What's the purpose on shooting Raw AND Jpeg?
I feel I've got picture duplication and it turns out I almost never use my Jpeg files.
>>2842801
that's why you have the choice.
why photographers are idiots?
>>2842803
Why do you do besides using the Internet ?
I shoot raw and jpeg when my client is needing quantity over quality and I'm not sure if the lighting is gonna be wonky. I'll go back and edit the raws on shots where the wb was way off or it was under or over exposed.
Another time is when I don't have my laptop to edit and my editor (work at newspaper) is needing photos right away.
Other than that though, I shoot raw only.
I shoot JPEG on trips to upload snapshits to facebook for my family
>>2843389
I mean I shoot raw + JPEG
I shoot raw+jpeg because no one does a great job of emulating Fuji's presets yet, and sometimes they get color that I can't get out of the raw.
I only shoot raw unless I need to beam them to my phone, the app doesn't do raw so I have to jpeg each manually on the camera otherwise.
>>2842801
jpg for having something to e-mail/upload and look at quickly. raw for insurance if I need to make a big edit or need the highest quality.
Jpg folders also load faster than RAW. The files are small so no big deal for me.
>>2842801
his skin looks like skin in the raw than it does in the jpeg, a whole lot more
but the picture is duller...
>>2843424
RAWs are meant to be edited. It's flat and neutral for a reason. You are clinically retarded if you shoot raw format and then just instantly convert it to jpeg without any modification. You are SUPPOSED to push and pull and manipulate the image.
Like people say, jpeg is getting pizza delivered, and RAW is buying all the ingredients and making it exactly how you want.
>>2842801
because some cameras dont have a raw to jpeg converter
for uploading without your computer because some people live on the go
>>2842801
I don't shoot flat. I usually shoot with a high contrast black and white setting on my camera. I use the jpeg to base my edits off of. I like it to look as close to how I shot it but retain the quality of raw.
I use JPG purely for previewing shots outside of Lightroom as it's a lot faster to skip through, outside of that they're dead space on my disk.
>>2843389
>>2842808
>>2843419
>>2843404
>>2843472
So basically the gist is you use .jpg when you really don't give a shit how they look as long as they can be called complete.
>>2843392
This shit however,
>and sometimes they get color that I can't get out of the raw.
is completely fucking false, and is completely user based.
>>2843505
Lol.
Go ahead and post some Fuji presets for Lightroom then. Obviously, I know that it can be done, but I haven't seen it yet. Even Adobe's mock-up profiles are close, but they aren't perfect.
>>2843513
>presets
ding ding!
If you want some settings to match a RAW to its JPEG counterpart, it's ridiculously simple. What is hard is to make some settings that match _every_ RAW to its JPEG counterpart.
>>2843521
That's why I just get the camera to do it.
>>2843505
but I do give a shit. Most of the time jpgs look good but when they don't that's WHY I also have raw.
>>2842801
For me, It's highly dependant on the situation. I have several Darktable quick-profiles for standard images and like working with the programm a lot
JPEG:
>Just shooting around, practicing, finding good locations/objects
>vacation
>point-and-soot
JPEG+RAW:
>Memories, monuments, statues, travel, landscapes
RAW:
>(semi-)professional/artsy shots
>shots with specific settings on aperture, ISO, Shutter
>that one ideal shot you catch out of the corner of your eye and are willing to set up your entire gear for
JPG has 8 bit dynamic range and compression artifacts. RAW has at least 16 times the dynamic range and no compression artifacts.
>jewishness intensifies
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:03:08 19:33:18 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 459
>>2843586
It's also about spatial resolution. Color channels are subsampled spatially even before the DCT quantization kicks in. That is, half of the color data is thrown away before the "actual" compression step whose intensity you can affect takes place.
>>2843530
#rekt
>>2843424
>the picture is duller.
Because he didn't apply any curves.
I always apply a medium contrast curve on import, which is what most jpeg engines do.
>>2843586
>RAW has at least 16 times the dynamic range and no compression artifacts.
Except if you have a Sony.
Probably a dumb question but when I shoot JPG+RAW the RAW file doesn't have any camera processing done to it right?
>>2843858
Correct. By definition, it can't.
When the images are loaded to your computer, it will probably have the preview jpeg along with it as a side-car so before it's looked over by the program you're using, it may resemble the JPEG for a second, but once it loads, it will be "clean"
>>2843858
>Probably a dumb question but when I shoot JPG+RAW the RAW file doesn't have any camera processing done to it right?
Fuji cameras have some baked-in noise reduction that can't be turned off, but it can be reduced in PhotoNinja.
Some Sony cameras have compression that you can't turn off lmao
>>2843867
>Fuji cameras have some baked-in noise reduction that can't be turned off in lightroom, but it can be removed in PhotoNinja, and Iridient, and minimized in C1.
Fixed that for you.
Fun fact, Photo Ninja strips Fuji raws so bare that you get extra pixel data on the edges of the frame that's just garbage, where others follow the sensor's "good pixel boundaries". It's definitely more of an annoyance than a feature, but it shows how truly raw PN will get you.
>>2842801
It's a safeguard against fucking up. I deliver jpg to my boss. Sometimes they're fine SOOC and that saves me an hour of editing time. Sometimes they're not and I have to export form LR. It's like an extra 200mb, who cares?
Instant printing
>>2843501
this
>>2843869
I still get some of that swirly watercolor effect even in Photoninja. Where am I fucking up?
>>2843906
Hard to say. Post a 100% crop along with your settings? I can usually push sharpening pretty hard before noticing any degradation, both with my X-T1 and XPro2.
Maybe post it over in the fuji or post processing thread to not derail this... whatever it is.
>>2843608
I like how he's made probably tens of thousands of dollars of that shit yet if you watch his videos you can tell he doesn't know anything about Raw editing until a year or two ago.
I remember one hilarious thing in his air show video where a comment goes "You can always crop to keep rule of thirds" and he goes "No, I like to get things right in the camera!" which is like a direct Ken Rockwell quote.
>>2843803
>hat's the pur
just fuck you,
>>2843938
Well said.
>>2843914
>"No, I like to get things right in the camera!" which is like a direct Ken Rockwell quote.
Maybe he said it but that's been SOP for basically the whole history of photography.
>>2843468
>>2843801
easy down
I'm praising the fact that raw can get skin tones and texture right, while most of the time jpegs can't
on a side note, one could edit the raw to make it brighter and pop-ier, but I'd rather have a long and sharp tone scale over a stark picture, any day; like a low grade contact print or a pt/pd print...
I shoot FILM like a MAN.
I haven't post processed a single file since I went Fuji.
>>2843947
Can you read?
If you aren't editing RAW files you are 100% retard; The only difference between RAW and JPG is one requires thought and effort and the other goes directly onto your shitty instagram.
>>2843947
>most of the time jpegs can't
Picture control -> portrait -> done.
>>2844255
You can also fully automate the raw processing, or use presets.
The real differences are:
- with raw you can use more sophisticated processing because you aren't limited to your camera's processor and firmware.
- with raw you can change your mind and try different presets afterwards.
- with raw you can manually edit if above methods don't yield good enough results.
>>2843586
that's not how it works. JPEG's 8 bits are gamma compressed, in linear (which is what RAW uses) in the darks it's equivalent to 11.7 bits (log2(12.92) extra bits). That's why in RAW 12 bits is the bare minimum, because otherwise you'll get quantisation errors/banding in the darks that shouldn't be there even in a JPG.
So if you have 12-bit RAW you get no extra precision in the blacks (and thus arguably no extra dynamic range), although you do get a lot of extra precision in the mids and highlights.
>>2843712
oh yeah that too, chroma resolution gets fucked
>>2844243
I used to shoot RAW only with my Nikons, though Nikon D600 files usually didn't need much of PP. Then I switched over to Fuji, and I now shoot RAW+jpg... most of the time jpg:s are good enough, though there's a helluva lot of headroom in Fuji RAW files...
>>2843505
Of course
JPEG is mathematically defined as a subset of RAW.
>>2842801
Did he shoot in flat/neutral for the RAW, because there is almost never that kind of difference for me.
>>2846553
>did he shoot in jpeg profile for the raw
Fucking hell anon, you're not quite all there eh?
i used to shoot raw+jpeg but when i loaded them into lightroom it only revealed the jpgs and not the raws. why is that?
Ps the option about duplication was unselected
thanks
>>2850177
In your preferences, there's an option to treat the jpeg and raw as separate files. You'd need to switch that.
>>2846553
yes there is, your converter is probably just applying a natural curve and saturation adjustment profile on import.
>>2843858
When shooting RAW, you can have your camera do the white balance, but can't recall my cameras adjusting anything else when shooting RAW.
>>2850180
thank you
