# RAW + JPEG fine



## Avengerx77 (Mar 2, 2016)

Hi everyone. So I now know the cons/pros for shooting in RAW vs JPEG and why for picture details and editing is far better to shoot RAW. Now, what I was not able to find yet is the difference between those two vs the option that combines both in the camera. Aside from creating a larger file (I assume it combines or saves two pictures, one in RAW and another in JPEG). So question here is, what are the benefits, if any, to use this RAW+JPEG fine option, or should I still be aiming to use RAW only?

Thanks.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2016)

Works GREAT when shooting for an eventual B&W final image made from the RAW data--because you can literally SEE, on the LCD how the subject, composition, and the lighting actually work as a B&W. Many subjects look better with different lighting in B&W than in color.

Works GREAT as a way to make archives of small images that can be used as indexes for 20-times-larger RAW files. As a way to have smaller, faster-loading, smaller files for making large libraries of images that can be open and viewed by basically ANY software, on any device that can show an image. As RAW formats change, many older software apps can not handle them.


----------



## sscarmack (Mar 2, 2016)

If I were to shoot in RAW and JPEG, it would only be JPEG small....I don't see the point in have two large files for one photo. Unless you have a dual card slot and you want a back up of something important.

Reasons to shoot both, maybe you want to quickly share a photo from a shoot on the go and you don't want to import to LR, edit quickly, export, etc.

As with the JPEG small, you can just send it off to social media and forget about it.


----------



## WayneF (Mar 2, 2016)

Avengerx77 said:


> Hi everyone. So I now know the cons/pros for shooting in RAW vs JPEG and why for picture details and editing is far better to shoot RAW. Now, what I was not able to find yet is the difference between those two vs the option that combines both in the camera. Aside from creating a larger file (I assume it combines or saves two pictures, one in RAW and another in JPEG). So question here is, what are the benefits, if any, to use this RAW+JPEG fine option, or should I still be aiming to use RAW only?
> 
> Thanks.




All Raw files already include a Large JPG internally, which is what is shown on the rear LCD preview, and allows zooming there, and  is what the camera histogram is computed from (raw data is not yet compatible with those RGB operations).  Some crude editors, claiming to open raw files, merely show this internal JPG.

The option to output Both a raw file and a JPG file seems sort of pointless, since we can always create any JPG we want from the raw file, After we have corrected color and exposure, and improved the image.  Maybe some cannot wait, or are unsure if they can do it. But of course, they settle for less when it is easy to do it.

So IMO, Both files are just for those unsure in their ability to process the raw file.   Or, it could allow a fast preview of the file in the computer before processing it, however the camera manufacturers (I'm sure of Nikon, and assume the others too) offer a free codex for Windows that will show normal thumbnails for raw files too.


----------



## jaomul (Mar 2, 2016)

Quite often I find that the jpegs come out of camera and I don't feel the need to adjust them. It's handy then. Some cameras that have 2 cards can use 1 card raw, other jpeg, in which case the jpegs are a backup if the raw card fails


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 2, 2016)

Instant JPEG from Raw

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2016)

Scarmack brings up a good point...RAW + JPG Basic (in Nikon-speak) is handy, especially for the archiving use I mentioned. On some cameras, RAW+ JPEG allows you to set several paramenters....High, Medium, or Low levels of compression, and three different sizes, as well as a color filter effect, like yellow filter efect, and a toning, like cold-tone, warm tone, or netral.

I like the Basic JPEGs for their creation dates.

On "some cameras", the Medium-sized or even Small-size in-cam created JPEG look great if the Tone Curve and Sharpening are set appropriately. In-camera JPEG has come a hell of a long ways, but taking 36 million or 24 million or even 12 million pixels, and then down-sizing that data can allow for a good noise reduction by way of down-rezzing, with in-camera noise reduction that the engineers have tuned for the specific camera.

One thing some people miss: not everybody is a raw-file-conversion savant like Ysarex is...a LOT of people have shall we say, poor to middlin' image processing skills. My D3x in RAW + JPEG Medium, level 7 sharpening, and Auto TOne curve in Matrix metering can create SOOC JPEG images that look as good...or better than, what I could create in 2013 with Lightroom.

I tried it at some parties and reunions I shot all-ambient light, and two weddings in craptastic light, all-ambient much of the evening...wow! The SOOC images looked...almost exactly like MY Lightroom exports did...

If you are not a particularly software-adept Noise Reduction specialist, your camera might actually be better than you are. ***Modern*** d-slr cameras make far, far different SOOC JPEGS than the older ones do--especially on the newer, vastly better, Sony Exmor-generation 24 and 36 MP sensors. For many people of only modest skill, the Nikon Active Dynamic Lighting on HIGH will create a lower-contrast JPEG that will hold tremendous detail over a wide dynamic range, and then can be adjusted somewhat.

Also...the Picture Control options..those really DO have an impact on the SOOC JPEGs that the camera creates, and there are MASSIVE variations possible. Nikon's Vivid for example...oh The Ghost of Velvia 50... Direct Print...pretty good!

Bottom line: many 'experts' say that the SOOC jpeg files are not good, and they trot out a few example to prove their point..but I would wager the majority of them have never spent more than a little bit of time actually TRYING to understand how the cameras can work. These are the same "experts" that use center-point-only AF on a 51-point AF system and wonder why they cannot get a focus lock in sh**** light, or why their sequences drift in focus point so often. The idea that we will hand-convert every image and spend 3 to 6 minutes per frame...with years' worth of experience...just NOT the way many people work, and frankly, beyond the skill level of many people. On forums you'll seldom hear the other side of the coin...

*Jpeg BAD, RAW is KING!~ *

Medallio D' Oro espresso ground canned coffee brewed in a simple French press, using canned coffee packed in Mexico versus high-elevation grown, hand-picked by rescued orphan pickers, environmentally friendly, non-exploited worker, fair-trade, artisan-roasted, hand-ground with BURR grinder only, gold-filter-Malita-brewed, single cup brewed coffee.


----------



## WayneF (Mar 2, 2016)

Derrel said:


> One thing some people miss: not everybody is a raw-file-conversion savant like Ysarex is...a LOT of people have shall we say, poor to middlin' image processing skills.



I usually always agree with you, but not this time if I understand your meaning correctly.  But yes, it is true that "editing" is a very spooky word for many of us.   The tools in most editors are in fact poor, and Photoshop requires some advanced degree first.

But raw editors are so easy, and so good, and so fast.  It couldn't be easier.  Color is off?  We can see it, so we just try different white balances and methods, and we see the result, and choose a good one. Exposure is off?  We just move the little slider until it looks great.  Picture Control? We just try a few and decide which is the best, based on what we can see it does, and what we want to see.  We simply adjust it to look good to us, after we can see it.   Even cropping - it is lossless edits, so if we change our mind, we can simply put it back.  A few seconds should do most pictures, or in some cases, even large batches of pictures.  It can take a minute to output a large batch of JPG then, but we can go get coffee instead of waiting.

JPG in the camera definitely does NOT work that way.  We have to choose something (everything) before we see anything. Bright sun is about the only white balance we can even hope works right. We can see the rear LCD result, but that's not the same as deciding later on the big monitor at home. If we care, raw is a big plus, easily improving our results.


----------



## KmH (Mar 2, 2016)

Most Raw files embed a JPEG Basic to display on a camera,s rear LCD, and for use to look at as an editing application builds previews.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 2, 2016)

The only time you might need it if you are shooting an event and need to pull a few quick shots say for a deadline.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 2, 2016)

WayneF said:


> JPG in the camera definitely does NOT work that way.  We have to choose something (everything) before we see anything. Bright sun is about the only white balance we can even hope works right. We can see the rear LCD result, but that's not the same as deciding later on the big monitor at home. If we care, raw is a big plus, easily improving our results.


I would suggest (not argue) that with JPEG, we have to choose something _or the camera chooses it for us_.

For me, straight raw works just fine: I'm not doing production (read Pro) work and I don't print or post everything I take, so tweaking everything that is posted or printed in LR is not a big chore.  If I'm shooting in burst mode (not very often), I'll use JPEG simply because it's an older camera and the buffer is small.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 2, 2016)

One important function of the jpeg option is that many, and I mean many sports and events photographers who are feeding a news line shoot jpegs which are sent immediately to the editors.

Of course it must be kept in mind that these people are VERY good photographers and know their equipment so all the jpegs are correct WB, in focus, the right framing the whole ball of wax,  and they change the settings on the fly as conditions change.  If you ever have a chance to go to a pro basketball game you see what I am talking about,,,forget the game and watch the photographers.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 3, 2016)

Considering you can buy a 16 to 32G card for a few dollars nowdays, storage capacity isn't much of a problem for most photographers.  

Shoot in both formats for awhile and see what happens with your usage.  You can determine better than anyone else how you will use your files.   Once you delete the file, then you've feed up that space on your card for more files.   



I'd say, consider Jpegs to be quick and dirty files that you might send on social media or for other quick and dirty uses.  Most modern DSLR's turn out acceptable Jpegs, some better than others, and you can control what the camera does to process the file.   If you like really saturated colors or high contrast etc, that's fairly easy to accomplish with Jpegs.  You're far less likely though to enlarge a Jpeg beyond maybe a 5X7.  

If you have the ability to edit and work with RAW files, then you'll find there's not much real world editing you'll do with a lower quality image file.  That, IMO, makes the additional file very redundant for no good reason in most cases.

If you find you aren't using the Jpegs, then switch your camera back to RAW only.


----------



## sscarmack (Mar 3, 2016)

32???? I have 256 hahahahah


----------



## Braineack (Mar 3, 2016)

I see no reason to save a copy -- in a format you cant do much with -- of an image.  My RAW files are already 30-40MB each, and I've recently had to upgrade to 5GB of extra storage space in my PC to handle all my cat pictures.

having a JPG copy is completely useless to me.  I'll run my processing and save out jpgs of the images I want to share, in the size/quality I want to share them at.

@Derrel did bring out good points, that makes me want to reevaluate things: I have a fairly powerful cpu and gpu, but yet my thumbnails can take time to load...


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2016)

sscarmack said:


> 32???? I have 256 hahahahah


I will see your 256 and raise you a 512 card.


----------



## sscarmack (Mar 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > 32???? I have 256 hahahahah
> ...


BUT, do you actually have that? I'm calling rubbish lol.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 3, 2016)

I am going to revisit that Picture Control feature. Adding to my list, I keep forgetting about that. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Mar 3, 2016)

sscarmack said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...


Yes but not in a camera.  Have an old iMac that the hard drive was starting to go bad. With the iMac you can put an SD card in the slot and make it your boot disk. I got one of these,  put the operating system on it and some games for the granddaughters and it works just fine for them to play their games. They are four and six so the games that are on it are not that large in terms of size.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2016)

Once again, so-called "experts" who simply CAN NOT SEE that there are many,many,many people who simply do not possess the editing skills do perform operations like noise reduction on say, 500 to 1,500 images files from a weekend shoot, or a wedding, or whatever.

Once again, after a long, lengthy logical and reasonable report on how something works with new gear, I read words like "pointless" and "useless". Typical narrow-minded ignorance and an unwillingness to look at anybody else's working methods. Unable to tailor an answer to a first-time or new poster.

TIme to step back from your "expert" perches and wise up, and* start looking at the Original Poster who poses a question*, and start trying to help other people.

Typical *JPEG BAD! RAW IS KING!*   attitudes. Typical responses. Major overkill

Not impressed by the inability to answer a simple question from the point of view. Not impressed by the inability to see ANYTHING except the way you, personally, decree that photos must be handled.

Typical _let's convert a handful of selects_ attitudes here. Those who say "Storage is cheap!!!" and then proclaim, "so *only *shoot raw." Well, if storage is so cheap, then why not stop being a space-pinching retentive, and just keep a JPEG file as a reference on separate media... JFC...a single DVD disc of JPEGS can show the image contents of a multi terrabyte hard drive. So,so smart yet so,so blinded by dogmatic, limited thinking...

NOT EVERYBODY wants to **** around converting every single ******* image from a 20 to 40 megabyte .NEF  or .CR2 raw...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2016)

Nikon Picture Control Editor.

Nikon Picture Control Editor

MOST people here cannot edit images this well. Try it.

Maybe figure out WHY Nikon developed this set of tools for their cameras.

Apparently, automated image handling suuuuuuuucks. Apparently Nikon's engineering development was utterly foolish to design a way to make a camera with a computer in it able to tailor an image file.

Think again.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 3, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Nikon Picture Control Editor.
> 
> Nikon Picture Control Editor
> 
> ...


I am into batch work with Linux / Gimp scripts, was very useful with some recent copy projects and saved a lot of time. Sharpen, tone curve, and a dynamic light type bump.. Results were good,  guy was happy. I have recently been using that Nikon software on those 150-600 testing and find it pretty useful. I like the active d lighting slider a lot. Just a little bump almost every time.... and as I loosely understand, this can be done with picture control loaded in menu of camera. Lord knows I have enough hardware laying around to put a Windows box together as I can't seem to get Nikon software to play nice in Linux / using Wine. 

So, that link you posted, is all that included in the picture control software that I have been avoiding? 

Sorry for the mini hi-jack

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 3, 2016)

I actually shot an indoor soccer game in JPEG Large.
I then ran through LR to correct some exposures being off, cropping and pulling out detail. 
It actually worked pretty good.

The latest game though I did in RAW.

A couple years ago I shot in RAW + JPEG Large as I really didn't understand RAW and my processing times were gigantic.  As I understood processing more and increased my speed on it I stopped doing JPEG as it was just another file.

I'll probably do the next game in JPEG again just because.


----------



## spiralout462 (Mar 3, 2016)

JPEG for the kids ball games is great!  I won't be publishing or printing the images, most likely.  I  can get the full advantage of the camera's burst.  JPEG+Raw?  Not for me.


----------



## Avengerx77 (Mar 4, 2016)

Thanks everyone for all your valuable input, really appreciated. As Derrel said, I am  in the very early stages of my photography skills. I see the importance in RAW to have greater control and I hope to get to a point where my skills get me to better photo editing experience. I think based on comments, my best route is to continue shooting RAW+JPEG and keep learning the editing basics with the JPEG files in lightroom. As I continue to get comfortable, I might do some of my editing from RAW to start practicing in parallel and gain experience.


----------



## spiralout462 (Mar 4, 2016)

You probably want to practice editing the  Raw files.  There is significantly more latitude!  Regardless of experience.


----------



## 407370 (Mar 4, 2016)

Avengerx77 said:


> Hi everyone. So I now know the cons/pros for shooting in RAW vs JPEG and why for picture details and editing is far better to shoot RAW. Now, what I was not able to find yet is the difference between those two vs the option that combines both in the camera. Aside from creating a larger file (I assume it combines or saves two pictures, one in RAW and another in JPEG). So question here is, what are the benefits, if any, to use this RAW+JPEG fine option, or should I still be aiming to use RAW only?
> 
> Thanks.


Just to balance the equation a bit.
I only shoot in JPG and I dont own Photoshop or lightroom. I am not a pro phtotographer but I take photography very seriously.
I experimented with RAW and found that I could get nothing extra with processing RAW that I could not get with JPG except that it took a bit longer to process the pictures so I committed to JPG only.
I consider myself to have advanced graphics skills not just in photography but in digital art in general. I have a whole selection of free software that processes my photographs from individual images to 200 images that need batch processing in a hurry and I am very happy with what I produce and so are my friends and family.
Make your own mind up about what you want out of a photograph and if that means you would be happier using RAW and JPG then go for it but dont dismiss the capabilities of what modern cameras just because you read it on a forum.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 4, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Once again, so-called "experts" who simply CAN NOT SEE that there are many,many,many people who simply do not possess the editing skills do perform operations like noise reduction on say, 500 to 1,500 images files from a weekend shoot, or a wedding, or whatever.
> 
> Once again, after a long, lengthy logical and reasonable report on how something works with new gear, I read words like "pointless" and "useless". Typical narrow-minded ignorance and an unwillingness to look at anybody else's working methods. Unable to tailor an answer to a first-time or new poster.
> 
> ...





I'd be willing to bet the op doesn't even have 500 to 1,500 image files from a weekend shoot.  

True, not everyone actually considers what the op is asking.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 4, 2016)

Avengerx77 said:


> Thanks everyone for all your valuable input, really appreciated. As Derrel said, I am  in the very early stages of my photography skills. I see the importance in RAW to have greater control and I hope to get to a point where my skills get me to better photo editing experience. I think based on comments, my best route is to continue shooting RAW+JPEG and keep learning the editing basics with the JPEG files in lightroom. As I continue to get comfortable, I might do some of my editing from RAW to start practicing in parallel and gain experience.


If you are editing in LR  (Note Image below is of an older version of LR).

then use the "Auto" feature.  

After you press it scroll and look at the settings.  Then press "Control -Z" to Undo the settings.  Then play around with the sliders based on the Auto Settings.  Then you can see how each setting affects the image.


 

You don't have to process 500 - 1500 images.  Look at each image and see if it's in focus.
If not then skip over it.
Or if its not an image you want to process, skip over it.

You can use the "Rating" stars to set photos that you want to keep to process


 

Then at the end you can set a Filter for those Ratings.  Say 3 stars for 3 stars or greater.


 

Then you only have to Process / Export the images that are higher quality.


----------



## Avengerx77 (Mar 4, 2016)

Thanks astro, I will for sure be looking for Lightroom tutorials as well in youtube to learn the editing side of things.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 4, 2016)

When I first started shooting sports - kids soccer, my first game was around 1,000+ shots.
You're right, what a pain.  But after I learned to "wait" for action my shots dropped down to 250-300 maybe a tad more if there are a lot of goals.  Our teams tend to score a lot too.

In events the critical thing, like everything else, is making sure you get "the" shot. Not just a bunch of things.  Learn how to totally control your focusing system until you are blue in the face.  Learn to watch the "action" and get those specific shots.  Then you'll make far fewer shots, and more of them will be keepers.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 4, 2016)

I think one reason why this ridiculous debate exists is because people are stuck thinking about exposure in terms of getting a "correct" exposure to make a good image. I think that this is a result of a minilab mentality; you send in your film and you get a stack of glossy prints back.

With JPEG it's the same kind of mentality. You press the button, the camera measures the data off the sensor, records it as a raw file and saves a JPEG according to factory presets - like a minilab machine.

For many who insist on RAW even it this way. They sort of look at it like one of those advanced minilabs that came out 20 or so years back. They get fiddle with some knobs and press some buttons, but essentially the goal here is to correct problems with the exposure: assuming that the information in the image reflects what the image should ultimately be.

What many people do not realize is that in traditional b/w photography, exposure is a tool to record information, and development is a tool to process information into an image. With b/w photography, you might over expose the image in order to retain shadows knowing that you can compensate the hilights for in development. Digital is different, but significantly less so than you'd think.

While I know that the OP is a beginner, and probably isn't familiar enough with exposure and processing yet to apply this concept, I cannot stress enough how important it is to avoid the mentality that RAW is put there as a safeguard. Rather I'd encourage any beginner to appreciate that processing is an integral part of photography and not an obnoxious inconvenience that, if only you could SOOC better, may be avoided. As I am 100% sure someone has already pointed out, SOOC is a myth, anyway.

I am not saying that there is no place for JPEG. However, RAW should not be avoided simply because one cannot appreciate it's benefits.


----------



## GHK (Mar 14, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The only time you might need it if you are shooting an event and need to pull a few quick shots say for a deadline.


I have agreed this post from "gryphon......"

In most circumstances, after processing the RAW, then saving your file. preferably as a PSD, you can always reopen and resave as a JPEG; you won't lose the PSD.
GHK


----------



## fmw (Mar 17, 2016)

I shoot everything at maximum quality JPEG, not just for myself but for clients as well.  There are some arcane advantages to RAW but I seem to be able to get what I need with a good JPEG.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 17, 2016)

fmw said:


> I shoot everything at maximum quality JPEG, not just for myself but for clients as well.  There are some arcane advantages to RAW but I seem to be able to get what I need with a good JPEG.



Having worked as a graphic artist, I'd never re-hire a photographer that could not provide a 16-bit TIF or PSD file. It might look great on the screen or on a glossy print, but doing custom separations for press on an 8-bit jpeg is limiting.

Yeah, I've done plenty of it. But if I'm paying for commercial photography services having good data is going to be part of my expectations.

Though, perhaps you're right. Doing quality color work has become a bit arcane.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 17, 2016)

I'm not even sure why cameras have stuck by JPEG. It's a lousy format. A PNG option would be much better.


----------



## dennybeall (Mar 17, 2016)

I've found that when I'm in control of time and place I can usually shoot jpg with impunity. When things are more difficult and I can't control light temperature or amounts and conditions are changing on the fly - then shooting raw provides a better ability to fix in post.
Some folks know their market and are producing their final product using jpg. If that's good enough then it's the easiest way to go.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 18, 2016)

When I have a camera that can seamlessly upload images to social media for the mothers at the birthday party to see shortly after the shot was taken is when I may shoot small JPG along with RAW.


----------



## fmw (Mar 18, 2016)

That's true.  I'm seeing a lot more PNG images on the internet.  Back in the days of film I used to do a lot of work for magazines and companies that used the images for printing.   These days it is almost all internet.  JPEG is all that is necessary.  If a client wants a PNG, they will get a PNG.  Rarely necessary.


----------



## Watchful (Mar 18, 2016)

sscarmack said:


> 32???? I have 256 hahahahah


I always choose the smaller cards and lots of them. Cameras are easilly replaced after an accident or an electrical malfunction but the images may never align again.
I carry dozens of 32gb cards and 64gb cards for photos and video scene shots.
Its safer than all your eggs in one basket.
Think of it this way, money is easy to replace, there are tons of it about, but time is precious and fleeting.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 18, 2016)

fmw said:


> That's true.  I'm seeing a lot more PNG images on the internet.  Back in the days of film I used to do a lot of work for magazines and companies that used the images for printing.   These days it is almost all internet.  JPEG is all that is necessary.  If a client wants a PNG, they will get a PNG.  Rarely necessary.



It's not a matter of suffix or that it's showing up on the web. PNG is a far better format with many more options. It can be compressed lossy or lossless, it supports 8 or 16 bit as well as alpha channels (which is why you see it on the web). Jpeg is always lossy, only supports 8bit and is really pretty much unsuitable for print production aside from newspapers. In many settings 16bit PNG is replacing TIF and 8 bit PNG is replacing JPEG. I do all my animation sequences using PNG if EXR isn't appropriate.

PNG is to JPG as JPG is to GIF. It really is a significantly better format in about every single regard. It'd be nice if cameras had options to provide a RAW, PNG in either 8 or 16 bit, or as a JPEG in situations where it is called for, such as in photojournalism or social media.

But currently our choices pretty much are either using a chainsaw to cut butter, or using a stick of butter to chop down an oak tree. A 16-bit PNG would still be a processed file, but without the limitations of a JPEG.


----------



## fmw (Mar 18, 2016)

Yes.  I'm aware.  Do you have any more gems of wisdom to share or can we put this to bed?


----------

