Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raw+JPG?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 21, 2005 8:48:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.

I just blew thru 1 gig shooting Raw+JPG and both look identical to me.
--
Slack - digital and camera newbie

More about : raw jpg

Anonymous
March 21, 2005 9:01:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

They're definitely not identical but they could be very similar if you
used the camera defaults when processing those RAW images. The JPGs
are being processed in camera with the parameters you have set, this
includes lossy compression. The RAW files as you probably know are
lossless. A popular situation where you want both is when you want to
publish to the web quickly with minimal processing, you'd use the jpg
there, and then work on your RAW images to prepare high quality images
for print. Generally you have much more control processing a RAW image
on your computer rather than having your camera create the final image.
Remember, you're losing info every time you save that JPG.

I started out shooting JPG because I thought the images were good
enough, but the more I've learned the more I see the differences
between what the camera does and what I can do with Photoshop's RAW
plugin and now DPP.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 9:04:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <op.sn0nblgcqwdip2@slacker>, Slack
<slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
> the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.

Because the camera's firmware doesn't give you a choice of RAW only?
(like my 10D)
Related resources
March 21, 2005 10:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:01:14 -0800, G.T. <get.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> They're definitely not identical but they could be very similar if you
> used the camera defaults when processing those RAW images. The JPGs
> are being processed in camera with the parameters you have set, this
> includes lossy compression. The RAW files as you probably know are
> lossless. A popular situation where you want both is when you want to
> publish to the web quickly with minimal processing, you'd use the jpg
> there, and then work on your RAW images to prepare high quality images
> for print. Generally you have much more control processing a RAW image
> on your computer rather than having your camera create the final image..
> Remember, you're losing info every time you save that JPG.
>
> I started out shooting JPG because I thought the images were good
> enough, but the more I've learned the more I see the differences
> between what the camera does and what I can do with Photoshop's RAW
> plugin and now DPP.
>

Hmmm, looks like you're right. They initially looked the same, but after
looking at them in DPP, there is a very noticeable difference.

I need to pick up a good tri & mono-pod.
--
Slack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210320051804038927%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <op.sn0nblgcqwdip2@slacker>, Slack
> <slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
> > the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.
>
> Because the camera's firmware doesn't give you a choice of RAW only?
> (like my 10D)

The 350D does give you the choice of RAW or RAW+large jpg.

Greg
March 22, 2005 12:00:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

G.T. wrote:
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:210320051804038927%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
>>In article <op.sn0nblgcqwdip2@slacker>, Slack
>><slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
>>>the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.
>>
>>Because the camera's firmware doesn't give you a choice of RAW only?
>>(like my 10D)
>
>
> The 350D does give you the choice of RAW or RAW+large jpg.


D70 only allows RAW plus low quality jpeg so it only serves the purpose
of saving the chore of converting to review and sort. Really though, you
need software that can match the two like Breeze Browser that shows
only one image and an icon indicating there is a jpeg pair. For me, it
becomes too complicated to remember which one was out of the camera and
which was my jpeg conversion so I just shoot RAW. Using Adobe Camera RAW
(ACR) converter with PS, I cannot zoom in without converting though so I
sometimes end up batching the whole set just to be able to preview &
sort, then I have two to delete.

It would be better (with a firmware hack perhaps) to have high quality
jpeg with RAW then I could just use the jpegs, archive the RAW & if it's
tricky lighting or something special, I could go through & custom
develop each RAW or more likely only the occasional RAW.

With software that matches the pairs like Breeze Browser, I could use
the jpegs to quickly sort then delete all the jpegs then carefully spend
my time processing every file from RAW. One delete or move would effect
both jpeg & RAW. Nikon Capture lets me zoom in & applies sharpening, etc
but it's darn slow. ACR is fast browsing and converting but I can't zoom
in till it's converted. With ACR, you can set up the thumb browser two
thumbs wide to match them in pais but god help if one is missing.

The different RAW converters have different qualities of conversion and
usability factors that can be more important in terms of time and
headache. I'm not fond of the interface for Nikon Capture but it does a
bit nicer conversion. ACR is a breeze for me to work with but I can't
zoom. BB is a nice interface but needs to save TIF to go to PS & also
not the best conversion but it has a nice interface including side by
side matched preview with zoom for culling.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 3:20:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:48:47 -0800, Slack wrote
(in article <op.sn0nblgcqwdip2@slacker>):

> Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
> the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.
>
> I just blew thru 1 gig shooting Raw+JPG and both look identical to me.
>

I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
>the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.
>
>I just blew thru 1 gig shooting Raw+JPG and both look identical to me.

If they look the same to you, forget about raw and just shoot jpeg.
But the idea is that raw offers flexibility and jpeg doesn't, while
jpeg offers convenience that raw doesn't. By shooting both, you give
yourself the convenience of using jpeg when the jpeg is to your
liking, and the flexibility of using raw when it's not. If you have
room on your card, it's a nice option. (And the jpeg doesn't add all
that much space once you're shooting raw anyway.)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:48:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>D70 only allows RAW plus low quality jpeg so it only serves the purpose
>of saving the chore of converting to review and sort.

That seems pretty sensible to me. I've been doing some shooting
in RAW, but without the basic jpeg, and it is a bit of a hassle
to sort through the photos with Elements 3.0 [I'm currently
'evaluating' it]. I'd really rather not use a program for
organising, but maybe eventually I'll have to do that.

The basic is fine for web use, and if you want high-quality jpeg,
you really ought to shoot with optimum choices for contrast,
saturation, white balance, etc. A big advantage of RAW is that
it lets you skip those things and fix them up later offline.
Plus, the high-jpeg will take even more card space, so I think
Nikon made a reasonable compromise in their choice. It would be
even better if Nikon Capture had a quick & easy batch processor
for conversion.


--
Ken Tough
March 22, 2005 11:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
>
> It would be even better if Nikon Capture
> had a quick & easy batch processor
> for conversion.


I think it can do batch but I haven't figured out how. Capture seems to
get better reviews for quality but it is slow & either it has a
confusing interface or I just haven't learned how to use it.

Anyone that has a good workflow with Capture or links to a tutorial,
please share!

Oh, another thing, Capture has lousy noise reduction, ACR is so-so,
Breeze Browser seemed much better if I recall correctly, there is
another one that is really super, the one with the lens specific
corrections.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 1:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.

In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
the jpg either.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 1:33:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:

> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>
>
> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
> the jpg either.

Can you zoom in? On the 7D you can view them all (in RAW only mode it
makes a thumbnail) so you can't zoom in on the image. In RAW+JPG you
can zoom in.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:17:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:33:35 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
wrote:

>Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>
>In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>the jpg either.

I think what you are seeing here is a JPEG that's imbedded in the RAW.
This probably doesn't make any significant difference, but might be
important in some situations.

The D70 lets you zoom in as far as 60% [hit ISO button + rotate rear
command dial to change zoom level whilst in zoom mode] (where 100%
would be 1 pixel to 1 pixel), regardless of the storage format chosen.

Someone posted this link to an EXIF reader that can extract that JPEG
from the RAW file if you decide to just shoot NEF. Haven't had a
chance to look at it yet:

http://home.comcast.net/~jonathan.oman/d70/index.html

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 8:50:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:43:47 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ken Tough wrote:
>
>> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>>viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>>focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>>photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>>
>>
>> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>> the jpg either.
>
>Can you zoom in? On the 7D you can view them all (in RAW only mode it
>makes a thumbnail) so you can't zoom in on the image. In RAW+JPG you
>can zoom in.

A similar limitation exists on some Oly's.

On the D70, in RAW only mode, you still have full in-camera preview
zoom capability, I just tried it.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
March 22, 2005 9:17:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So they should!

In decent RAW converters (at default settings) the RAW should equate to the
JPG. If you got the shot spot on you can use the original JPG & immediately
email to employers/clients, etc. However, if you feel the image could be
improved with a little tweaking then the RAW gives you that flexibility
without loss of quality.

Regards

DM

"Slack" <slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:o p.sn0nblgcqwdip2@slacker...
Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in
the world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.

I just blew thru 1 gig shooting Raw+JPG and both look identical to me.
--
Slack - digital and camera newbie
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:33:35 -0800, Ken Tough wrote
(in article <pXXJp6Bfh9PCFw+T@objectech.co.uk>):

> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>> viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>> focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>> photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>
> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
> the jpg either.
>
>

Interesting. I had thought that RAW files were not viewable until converted
due to their not being graphic files.
March 23, 2005 1:56:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Ken Tough wrote:
> >
>
>> It would be even better if Nikon Capture
>> had a quick & easy batch processor
>> for conversion.
>
>
>
> I think it can do batch but I haven't figured out how. Capture seems to
> get better reviews for quality but it is slow & either it has a
> confusing interface or I just haven't learned how to use it.
>
> Anyone that has a good workflow with Capture or links to a tutorial,
> please share!
>
> Oh, another thing, Capture has lousy noise reduction, ACR is so-so,
> Breeze Browser seemed much better if I recall correctly, there is
> another one that is really super, the one with the lens specific
> corrections.

Capture has quite capable batch conversion capabilities. Just select
Tools | Batch from the Capture menu - easy as pie!

- John
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:05:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:09:18 -0800, Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:33:35 -0800, Ken Tough wrote
>(in article <pXXJp6Bfh9PCFw+T@objectech.co.uk>):
>
>> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>> viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>> focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>> photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>>
>> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>> the jpg either.
>>
>>
>
>Interesting. I had thought that RAW files were not viewable until converted
>due to their not being graphic files.


Raw files are a type of image file. They are viewable on every camera
that takes them, as far as I know. A raw file has just not gone
through all of the in-camera processing that a jpeg has.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I have a Canon 20D and recently discovered the level of detail and
refinement that is available to you when you use the RAW data. I am
currently using the Canon 20D photoshop plug-in RAW reader and am
extremely happy with it all! The only downside is that I now spend
much more time processing photos than taking them! (maybe time for a
faster CPU??? :) 

Best,

Rob M.

rmanganus.see-my-pictures.com
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:47:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Revere wrote:

>>In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>>the jpg either.
>>
>>
>
>
> Interesting. I had thought that RAW files were not viewable until converted
> due to their not being graphic files.

They're not. The camera creates a small thumbnail image for viewing.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:09:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <owamanga@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>>the jpg either.
>
>I think what you are seeing here is a JPEG that's imbedded in the RAW.

That would be an extremely sensible way to implement it. I was a bit
surprised they would have some separate RAW viewer in-camera. Too
bad most viewers aren't able to pick out that JPG. I wonder whether
Nikon Capture can do that (would make working with RAWs a lot easier
than keeping a basic JPG associated).

>The D70 lets you zoom in as far as 60% [hit ISO button + rotate rear
>command dial to change zoom level whilst in zoom mode]

Hot tip, thanks. I wasn't aware of that one.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:10:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Slack <slacker7_remove_this@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> Ok, I can understand the Raw only camp and the JPG only camp, but why in the
> world would you want to shoot Raw+JPG.
>
> I just blew thru 1 gig shooting Raw+JPG and both look identical to me.

When I shoot RAW, I always shoot RAW+JPEG. If the results for JPEG are fine, I
go with that, otherwise I will take the time to convert the RAW to a good JPEG
file.

Another reason might be if you have a portable storage device with a screen,
and it doesn't know how to decode the RAW files your camera produces.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 3:50:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:05:17 -0500, McLeod <cerveza@xplornet.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:09:18 -0800, Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:33:35 -0800, Ken Tough wrote
>>(in article <pXXJp6Bfh9PCFw+T@objectech.co.uk>):
>>
>>> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>>> viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>>> focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>>> photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>>>
>>> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>>> the jpg either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Interesting. I had thought that RAW files were not viewable until converted
>>due to their not being graphic files.
>
>
>Raw files are a type of image file. They are viewable on every camera
>that takes them, as far as I know. A raw file has just not gone
>through all of the in-camera processing that a jpeg has.

Lets get this straight. It's a NEF file in the D70, a form of TIFF
(Tagged Image Format) that contains raw sensor data, plus EXIF type
data, plus exposure, white-balance etc data plus an embedded JPEG that
the camera can use to provide the preview. Think of it as a single
file made up of lots of compartments, one of them (the biggest)
contains the RAW data.

So, the D70 doesn't ever actually display the RAW data, it displays
the embedded JPEG within the NEF file.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:09:19 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
wrote:

>Owamanga <owamanga@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The D70 lets you zoom in as far as 60% [hit ISO button + rotate rear
>>command dial to change zoom level whilst in zoom mode]
>
>Hot tip, thanks. I wasn't aware of that one.

Yep I missed it too, even having read the manual twice (it is there,
but the manual is so mind-bendingly boring that you are in a
vegetative state by that page).

60% is usually good enough to see any focus issues or to fine-tune the
DOF, and more than enough to check for eye-blinking or red-eye
problems.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:22:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <0001HW.BE66480E0002F4D1F04075B0@news.west.cox.net>,
Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:33:35 -0800, Ken Tough wrote
>(in article <pXXJp6Bfh9PCFw+T@objectech.co.uk>):
>
>> Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the advantage in shooting both RAW AND jpg is that the jpg can be
>>> viewed in the camera immediately after the shot to verify the composition,
>>> focus, etc of the shot while also providing the RAW image for use in later
>>> photo editing in Photoshop or another such program.
>>
>> In the D70, you can view the RAW instantly on-camera without needing
>> the jpg either.

>Interesting. I had thought that RAW files were not viewable until converted
>due to their not being graphic files.

For a low-res LCD preview, you could get away with just using a
nearest-neighbor routine that uses the nearest red for the red cell in
the LCD, etc. You'd also need to scale and gamma-adjust the data from
the channels, globally. I don't know if anyone does this, though. Most
put a hidden JPEG inside the RAW file.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!