Reading mode: Light Dark

Adobe lightroom question.

Go to last post
S

SammyJ

Well-known member
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
Bradenton, FL, US
I recently found out that in Adobe lightroom you can also work with Jpeg files.

I have always shot raw because of its work flow advantages, but with this new jpeg feature in adobe lightroom. Is there still any advantage to shooting raw?

Please give me your input or ideas.

--
God Bless.

Sammy J - Established 1988
http://thenewrevolution.deviantart.com



The Next Generation of Olympus users.
Graphic Design, and photography Student.
 
Of course. There is considerably more information contained in RAW files than JPEG images. While you CAN do color and exposure correction in non-RAW files, you'll always be able to do more (or do it easier) with all of the data from the camera intact.
 
I use Lightroom for both. I would suggest you do a test shot in Raw+shq jpg, and compare them both. though I doubt an expert would be able to tell you which is which, except under an electron microscope.
For this reason, after a year of raw, I shoot 90% jpg now.
Cheers,
Don
 
I have really started to become a Lightroom fan. I love the work flow with RAW. I won't go into the reasons for RAW others have already said some and other will as well.

I will say I have been very impressed with what I can do with JPGs in Lightroom. After reading in the manual that Lightroom could do JPGs I tried it out. Wow, I can't believe how much it will do to recover bad JPGs. I am pretty impressed. I don't plan on switching to JPG for my critical work, but it is great for editing my older JPGs.

Ed
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/
 
When I bought Lightroom, I switched to 90% RAW because of the ease of workflow. However, last week I wanted to try an experiment with RAW+JPG to see if in-camera processing was better for certain things. I was hoping to do a side-by-side comparison in LR. When I imported the files to lightroom, it did copy both the RAW and JPG file, but I can only see the RAW file in the library. I thought at first that they might be stacked, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Am I missing something?
--
Kaz Photography - http://www.kaz-photos.com
 
Shotted said:
I use Lightroom for both. I would suggest you do a test shot in
Raw+shq jpg, and compare them both. though I doubt an expert would
be able to tell you which is which, except under an electron
microscope.
Click to expand...
.... or from a shot that had slightly blown highlights. With RAW you can recover them, but not from the JPG.

The advantage of RAW is that kind of flexibility. Another example is that white balance does not need to be set at capture time. In general, because you have more bits of info to work with, RAWs converted to 16-bit mode files will hold up to a lot more processing before beginning to show artifacts.

If you are doing pretty much straight conversions, then yes, the SHQ JPG will be quite close, though you still might see a difference in prints with subtle gradients.

As plentiful and cheap disk space is these days. I prefer to keep the "negatives" that the camera produces.

--



E-One/E-Three-Hundred/DZ Fourteen-Fifty-Four/DZ Fifty-Two-Hundred/FL-Fifty
E-Ten/C-Twenty-One-Hundred-UZ/E-One-Hundred-RS/D-Four-Hundred-Z
Oldma-cdon-aldh-adaf-arm-EI-EI-O
 
Yes, I see what you mean on the means of 'flexibility'.

But my small 40 gigabyte hard drive is 95 full (with .ORF's).

I'll have to limit myself to SHQ. However, I plan on installing a 250 gig hard drive soon.

Thank you for your input, everyone.

--
God Bless.

Sammy J - Established 1988
http://thenewrevolution.deviantart.com



The Next Generation of Olympus users.
Graphic Design, and photography Student.
 
SammyJ said:
I recently found out that in Adobe lightroom you can also work with
Jpeg files.

I have always shot raw because of its work flow advantages, but
with this new jpeg feature in adobe lightroom. Is there still any
advantage to shooting raw?

Please give me your input or ideas.
Click to expand...
I quit using RAW after finding a product called qpCard201. What you do is disable the auto white balance (I use the one-touch white balance to get the WB close). Then I take one picture with the qpCard201 in the image. As long as the light doesn't change you can keep shooting without having to shoot the card again. When I get back to the computer I load the image with the card in the picture into the qpColorsoft501 software, create a profile, and then batch process the rest of the images I took in the same light of the first image. Each image is ready to print in the AdobeRGB colour space.

The software is FREE, downloadable from http://qpcard.com and comes with sample images you can play with (there's also a tutorial video you can download), and the cards are available from more professional camera shops (Adorama sells two cards (which can be used over and over again) for $20).

I know this sounds like an ad, but I only discovered this product two weeks ago and I love it so far, because I can do MANY images in the same time it took me to colour correct one RAW image (not to mention the reduction in filespace).
 
I've started using the convert to DNG option when importing my ORF photos from camera saving almost %40in filespace and losing no information.
--

'The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking.'

Quotation from Brooks Atkinson
US Drama Critic, Journalist
 
Thanks for the information of the software, and I am sure it will be useful to many people but you have missed a major point of Lightroom.

In Library Mode Lightroom can make WB corrections for the entire batch at once (same as the software you mention)

Second, you can control the WB indoors when under a controlled lighting situation but not outdoors when (a) clouds roll by (b) you change the angle of the sun in relation to the camera axis (c) you move in and out of shade.

Third, the photographer may wish to shift the color balance as when shooting in the evening and wishing to emphasize red tones, for example. This can best be done after the shoot, in Lightroom.
Hope this is useful for you.
Richard
 
.. ability to clean up noise greatly enhanced (due to 16 bit files).

If you need a good file quickly - shoot jpg. If you need things to be the best they can be AND can spend a bit of time on them - shoot RAW.
 
As far as Raw vs. .jpg, if your intention is to post you images on the web, jpeg is all you will need. If you make prints up to 5x7 or 8-1/2x11 jpoeg will probably suffice.

But if you make fine art prints or (better quality) magazine or advertising or fashion work, raw is a must.

Richard
 
Office Max has 320 GB Seagate external drives on sale this week for $99.00 . I already have a 500GB and am going to buy a 320 GB today.

I am shooting RAW more so I need th space. I also use Lightroom for RAW and jpeg editing. I absolutely love it.
SammyJ said:
Yes, I see what you mean on the means of 'flexibility'.

But my small 40 gigabyte hard drive is 95 full (with .ORF's).

I'll have to limit myself to SHQ. However, I plan on installing a
250 gig hard drive soon.

Thank you for your input, everyone.

--
God Bless.

Sammy J - Established 1988
http://thenewrevolution.deviantart.com



The Next Generation of Olympus users.
Graphic Design, and photography Student.
Click to expand...
--
Teresa

'I can't sing, I can't paint and I can't write how I feel, so all I have left is photography to express myself.' -Anonymous
 
Curious, I was considering getting Lightroom. It sounds like a good thing to save in 16 bit. However I have been currently using PSE5, and it seems very limited unless you goto 8 bit. Is it that big of deal if I worked with files as 16 bit, and then went to 8 bit when I need PSE5 for further work?
 
I no longer use Elements but there is no problem about working in 16 bit and then converting to 8 bit for additional work. Just do the most you can in 16 bit first.
Richard
 
Richard Pavek said:
Thanks for the information of the software, and I am sure it will
be useful to many people but you have missed a major point of
Lightroom.
Click to expand...
And you missed a major point of using the card...it's the way to calibrate the camera...my monitor is colour calibrated, my printer is too...but before now there's been no way to colour calibrate a camera, other than doing white balance.
 
I looked at the explanation on their website and could find nothing about calibrating the camera. What they show is colour correcting for the light. Which is WB. Isn't it?? And according to what I see there you would do it every time you were in a new lighting situation.
Richard
 
It's advantages for JPEG shooters (like me) is that the changes/adjustments to the files are non-destructive. There are no changes to the files and we all know that the opening and saving of JPEGs is what causes the most degradation of the files. LR saves all your edits in its database so you can always change your mind and go back to the original file to do something else.

RAW's "advantages" over JPEGs have discussed ad nauseum both here and in other discussions. Yes you can correct many things after the fact that the camera locks into the JPEG files. (Then again you could have gotten the exposure/WB right the first time.) RAW does allow you more latitude in making your after-exposure corrections than JPEG, but is is not the end-all that many RAW shooters claim.

(And BTW - it is not necessary to shoot RAW if you wish to make prints over a certain size. The resolution of the file has a much more mitigating effect on what size photo quality print you can make.)
Steve
 
I convert my Oly e1 raw files to DNG within Lightroom which reduces the size of my pics from 10mb. to 3mb. If it's about space, do this and then you can keep the advantages of shooting raw without filling up your 40 gb. hard disc.
cheers, Jan
 
I use LR and go to PE5 for additional editing.

Most of the time I can do all my editing in LR.

You are right, tha if you go o PE 5 you probably will have to convert your file to 8 bit. In most cases, you can't see the difference. I think this isn't a big problem. There are some real advantages to editing in 16 bit, and most of your editing will be done in LR. andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top