JPEG, RAW or JPEG+RAW
Discussion
Whats the best to do?
I currently dont have light room but am considering it...
I have no idea what I am doing though... although I have all the time in the world and I do like to play around with editing stuff.
Is JPEG ok or better in RAW or combine both?
Also, what would people suggest is best for software?
Photoshop?
I currently dont have light room but am considering it...
I have no idea what I am doing though... although I have all the time in the world and I do like to play around with editing stuff.
Is JPEG ok or better in RAW or combine both?
Also, what would people suggest is best for software?
Photoshop?
If shooting large volume, RAW + JPEG as it would make the selection process easier.
If shooting only one or two frames, RAW.
IMHO.
Reliance only on JPEG means you are already applying some compression.
Our workflow here is to process RAW through Capture one...then we can make a standard "as shot" file plus duplicates if needed to recover shadow or highlight detail.
Then post production in Photoshop.
If shooting only one or two frames, RAW.
IMHO.
Reliance only on JPEG means you are already applying some compression.
Our workflow here is to process RAW through Capture one...then we can make a standard "as shot" file plus duplicates if needed to recover shadow or highlight detail.
Then post production in Photoshop.
You don't mention which camera you have so it's difficult to provide specific advice e.g. the RAW files created by a 45MP monster are going to be massive compared to those created by a Sony RX100.
But generally speaking memory cards and disk space is cheap, so shoot RAW+JPEG for now so you've always got the RAW to go back to and fiddle around with once you've settled on an editing suite. If you shoot only in JPEG now then you'll lose that opportunity but it suits some people.
You can try something free and opensource like DarkTable if you want to process the RAW files but it can be a fairly steep learning curve. There's a wealth of paid for options like Lightroom Classic, Capture One etc but it quite often comes down to your own personal preference around their user interfaces etc.
But generally speaking memory cards and disk space is cheap, so shoot RAW+JPEG for now so you've always got the RAW to go back to and fiddle around with once you've settled on an editing suite. If you shoot only in JPEG now then you'll lose that opportunity but it suits some people.
You can try something free and opensource like DarkTable if you want to process the RAW files but it can be a fairly steep learning curve. There's a wealth of paid for options like Lightroom Classic, Capture One etc but it quite often comes down to your own personal preference around their user interfaces etc.
I only shoot in RAW, I don’t use jpeg as the result is the cameras representation of your shot. I use Capture One for the vast bulk of my editing ( people, branding, events with a little landscape), it is an extremely good raw editor that also allows selection and culling a large number of shots very easy. I do about 99% of my editing in Capture One.
On the rare occasion I need a pixel editor I use Affinity Photo.
In fact maybe AP is a good choice for you as a beginner it has a a reasonable RAW editor and can rival photoshop on everything for general photography, plus is extremely good value and a permanent licence rather than renting.
They all have a free trial, perhaps you should have agood look and pick one that works for you.
On the rare occasion I need a pixel editor I use Affinity Photo.
In fact maybe AP is a good choice for you as a beginner it has a a reasonable RAW editor and can rival photoshop on everything for general photography, plus is extremely good value and a permanent licence rather than renting.
They all have a free trial, perhaps you should have agood look and pick one that works for you.
Whoozit said:
Taking a step back...
- what are you shooting
- what would you like to achieve
- do you already see the results you want from the in-camera files
Travel, wildlife and the occasional motorsport event. Maybe some very light astro too if I can get my ETX90 up and running.- what are you shooting
- what would you like to achieve
- do you already see the results you want from the in-camera files
Would like to be able to adjust images if they dont quite turn out right etc.
Dont have any results yet as only just got my camera so just trying to learn. Its been 20 years since I did any "proper" photography and I wasnt very good back then
My cameras have dual card slots so I depending on what I am shooting I adjust accordingly.
For my athletics photography, a medium JPG to both cards - I retain one copy. My agency takes the other card. I have the backup.
For my motorsport photography, a small JPG to one card, RAW to another - I use the JPG for working with at the track - its quicker and less overheads on a laptop without guaranteed access to power..
For my theatre photography, generally RAW and a backup RAW.
For my athletics photography, a medium JPG to both cards - I retain one copy. My agency takes the other card. I have the backup.
For my motorsport photography, a small JPG to one card, RAW to another - I use the JPG for working with at the track - its quicker and less overheads on a laptop without guaranteed access to power..
For my theatre photography, generally RAW and a backup RAW.
As others have said it can depend what you are doing.
I use RAW for most photography, it gives a useful amount more freedom and headroom for editing and getting the best out of the image.
But I switch to JPEG for motorsport for a few reasons -
(1) I'm often rattling off continuous sequences and my camera can buffer a lot more JPEG than RAW shots before slowing down. If you've ever had a camera fill its buffer and slow the frame rate in the middle of an exciting moment you'll understand.
(2) Smaller files make a difference in efficiency when you're dealing with thousands of images from a weekend, especially if you are processing them on an older slower computer.
(3) In a motorsport context the reduced dynamic range etc of JPEG doesn't usually matter as much as it does for landscapes etc - more about capturing the action than subtle fine art, and my processed images are generally exported as JPEG for web use or online sales anyway.
I use RAW for most photography, it gives a useful amount more freedom and headroom for editing and getting the best out of the image.
But I switch to JPEG for motorsport for a few reasons -
(1) I'm often rattling off continuous sequences and my camera can buffer a lot more JPEG than RAW shots before slowing down. If you've ever had a camera fill its buffer and slow the frame rate in the middle of an exciting moment you'll understand.
(2) Smaller files make a difference in efficiency when you're dealing with thousands of images from a weekend, especially if you are processing them on an older slower computer.
(3) In a motorsport context the reduced dynamic range etc of JPEG doesn't usually matter as much as it does for landscapes etc - more about capturing the action than subtle fine art, and my processed images are generally exported as JPEG for web use or online sales anyway.
Take a look at Affinity Photo, it’s a worthy competitor for Lightroom and Photoshop, with a modest one-off fee.
It handles developing my raw shots and then all the post-process retouching I could need.
I always shoot in Raw from my camera and JPEG + Raw from my drone (as it doesn’t do Raw only).
It handles developing my raw shots and then all the post-process retouching I could need.
I always shoot in Raw from my camera and JPEG + Raw from my drone (as it doesn’t do Raw only).
gotoPzero said:
Whoozit said:
Taking a step back...
- what are you shooting
- what would you like to achieve
- do you already see the results you want from the in-camera files
Travel, wildlife and the occasional motorsport event. Maybe some very light astro too if I can get my ETX90 up and running.- what are you shooting
- what would you like to achieve
- do you already see the results you want from the in-camera files
Would like to be able to adjust images if they dont quite turn out right etc.
Dont have any results yet as only just got my camera so just trying to learn. Its been 20 years since I did any "proper" photography and I wasnt very good back then
So what about astro? You guessed it, you'll want as much data as possible. RAW. And even then, good astro photos frequently stack several RAW images to maximise the useful data.
For motorsports as others have said, capturing a moment is more important than fine detail so JPEG is often fine.
There are plenty of programs for editing both RAW and JPEG images. Even within the Adobe library, both Lightroom and Photoshop can edit in the same way although they have radically different interfaces. Lightroom is easier to pick up as you go along. Only when you start hitting the limits of what Lightroom can do is it worth starting to learn Photoshop IMO.
The advantage of using Lightroom is that it is also a cataloguing system. Making it easier to keyword, find, favourite, etc your library files. No more hunting through hundreds or thousands of files, looking for that one image.
But you'll probably find when three photographers are gathered, there'll be four opinions on the best software (or gear, or processing method...
) Don't stress too much about the specifics, pick one that works for you (plenty of them have trials) and see how you get on ETA depending on your camera there may be one good reason to leave JPEG + RAW on in camera, which is when you zoom in on the camera to check focus. If you have RAW only, it looks at the embedded thumbnail which is much smaller than full size. If you have the JPEG it will look at that instead, allowing you to zoom in much more.
Edited by Whoozit on Thursday 6th April 09:19
I have an RX100 M2 as a walkabout / in the car camera and it generates RAW files which are about 20MB in size.
I just leave a 64GB card in there and there's enough space for several thousand images, you'll be out of battery juice before card space
Don't get too sold on Lightroom's promises of settings specifically for the RX100. It mostly means that it can read the RAW files and apply camera specific lens distortion adjustment etc if you'd like it to.
I just leave a 64GB card in there and there's enough space for several thousand images, you'll be out of battery juice before card space
Don't get too sold on Lightroom's promises of settings specifically for the RX100. It mostly means that it can read the RAW files and apply camera specific lens distortion adjustment etc if you'd like it to.
eltawater said:
Don't get too sold on Lightroom's promises of settings specifically for the RX100. It mostly means that it can read the RAW files and apply camera specific lens distortion adjustment etc if you'd like it to.
Agreed. I use LR with 4 different cameras and the lens specific stuff makes little difference. If you do get LR, watch a couple of YouTube vids, as the first 20 minutes feel a bit odd - results are fab though.
All these have had some sort of LR treatment:
http://www.stevecarter.com/gallery1/MyFaves.htm
GetCarter said:
Agreed. I use LR with 4 different cameras and the lens specific stuff makes little difference.
If you do get LR, watch a couple of YouTube vids, as the first 20 minutes feel a bit odd - results are fab though.
All these have had some sort of LR treatment:
http://www.stevecarter.com/gallery1/MyFaves.htm
Some excellent shots there! Whats going on in the street view shot with the fiery sort of line in the sky? Intriguing.If you do get LR, watch a couple of YouTube vids, as the first 20 minutes feel a bit odd - results are fab though.
All these have had some sort of LR treatment:
http://www.stevecarter.com/gallery1/MyFaves.htm
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff