Timeline for Why store both JPEG and raw?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2012 at 21:24 | comment | added | Josh | 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. | |
| Apr 14, 2011 at 11:11 | comment | added | coneslayer | @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. | |
| Apr 14, 2011 at 9:33 | comment | added | CadentOrange | 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. | |
| Apr 14, 2011 at 0:31 | history | answered | coneslayer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |