Go RAW only?

[thr61]

Since moving to a D7000, I have been shooting both RAW and fine JPG. However, when PP in Aperture, I have to individually switch the master to RAW. Is there any reason to be shooting both other than being able to quickly grab a JPG and send it?

It seems as though the 7K does far better with RAW and I am slowly figuring out how to manage some of the noise and other artifacts.

Thoughts on this?

 

[dread_tai]

i never shoot jpeg.........only shoot RAW. i'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where i would not shoot RAW, and opt for jpeg/both. i s'pose i have "p/s" cameras for those times where jpeg will do. i just can't see the purpose for what i do/enjoy with this camera and limit myself with jpeg.

 

[Brev00]

If you are in a rush and need a jpeg, it takes a sec to convert the RAW file using the D90 processor. Does the D7000 offer the same?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[lmpmd]

When you are done with your shooting in raw only, you can just extract the embedded jpegs from the raws using a program like pixel fixer. It's instantaneous for all practical puposes and extracts the embedded basic quality full sized jpeg from the raw.
--
Larry

 

[Steve Bingham]

I throw away 95% of my shots and work on the other 5. Raw makes a huge difference in potential quality. Really not necessary for the casual snap shooter or hassled event pro - unless he is going for max.

Depends on how many photos you need - and how soon - and how good.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

 

[RobertLaw]

I tend to switch back and forth. When I am hiking and taking my landscape pictures then I shoot RAW only. When I am on vacation and I know my wife or relatives will want to download to their computers something other than the basic jpg. I shoot raw/jpg fine so I have a good quality jpg. I know that I can get a high quality jpeg via ViewNX2 but it takes a long time to convert the 400 shots I have just taken.

Once I save the RAW on my computer and back the images up to my portable drives, I then use Instant Jpeg from Raw to keep a basic picture on my laptop to conserve space.
--
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
-- Max Ehrmann

 

[kormendi_adam]

JPGs also need PP, so why not go RAW instead?

Never have to worry about WB or in-camera settings - once on seen on my monitor, I can correct (if needed) anything with two clicks.
Only thing though, it does make you lazy. A lazy photographer, I mean.

 

[Kaparra]

If you have the time and the skills, go RAW only. I would do it, too.

But, to be honest, I find Nikon jpg's very, very good straight out of the cam, in fact most time I really don't need to touch the nefs. Fortunately, I must say, because I am getting lazier with age

 

[JK225]

Depends on what you want to do. For action shots, I'd suggest shooting high quality JPG. Shooting RAW will fill up your buffer too fast and you will usually miss that awesome shot waiting for your buffer to empty. For standard photos, use RAW. It is a whole lot more forgiving that JPG.

 

[Catallaxy]

You might consider loading View NX2 to see what it can do for you.

RAW is the best way to go, even for those shooters who post process your images using the built-in tools of the camera.

Today, I post processed about 50 RAW images totally within the camera. Reset WB, applied D-Lighting, added a little sharpening to some. Changed the Picture Control to Vivid for one shot, turned another into a Monochrome, and Trimmed all of them to fit. Then finally I converted to JPEG. Took me about 15 minutes to get exactly what I wanted out of all those images.

And this was a D60 with it's slower processor and 230k dot LCD.

BTW, this was a test of what I could do in-camera since this particular D60 is a gift to a friend who does not have a computer.

--
Catallaxy

 

[VarmintCong]

Just use ViewNX2 to batch convert all the RAWs while you're surfing dpreview.

 

[Mofongo]

Catallaxy wrote:

Today, I post processed about 50 RAW images totally within the camera. Reset WB, applied D-Lighting, added a little sharpening to some. Changed the Picture Control to Vivid for one shot, turned another into a Monochrome, and Trimmed all of them to fit. Then finally I converted to JPEG. Took me about 15 minutes to get exactly what I wanted out of all those images.

Hi, I have played around with the in camera NEF conversion also and found it usefull at times as ViewNX is terribly slow making changes and converting on my fairly new computer.

How did you trim (crop) before you converted them to Jpg in camera? I just checked and trip is not in the NEF conversion menu but in the regular in camera retouch menu. It seems like you would have to convert to Jpg first and then trim unless I'm missing something...

Just curious...

Bob

--
Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo/scenic_expressions

 

[nkarasev]

Since moving to a D7000, I have been shooting both RAW and fine JPG. However, when PP in Aperture, I have to individually switch the master to RAW. Is there any reason to be shooting both other than being able to quickly grab a JPG and send it?

It seems as though the 7K does far better with RAW and I am slowly figuring out how to manage some of the noise and other artifacts.

Thoughts on this?

JPG takes only a small percentage of space, so the size is not at issue here. I usually use medium-sized JPG setting along with RAW. The reason - if I ever need JPG straight from camera, I likely need a small one. I use medium because this way I still have a little more flexibility. Resizing medium to whatever size needed is done almost instantly by many viewers (I use ol' good ACDSee 4.1 which is blazingly fast). The from-camera JPG already has many goodies so that I don't need to do any work to PP them - just send bunch over to in-laws or whatever. Converting all RAW by ViewNX in a batch (while viewing dpreview) is still longer process. It doesn't save me space and definitely adds time, so I don't bother. Sometimes I would not need JPG at all, but I did find out (price paid) that when you do this kind of change to camera settings, chances are that you will have wrong settings when you just pick and start shooting. I would rather have extra and not use it than lack some. As for the extra step to choose RAW over JPG in whatever viewer you are doing it, I always move NEF files to separate subdirectory in a single command. Or yea - I am not used to Lightroom and have no plans

$0.02 from Nik

 

[The Photo Ninja]

Aperture's default conversion looks better than any of the nikon capture modes. Also, its pretty stinking color accurate. In Lightroom, you would have to mess with many controls and use a calibration device like an xrite color checker to get similar results.

If you need jpegs at that point, just export versions. What I do, is import my raws, sort, delete, etc, do tweaks if needed, and then export the versions. I also then, import the conversions to keep along side the raws (who knows which raw converter I'll be using in a year from now anyways, and I will need the fully processed jpegs later for the web, Facebook, etc.).

 

[winparkman]

I don't agree with your statement about LR. I use Aperture (on an Imac) and Lightroom (on a PC). Lightroom does a better job at converting RAWs with my D90.

I don't understand "In Lightroom, you would have to mess with many controls and use a calibration device like an xrite color checker to get similar results." This isn't true. The iMac has a better screen than my Dell notebook but other than that, LR does a much better job with RAW.

I have not shot JPEG in years. RAW is simply the way to go.

Aperture's default conversion looks better than any of the nikon capture modes. Also, its pretty stinking color accurate. In Lightroom, you would have to mess with many controls and use a calibration device like an xrite color checker to get similar results.

If you need jpegs at that point, just export versions. What I do, is import my raws, sort, delete, etc, do tweaks if needed, and then export the versions. I also then, import the conversions to keep along side the raws (who knows which raw converter I'll be using in a year from now anyways, and I will need the fully processed jpegs later for the web, Facebook, etc.).

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[Catallaxy]

The post was meant to show how you can use RAW to get better results even if you don't have a computer. The exact order of the steps was slightly different - you are right in that you need to finish you RAW steps then go to the jpeg and Trim it.

--
Catallaxy

 

[The Photo Ninja]

Your analysis isn't complete. I use both on the same machine, calibrated monitor, etc. Feel free to post a default raw conversion without fiddling from both... Use the adobe standard profile from lighroom, no edits... And then one from aperture. I'll bet that most people prefer the aperture conversion.

 

[winparkman]

I would suggest you are doing something wrong in Lightroom. If you prefer Aperture, OK. I use it, too. Just not as often as LR. To each his own.

Your analysis isn't complete. I use both on the same machine, calibrated monitor, etc. Feel free to post a default raw conversion without fiddling from both... Use the adobe standard profile from lighroom, no edits... And then one from aperture. I'll bet that most people prefer the aperture conversion.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[Mofongo]

Catallaxy wrote:

The post was meant to show how you can use RAW to get better results even if you don't have a computer. The exact order of the steps was slightly different - you are right in that you need to finish you RAW steps then go to the jpeg and Trim it.

Thanks for clarifying that. I like to occasionally use the in camera NEF conversion tools or some of the Jpg editing tools. I carry a 4x6 portable digital photo album that takes SD cards on vacations and it's nice to be able to put processed photos on it without having to use a computer. Great to view the days photos or the pics from the whole trip at the airport.

Here is the album I use:

http://www.amazon.com/ALBUMteam-ALBUM-Digital-photo-silver/dp/B003H89E0E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302477052&sr=8-2

Bob

--
Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo/scenic_expressions

 

[mnodonnell]

If you have no time (or patience) to PP your images you should shoot both. If you need to get you images somewhere immediately after shooting you should shoot both (or potentially JPEG only).

The question to ask yourself: how often do you keep the untouched JPEG?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesenpickles/