Hello, I am new to DSLR and in the process of learning D5100 and ViewNX 2.
Is there any reason why I would want to shoot in RAW+JPEG as oppose to RAW only?
It seems that with ViewNX 2 I can share JPEGs with other and the process is simple so I wonder why would I want to shoot in RAW+JPEG.
In addition in ViewNX 2 both RAW and JPEG match closely for the type of JPEG setting on the camera I use now.
#1. "RE: RAW+JPEG vs RAW" | In response to Reply # 0elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Fri 08-Feb-13 04:11 PM | edited Fri 08-Feb-13 04:15 PM by elec164
>Is there any reason why I would want to shoot in RAW+JPEG as
>oppose to RAW only?
I will shoot NEF+JPEG when I am doing an event with lots of images that I will need to produce quickly. I find that for such shots JPEG will suffice for 99% of the time and having NEF's for the rare occasion when extensive PP is needed.
I at times shoot only NEF when I will only have a few images that I would prefer to PP myself later. While the camera picture controls are good (especially for snapshots), I find that I generally can produce superior results in Lightroom or Photoshop (or a combination of both).
>In addition in ViewNX 2 both RAW and JPEG match closely for
>the type of JPEG setting on the camera I use now.
When using Nikon software to render NEF's, all in camera settings will be applied. So there should be visually no difference between an in-camera JPEG and a View/Capture NX2 NEF conversion.
Hope this helps!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: RAW+JPEG vs RAW" | In response to Reply # 0jec6613 Registered since 12th Feb 2013Tue 12-Feb-13 09:26 PM
ViewNX is going to give basically the same output from a JPEG as the camera will - there are some slight differences, but they're close enough to be negligible for most uses.
The reason to show RAW+JPEG is so that you don't have to run through the post processing of converting to JPEG in the computer - either so you can give quick proofs to somebody else, or because you're lacking in time or available computing power; yet it still leaves you with a raw file for post processing later.
There are also a few times where the in-camera JPEG falls down, because the codec is more simplistic in-camera than the computer can and does use. One that immediately comes to mind is scenes with large chunks of sky alongside high detail areas end up with banding in the sky, and is especially bad with older bodies. By processing those images that the camera doesn't handle properly from the NEF, you can avoid that, while not having to process every single image you have.
Finally, there's the small help that if a card goes bad, you're more likely to be able to recover any given image since you have two chances at it. If the subject is important enough to be doing that though, just get a camera with two card slots: much easier in the long run.
The downsides, as you already know, is your already small buffer becomes positively tiny, you burn up storage space faster and so on. And the end if the day, for me, I carry around a powerful enough and portable enough computer to just shoot RAW, but there are uses for RAW+JPEG. I only used RAW+JPEG when I was starting to process the .NEFs and creating my workflow, to ensure I at least had a quickly usable image. Then, once I was settled, I turned off the JPEG and went to NEF only.
#3. "RE: RAW+JPEG vs RAW" | In response to Reply # 2nrothschild Registered since 25th Jul 2004Wed 13-Feb-13 11:59 AM
Another option is to use PhotoMechanic and shoot raw only, which is what I do. With that strategy the "JPG" is initially the medium quality (but full resolution) JPG embedded by the camera in the raw file. Any edits done in Capture NX2 will embed an almost highest quality JPG in the NEF.
Photomechanic can then either do a straight extract of that JPG or a "Save As" with specified resolution, quality, watermarking, and other niceties.
I find that in most cases the camera embedded JPG is good enough for web sized images. Otherwise I usually edit the image anyway, or occasionally take the time to essentially re-render the embedded JPG with a "Save as" in CNX2 back to the original NEFs (replacing them).
One advantage of using Photomechanic is that it is far faster than ViewNX2 because it is only extracting the existing JPG rather than re-rendering it. On my Core i7 laptop I can render around 150 NEFs with ViewNX2 in about 5 minutes. With Photomechanic an extract takes less than 10 seconds.
In terms of speed verses quality there are various inherent compromises with either method (and also the 3rd method, which is to create Raw + JPG in camera).
my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: RAW+JPEG vs RAW" | In response to Reply # 0
I've been shooting RAW+JPG for a while (as in few months) and I have noticed that there are times when trying to shoot in rapid succession the camera lags - I will need to try and remember to turn to just RAW when I think I'll shoot some action shots where I'd like a batch of images shot in rapid succession.
The other issue I'm facing is my Photoshop Elements catalog is double what it needs to be. I have at least two of every shot - I say two because when I touch up an image that is saved in a bunch with the original. I also tend to shot several shots of the same thing, so in the end of the day I end up with a whole bunch of sameness in my catalog. I've used PSE's stacking feature to reduce screen clutter when I'm looking back for an image.
I really need to start using the PSE's cataloging features to tag and rate my images so that I have a better chance of finding them. Spend too much time scrolling through images looking for a particular picture.
#5. "RE: RAW+JPEG vs RAW" | In response to Reply # 0
I do both RAW+JPEG. yes your observation is correct most of the time JPEG will be similar as you processed from RAW, I mean more or less.
But some times, you will not get time to process RAW(Yeah I am lazy) then I use JPEG itself!
RAW->JPEG depends on your liking at that particular moment. So its always up to you what way to go RAW+JPEG or Just RAW or Just JPEG (when running out of memory)