise the client cannot do a thing with the RAW files (talking about ordinary people, not companies that can process them or know what they are doing). And it can take a little extra time to do all that saving, so if I were to have both RAW+JPEG, then I could've just quickly burned those JPEG files to CD or DVD and be over with it; well until the client comes back with whatever request.

Based on that, I might actually get into the habit of shooting RAW+JPEG... especially when there are over a hundred images to deal with, and I'm not too worried about memory as I have plenty of storage. But photos shot for my own purposes, I'll just stick to RAW personally.
__________________
Check out my photography series on YouTube!
My Website | My Blog | My YouTube Channel | My Photography
BinaryGraphite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 3:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 12,922
Default

Compared to the size a of RAW file, the additional space a JPEG file requires isn't very significant, so space and speed aren't much of an issue. I think the main advantage, as BinaryGraphite says, is the ability to quickly distribute JPEG files for proofing, while you do the real work on the RAW files. Once you start passing out the RAW files, you lose control of the image you captured.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • A good camera helps a good photographer; it doesn't make one.
  • If you're going to use a filter, make it a good one.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 3:17 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Recently I bought the Canon Rebel XSi + 18-55 IS Lens Kit and this week I'm going to order two 16 GB SDHC-Cards... so there's a lot of space for my pictures .

Next year I'll go to a trip from Chicago to NYC for our honeymoon - would you guys recommend me to shoot everything with RAW + JPG? I think It would be better, so that I have better material for PP if I want to do something with my pics...

My second question is: Can I make HDR-Pics from RAW-Files? I could imagine that it's possible if I generate three JPEGS (under-, over- and normal exposure) - it would be approximately the same as if i take a auto bracket with -2/0/+2, or are my thoughts wrong?

Thank's for all your help!
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 4:49 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,350
Default

Shooting jpg, RAW or jpg and RAW is always a big question and something that people often have very differing opinions on. I used to always shoot wedding in jpg and RAW but found that I was never using the RAW ones as they were only a safety net for badly exposed shots so now I work 100% in jpg. I'm not saying that it won't help some people and we know that certain cameras like the Pentax K10 don't do well in jpg so RAW is essential. Time when I would say never use RAW no matter on the user/skill etc is sports shooting where you can't get the speed as the buffer will fill too quickly.

If you are not working with a lot of photos and the extra work of RAW isn't a problem for you then there are slight gains in dynamic range but for me these are not enough to make up for the space/processing increases.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 5:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 12,922
Default

I'd say that for snapshots and travel photos, RAW is a waste. You're likely to take hundreds, if not thousands of photos, and you're not going to want to spend the next few weeks after your return processing all those RAW files.

RAW is great when you only have one chance to get it right. For everything else, shoot JPEG.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • A good camera helps a good photographer; it doesn't make one.
  • If you're going to use a filter, make it a good one.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 5:13 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Thank's TCav and Mark for your opinions! And what about the HDR thing? Can I do this RAW-based or do I need auto bracketing?
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 6:26 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 12,922
Default

You can do HDR with either RAW or JPEG files. RAW files will give you more to work with, but will require you to do more work.

And you can use Auto Exposure Bracketing to create either RAW or JPEG files.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • A good camera helps a good photographer; it doesn't make one.
  • If you're going to use a filter, make it a good one.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 6:43 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You can do HDR with either RAW or JPEG files. RAW files will give you more to work with, but will require you to do more work.

And you can use Auto Exposure Bracketing to create either RAW or JPEG files.
OK, and what if I only shoot ONE picture in RAW-format and then create THREE differently exposed JPEG's from this and make a HDR - is this possible?
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2009, 2:19 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 15,633
Default

Sure that's possible, assuming that the scene is only a bit beyond the sensor's capability. You'll have much better luck shooting raw as you'll have more latitude with processing.

However, you won't get very good results compared to taking 3 shots that are bracketed. If a scene requires HDR and you expose for the mid-tones, you'll blow out the highlights - blown highlights mean no information to recover, even though you shot raw. If you expose for the highlights and push the exposure for the shadows you'll introduce a lot of noise. If the dynamic range is really significant, you won't be able to get enough detail in the shadows to make it worth it.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
0
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:05 AM.




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2