I have what might be a silly newbie question. Is there any advantage of shooting in RAW& Jpeg?
I tried looking this up in the previous discussions and I have found lots of answers regarding advantages of shooting in RAW, which I knew was good to do for editing, etc.
Right now I have my camera set to both RAW and Jpeg, but not sure that there is a point in that...
Sorry if this has a super obvious answer, I'm just curious :)
There isn't really an advantage other than convenience if you sometimes need to access a photo quickly and don't have time to deal with raw format. I often shoot in raw + jpg simply because I'll usually take hundreds of photos a week and my wife knows absolutely nothing about raw format, photo editing software, or any of that. So when I download everything to the computer she can easily pull up the files on her laptop over the network and browse the jpgs and immediately post it on facebook or email to a friend, or even just give me the photo number if she really wants me to work on one for print or whatever.
I personally never touch the jpg files myself, but it makes things easier for my non-tech savvy spouse. If you don't have a need for quick access to your images and process all your raw photos anyway you can save a little space by skipping the jpg part.
That's a good question. I read somewhere that you should shoot in RAW and Jpeg, and so I've sort of mindlessly done it. But I never use the jpeg versions. My pics go immediately into Aperture and I process them there. Not sure why I should continue to do jpegs.
@marubozo has nailed it. Only reason is if you want a bit of convenience, with the "proper" RAW files still there as backup in case you do need to do tweaks. Seems like more effort, to me, though (because I always do tweaks!).
For me it's a storage issue. My RAW files are 20 meg each and the jpegs are only 7. I keep all RAWS on an external drive, jpegs on the laptop and import only those RAWS that are worth working on.
You could of course shoot only RAWs and export a jpeg version later, but that's a s-l-o-w process. Also the jpegs are faster to look at when paging through using my viewer.
@laurentye If you haven't had a particular need for the extra convenience of having both RAW and JPG handy in an instant, it's probably not worth wasting the extra space for both. If you use software like Lightroom or Aperture, dealing with RAW photos is a breeze. I use Lightroom and only shoot in RAW, but prior to that I basically shot in both just because it was such a pain dealing with RAW files. Thankfully those days are long behind us.
I've just started using a DLSR so I'm new to working with the RAW format. I do find if there's enough storage space available to shoot both as it's easier to browse .jpg files then open and work on the corresponding .RAW file.
Saying that I've now got the relevent Sony programmes installed and they make browsing .RAW files as easy as using Windows Picture Viewer.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I personally never touch the jpg files myself, but it makes things easier for my non-tech savvy spouse. If you don't have a need for quick access to your images and process all your raw photos anyway you can save a little space by skipping the jpg part.
You could of course shoot only RAWs and export a jpeg version later, but that's a s-l-o-w process. Also the jpegs are faster to look at when paging through using my viewer.
Saying that I've now got the relevent Sony programmes installed and they make browsing .RAW files as easy as using Windows Picture Viewer.