Moonrise & Aurora

Moonrise & Aurora

by Jakub

submit your photo


Picture of the Week Themes
Suggest and vote on themes

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tell me more ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

DSLRs often have the ability to store both a JPEG and a raw file.

Given that the primary benefit of in-camera JPEG over raw is the smaller filesize, and that JPEG+raw is going to store even more data than raw alone, it seems like you're just wasting space on your card and making your workflow more complicated if you store both.

Why bother storing both JPEG and raw in camera, instead of just a raw file?

share|improve this question

6 Answers

up vote 14 down vote accepted

I am an amateur photographer going semi-pro and even though I still only use RAW I have come across a few occasions where RAW+JPEG was needed (or at least would be a great convenience):

  • ready to email files (like @rowland-shaw wrote) - some times you need to get your photos out there as fast as possible
  • lite photo files to browse through - given that your workflow might include taking a look in your photos from a not-so-capable computer (or other device) before importing them or even during the shoot, it is faster to load a 1.2MB JPEG than a 15MB RAW file
  • timelapse - ok, this is an overkill but when shooting timelapse I want to have a bunch of small JPEGs ready to be opened in QuickTime to check the result and then go through the RAWs

In general, JPEGs are for fast preview on other devices (other than your camera) while RAWs are for editing.

share|improve this answer

I shoot JPEG + RAW because my camera produces really good JPEG output. It has flexible control over tone curves, color, and contrast. I'm not usually interested in producing HDR-compressed images — in fact, I often prefer a high contrast look which reduces dynamic range. If I get the exposure and other settings right, I really don't benefit much from RAW.

If I make a mistake with white balance or am in a tricky situation, I have the RAW file to take advantage of. Most of the time, I develop that in-camera, using the built-in tools to do so, but in the cases where I'm not satisfied with that, I use RawTherapee. (My camera allows adjustment to the color of the LCD; it's not completely color profiled, but it's basically neutral, so I can trust my eye well enough.)

I know that some cameras only allow highly compressed "Basic" JPEG in combination with RAW; mine lets me save JPEGs of any quality, and in fact, I usually use ★★★, only increasing to ★★★★ when the scene needs it or when the image appears particularly special.

And, in fact, in the interest of keeping my lifetime data load sane, I only keep the RAW files for those particularly special images. I know this is verging on sacrilege against the conventional wisdom, but I haven't regretted it yet. If I had paying customers, I'd definitely archive it all, just in case.

share|improve this answer

In the RAW+JPEG workflow, JPEG is what you shoot for. RAW is the safety net.

The primary benefit or JPEG is not smaller files (that's the second), it is that JPEGs are actually images. Images have advantages over RAW files, already mentioned by others: quick preview, ready to email, no processing required, etc. Once the shot is taken you are done if you did things right.

share|improve this answer

There's a couple of benefits that spring to mind, especially for portraiture work:

  • Speed of generating proofs - if a client is only going to pick 5% of shots for final use, there's little point in going through and white balancing everything, and then batch processing them to JPEG for the client to peruse.

  • Instant back-up - if a card starts to fail, you might lose a file, and you instantly have a second backup, albeit with different fidelity (admittedly the 1D allows you to write files to two different cards at the same time)

share|improve this answer
Don't agree with 'Instant back-up'. If a card starts to fail, there is no much chance not to fail everything else. In this case it would be more safe to store the same pictures on two cards - modern cameras support it – Genius Mar 29 '11 at 8:06
1  
@Genius but you'd have to be pretty unlucky to lose a matching pair (I agree that you're not going to lose just JPEGs or just RAWs though). – Rowland Shaw Mar 29 '11 at 8:08
@rowland-shaw Thank God, this hasn't happened yet with me. So I hope I'm lucky ;) – Genius Mar 29 '11 at 8:23

Usually people do store in both formats to save their time (as they think), in case if JPEG is ok.

But I prefer to store only in RAW. All pictures without any problems (WB, expo, contrast, etc..) I convert in batch processing, in one-two clicks. The benefits are:

  • I don't need to spend some time on filtering "JPEG or RAW"
  • I always keep a chance to change something
  • I don't spend much time to process well-shooted pictures (thankfully to batch processing)
  • I save more space on my card in camera
share|improve this answer

I've suggested RAW+JPEG to photographers who are fairly new to digital photography and are ambivalent about switching to a raw workflow, because they don't have raw-capable tools or are worried about the effort involved. I point out that they can keep using the JPEGs like they always have, but the raw files will be there, like a digital negative, for whenever they're ready to work with them.

share|improve this answer
2  
If you're a new to digital photography, you should probably be shooting in JPEG. Why? In my first year of digital photography, I took in excess of 25k photos and the majority of them (i.e. > 99%) would have benefited from better technique because no amount of RAW processing will teach you the basics of photography (composition, lighting, etc). I shot RAW which meant I was producing in excess of 250 GB of photos which weren't terribly exciting. RAW + JPG would have increased that significantly. – CadentOrange Apr 14 '11 at 9:33
@Philip A fair point, but I'm mostly talking about experienced film photographers who are simply new to digital workflow. Folks like my dad, who got me started with composition and exposure when I was little. – coneslayer Apr 14 '11 at 11:11
I am just getting (back) into photography. While that pretty much discredits any advice I am about to give, here is what I am currently doing: I am currently shooting in RAW+JPEG and, as @CadentOrange said, for the 99% of my photos which no amount of RAW processing will improve I then delete the RAW files when I import. That way for the 1% of photos (I'd say it's really more like 10%) which I made poor choices of white balance or whatever when shooting, I can still recover from. – Josh Apr 2 '12 at 21:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.