Delete jpgs to save disk space?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by acnomad, Jun 11, 2016.

  1. acnomad

    acnomad Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2016
    I have been shooting raw + jpg most of the time, mostly to preserve the option to send the occasional image to a tablet in the field. Otherwise, everything goes through LR, meaning that the SOOC jpgs are not required.

    With that workflow, is there any reason to retain the SOOC jpgs after importing the raws?
  2. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    How much space will you really save?

    If you just want it for phone transfer, maybe do raw plus 4mp JPEG?
  3. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    At work I'm tasked with doing the actual Lr and Ps work for my employer, the photographer and owner of the gallery. There, I keep the JPEGs for visual reference because those are what he used to pick the images for me to work on. Usually they differ only slightly from Lr's default presentation of the RAW, but it is more comfortable to be able to open the JPEG in the same viewing app he used. Most often, he uses his copy of Lr, but occasionally he browses a copy of the card's files, relying on Finder's (Mac OSX) presentation and/or Preview's.

    For my personal stuff & nonsense (creative work and family snaps), I shoot RAW only, or on rare occasions JPEG only. My "in the field" computer is a Windows tablet (or one of my wife's notebooks) allowing me to run an older version of Lr for the times I need to do create a JPEG in the field.

    With Lr, I don't see the need to keep the JPEGs unless you are in the situation I am at work.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    I now almost always shoot RAW ONLY... If I do need to copy an image to my phone, I can create a JPEG in-camera.
    Saves space on the SD and the HDDs.

    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. WendyK

    WendyK Super Moderator

    Feb 28, 2014
    Northern Virginia
    I always forget that I can do that! Thanks for the reminder, Barry! That will be helpful on an upcoming vacation.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Ever since Oly came out with built in Wifi (E-M1) and the Oi.Share app, I have switched from RAW to RAW+JPG. Main reason is my daughter and wife sometimes like to be able to hook up to my camera to grab shots for their various social media stuff, especially if we are on vacations. While what others said above it true, that you can generate a JPG on the camera from your RAW files, you can not browse the RAWs on Oi.Share. So shooting RAW+JPG allows all my photos to be reviewable on their phones.

    However back on the computer, I only import the RAW files usually. If I really want a "SOOC" jpg equivalent, I can simply load up Olympus Viewer 3 and let it generate the JPG based on the embedded camera settings in the image. I don't see a reason to save ALL my JPGs when Viewer 3 can make them for me later if I want Oly's treatment of the image.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. acnomad

    acnomad Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2016
    Yes, I find the ability to access jpgs from OI.share to be valuable as well. Once the immediate "needs" of social media are fulfilled and the raws are on the PC, would you agree that there is no further need to keep the jpgs at all?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    What matters is if YOU have a need for them.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ahinesdesign

    ahinesdesign Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Dec 6, 2011
    NC, USA
    I've gone back and deleted JPG's leaving RAW and Lightroom exports for archiving when storage space was tight, but I usually keep JPG's because its easier to browse them than RAWs even on a fast computer. Probably could lower JPG size to help, but storage is cheap...
    • Like Like x 1
  10. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    recalling that your RAW files normally contain a JPG that can be extracted. I don't know what you mean by "imported" but as long as you have your original RAW files then you'll have a good JPG too.

    install dcraw (commandline tool) and run it from a command terminal with the -e option to extract from within a folder that's got some raws in it to test.

    For instance:
    dcraw -e *.RW2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. acnomad

    acnomad Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jan 5, 2016
    Right you are! That's actually what I'm trying to determine. Before posting, I couldn't think of a reason to have jpgs at all aside from the ability to send to a smartphone in the field. Just making sure I don't delete them until I'm sure not to regret it.
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    Worst case you quickly bulk re-create them using the RAW preview extraction or something like FastStone.

    If you are at all worried, just keep them though. Put them on their own $50 HDD or whatever if you hate looking at them. Storage is too cheap to stress over deleting.

    What is interesting is that using FastStone, RAWs load faster than JPEGs. This is because the embedded preview JPEG for my GX7 is only a 2MP image vs 16MP for the full size JPEG. It is especially noticeable over wifi.
  13. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    At the price of hard disk space, I'm not worried at all how much space the jpegs take up. In comparison it is minimal, less than 7.5%.
  14. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    Not so for me. I save RAW+4608x3456 ±7.5mb JPG With FS the jpg is much faster and easier to use to skim through the photos. Space is really a non-issue and I keep the jpg's for the convenience even though most aren't used.
  15. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    may depend on the camera ... my friends Oly OMD5Mkii seems to store much larger JPG's ... I'm not sure if that's a setting or not ... he was unaware of that and only knew of RAW + JPG setting (which is of course redundant if the embedded JPG is 4016 pixels wide anyway)
  16. alan1972

    alan1972 Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jun 23, 2012
    Malaga, Spain
    Alan Grant
    Yes, if someone is going to make a decision based on the availability of a jpg within the raw file, I think it is important to be aware that there is no standard for what size and quality jpg gets embedded in a raw file, it certainly varies by manufacturer and possibly by camera. (It can even vary between apps on the same Android camera, but of course that does not apply to m43). And on my EM10 at least there seems to be no way for the user to change the embedded to anything other than 3200×2400, a little under 8 megapixels.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    Yeah, I meant to make that a more conditional statement.
  18. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    For big shoots I'll sometimes go back and delete JPGs. But for smaller stuff it just takes too much time to search and destroy to make it worth the effort.
  19. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    wasn't meaning to contradict or make you feel bad, was just throwing in extra sprinkles of data ...
  20. RichardB

    RichardB Snapshooter Subscribing Member

    Nov 19, 2012
    Maryland, US
    I shoot RAW+JPG, with my jpeg 1600x1200, a fine size for sharing or posting online or for a background on my low-res computer screen, and quick to load in my image viewer. Each raw file is about 30 times the size of the corresponding jpeg file. THIRTY TIMES. So instead of deleting 30 jpegs, if drive space were tight, I would delete 1 raw file (and corresponding jpeg) that I didn't need. If you don't have room for jpegs, you need another external drive.