How to Tell Whether Raw Photos are Keepers?

[William Baroo]

I have shot raw because that's what the big boys do. I figured it would pay off on the back end. My problem is that the photo previews on my camera's screen look awful, so I don't know whether they're any good or not until I edit them. This makes me unsure as to whether I should keep shooting.

What's the answer? Should I use two cards, shoot in two formats, and use jpg to preview photos?

 

[480sparky]

Shoot raw. Review in post. They're displayed on your monitor as jpegs anyway.

 

[William Baroo]

It kind of sounds like I would have to shoot a ton of pictures.

 

[480sparky]

No more than you normally take.

 

[Ysarex]

I have shot raw because that's what the big boys do. I figured it would pay off on the back end. My problem is that the photo previews on my camera's screen look awful, so I don't know whether they're any good or not until I edit them. This makes me unsure as to whether I should keep shooting.

The previews you see on the camera will be identical for both raw files and JPEGs. The camera doesn't create a special or different preview for raw files. The camera is designed to create a final output image (typically saved as a JPEG) and will do that whether you save a raw file or not and the camera will always and only show you that processed output image (JPEG).

Most people adjust the settings on their cameras to get a pleasing well-exposed JPEG when they're taking photos and then if they saved the raw file they may choose to process that for different or superior results to what the camera did.

What is your goal behind the camera when you take photos for how you want the camera image to look? Do you try and adjust the camera to produce a good looking photo?

Raw files have to be processed into final images. What software are you using to do that processing?

What's the answer? Should I use two cards, shoot in two formats, and use jpg to preview photos?

 

[480sparky]

IIRC, raw files have jpegs imbedded in the data.

 

[KJ_North]

I just shoot and shoot. Then when i review them at home if they are usable great, if not move onto the next shot etc. Even the pros shoot hundreds of shots trying to get just that perfect capture at the right time.

 

[Overread]

RAW files require a degree of processing before they can actually appear as an image. Which is why when you open up a RAW file you have to provide adjustments to it in order to then save it as an image file format. Software like Lightroom will open up a general view for your RAW files and show them with its default processing which you can than tweak.

Because of this RAW files also carry a JPEG inside them which is created at the same time and to the same JPEG editing settings that your camera is set too. This JPEG is what the camera shows on the back screen and what you can see as a preview image in your folders on the computer.

So if you shoot JPEG or RAW in camera the image you see on the back screen will be identical*. The difference at the time of taking photos is that RAW files are much bigger so your fps can be slower and the number of shots you can shoot in a rapid burst will be more limited on RAW than on JPEG.

After shooting when you come to the computer is where the real boon of RAW is because you've got all the data from the shot present. This gives you more scope to edit the extremes of the photo - the darks and the whites - because you've got all the data there. A JPEG basically dumps loads of that data to get a single view. So whilst on a RAW you might pull back the brights to show detail or push up the blacks for the same - on a JPEG you'd just have white and black and nothing to recover or tweak. You might also get colour banding more readily too when editing smooth grading colours/regions.


*unless you've changed your in-camera processing settings or it allows you to setup different profiles for RAW and JPEG shooting

 

[smoke665]

What's the answer

You don't "shoot" RAW or JPEG, this is a "decision" after the the shutter clicks as to "how" you chose to save your files. RAW files are uncompressed, unprocessed data captured by the sensor. The view you see on your camera is a minimally processed JPEG that the camera embeds as a sidecar on the RAW file. I usually don't pay much attention to it other than a general glance. What I do pay attention to is the histogram and the blinkies. I want a full data file left to right, experience has taught me that on my cameras I can ETTR to the point that the blinkies just start and not blow my whites. Doing this will give you the best file for both further processing and in camera JPEG if you choose. If you save the file as a JPEG the camera will use the internal proprietary algorithms to fully process (destructive) the sensor data.

My workflow is to first open a RAW file in Bridge, which displays the camera embedded JPEG. Obvious rejects are deleted and the remaining files moved to the designated storage location. From there I import the files into LR, importing has two functions, first it tells LR where the files are and second it creates a Smart Preview https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/lightroom-smart-previews.html LR is a parametric (nondestructive) editor. All editing instructions, Smart Previews, etc, are stored in the LR catalog, the RAW files are left untouched. Once imported the images are culled again using X (for reject), no rating, and 1. Rejects get deleted, remaing images get sorted on "1", which goes to further processing, the "no ratings" are saved until all processing of the set is done then get deleted. There are further rating scans and culling that takes place. Using this process allows me to quickly process large sets.

 

[AlanKlein]

IIRC, raw files have jpegs imbedded in the data.

Why are there two files - one for jpeg and one for raw?

 

[AlanKlein]

When shooting Jpegs alone or JPEG plus RAW, I always select jpeg settings that maximize the resolution and compress the least. That way I get the best jpeg for editing, minimum banding, cropping, enlargements, etc.

The camera's default jpeg settings might not provide the best settings out of the box. So check them before shooting.

 

[AlanKlein]

I have shot raw because that's what the big boys do. I figured it would pay off on the back end. My problem is that the photo previews on my camera's screen look awful, so I don't know whether they're any good or not until I edit them. This makes me unsure as to whether I should keep shooting.

What's the answer? Should I use two cards, shoot in two formats, and use jpg to preview photos?

How do the screenshots look awful? What do you mean? They should look good on the screen if they're exposed correctly.

 

[Overread]

Why are there two files - one for jpeg and one for raw?

All RAW files have a jpeg embedded into them for review. However most software can't pull that jpeg out of the RAW file itself. They can show it but not separate it.

So RAW+JPEG is a further setting where the camera saves a working JPEG as well as the RAW as separate files as well. Thus giving you an easy to work with JPEG straight out of the camera as well as the RAW

 

[480sparky]

Why are there two files - one for jpeg and one for raw?

Only if you set your camera up to record the two formats.

You missed the point, however. As part of the data of the raw file, there is a thumbnail JPG embedded therein. Just like the index of a book or magazine.

Another example is the EXIF data of any image. It's not the image itself, but data contained within the file.

 

[AlanKlein]

Only if you set your camera up to record the two formats.

You missed the point, however. As part of the data of the raw file, there is a thumbnail JPG embedded therein. Just like the index of a book or magazine.

Another example is the EXIF data of any image. It's not the image itself, but data contained within the file.

Ok thanks for the clarification. So if you shoot Raw or Jpeg plus Raw, you get a jpeg thumbnail in the raw files. But in neither raw case do you get a full jpeg within the raw file. You only get a full jpeg in the jpeg file.