Do you shoot RAW + JPG?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by memzinla, Feb 22, 2014.

  1. memzinla

    memzinla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 31, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    I used to shoot JPG only, and was happy with them. I just didn't like that they seemed soft, but I love love love the color output. I then started to shoot raw, and loved the image quality. Sometimes I take time getting the colors to where I want, but the outcome is really good. Today I started shooting RAW + JPG, and I looooooved the colors on the JPG image. I can't get the RAW image to look like the JPG image, but I'm not an expert and don't know much about it. haha. That's probably the reason why. Do you guys just shoot RAW?
  2. I shoot RAW + JPG. RAW for post processing later if I want to, and JPG for anyone who needs one fast (that would be my wife.)
  3. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Just RAW for me, with occasional RAW+JPEG if I want to shoot a specific effect with JPEG, e.g. a scene mode or creative mode.

    In general use, RAW+JPEG chews up memory and restricts the continuous shooting buffer too much for my liking.
  4. memzinla

    memzinla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 31, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ahh ok. :)

    Yeah, that's the reason why I don't like RAW+JPEG because of all the memory it uses.
  5. billbooz

    billbooz Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 23, 2014
    Lynchburg, VA USA
    William H. Booz
    I typically shoot RAW+JPG when shooting in special Picture Modes, such as Monotone, so that I can transfer the B&W JPG to my iPad using my Eye-Fi Mobi card and then those RAW versions I decide to keep to my computer into Aperture or Lightroom.
  6. WhidbeyLVR

    WhidbeyLVR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 14, 2014
    Whidbey Island
    RAW + medium size (2560x 1920) JPEG. Takes only a little more space that RAW alone, and gives me something quick to share. I haven't been bothered by lag in clearing the buffer, but I don't shoot rapid-fire very often.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. yakky

    yakky Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 1, 2013
    I shoot RAW+JPEG and usually just import the JPEGs. On occasion I'll find I need the raw but especially with Oly and Fuji, rarely do.
  8. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    RAW only......except when I have a new camera thats not yet supported in Aperture :).....then I shoot RAW+JPEG in the interim and then throw the jpgs away when I have RAW support.

    One file per shot is easier to manage, especially with Aperture

    I tend to do some PP on most shots... just quick stuff, so I prefer having the RAW to work on... and also if a better or improved convertor comes along I can start again from scratch.

  9. memzinla

    memzinla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 31, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Interesting. Thank you very much for the replies. :D I'll shoot RAW+JPEG for a while, and see how it goes. When you delete in camera does it delete both versions?
  10. lightmonkey

    lightmonkey Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 22, 2013
    dont like the noise and noise suppression from camera jpegs
    if i want to develop with a camera profile, i can easily do it in batch in lightroom
    if im going to 'publish' a keeper, id inevitably need to adjust wb, tweak curves and channels, rotate, etc etc, and might as well do it from raw
    • Like Like x 1
  11. mjw

    mjw Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 23, 2013
    Seattle, WA
    What trouble do RAW+JPEG pairs give you in Aperture?

    I used to shoot RAW + small JPEG (for sharing on Facebook, etc), but I got annoyed by waiting for Aperture to render a full resolution image. My first pass through a new image collection is to eliminate obvious rejects due to missed focus, etc. Aperture will use camera-produced JPEGs until it can render the picture internally, so having a low resolution JPEG wasn't really great for that.

    At some point I will get annoyed enough to figure out how to strip the JPEGs out of the RAW+JPEG pairs I have, but I'm so aggressive with my culling that this hasn't happened yet.
  12. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    I don't understand why anybody would not record both. It costs nothing and one or the other format might prove useful at some point. Personally I use the RAW files 99% of the time, but the JPG files are handy when browsing Windoze folders.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. snaimpally

    snaimpally Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 31, 2012
    I record both RAW+JPG (highest res JPG). The JPGs are useful for quickly reviewing and posting pics on facebook or sharing with others. I usually note the crappy JPGs (e.g., out of focus etc.) and delete those and the corresponding RAW images.
  14. Jay86

    Jay86 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 26, 2012
    RAW 90% of the time. If its just snaps I need to upload right away for something then JPG. Olympus jpg's are pretty darn good if I must admit.
  15. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 15, 2009
    I started shooting RAW (only RAW+JPEG when using things like Art Filters or Scene Modes) back on an Olympus E510 because it did not handle highlights very well. Continued shooting RAW - but that is because I was using first Lightroom and now Aperture which make the RAW conversion painless (meaning automatic) and I was pretty happy with the results. Pictures were at first looking a bit bland compared to the Olympus JPEGs but a good starting point. Now I have a Stylus 1 and an EM10, neither of which is supported by Apple yet, so I have been basically been shooting JPEGs and to be honest, the few times I did try RAW with Olympus Viewer (I really dislike that program), I could not get a better result than the straight OOC JPEGs. So - unless Aperture blows me away with it's RAW conversion (if an when they get off their backsides and do an update), I might just stick with the JPEGs. Like I said, I am not a Pro and unlike a lot of digital cameras from generations ago, I don't feel that the "improvement" from handling RAW files is that significant any more. But if you are one that likes to do a lot of pushing and shoving of your files - the added bit depth of the RAW files would probably work better for you. (I also like the different playthings on the EM10 like the Highlight/Shadow tool and the Color Creator which only effect the JPEG output files.)
  16. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    Aperture handles having a RAW and a JPEG very well.... I just don't personally see a need to have two files of the same thing when one will do.

    Have never found outputting a jpeg of my edited RAW for flickr or otherwise to be that much of a chore, and as I tweak every image I am going to use anyway why not tweak the file with the most data.

    But hey thats me, other folk will have their reasons

  17. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Then why not just shoot raw, then punch out a small jpeg of every keeper within the computer?

    It does not 'cost nothing' to shoot RAW + JPEG. Your camera slows down, your cards fill up faster, uploading to PC is slower. You have twice as many files but no more photos, no more shots. You crop and correct one and the other sits there uncropped and uncorrected. Mess, really.
  18. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    those of us using Macs do have the advantage that the RAW conversion engine is part of the OS... I thought windows now had a similar capability?

  19. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Yes, sort of. You need to download the Microsoft Camera Codec Pack separately but it does then show RAWs natively.

    They are pretty slow with their updates though, still no support for the likes of E-P5, E-M1, Stylus 1, GX7, GH3...
  20. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I shoot raw only. I always PP my images so keeping the JPEG is pointless.

    As regards viewing the files in Windows explorer, the Microsoft raw codec is limited in that it lags the introduction of new cameras. For example, it currently does not support the E-P5, E-M1 or E-M10 and probably a ton of Panasonic cameras too. I found that using the Olympus raw codec instead (last updated 2009!) works with all cameras though. I reckon that it's simply displaying the low-res jpeg embedded in all raw files even when it doesn't recognise the raw format itself. It's plenty good enough for thumbnails though - even big ones!

    You can find it there:

    Don't forget to remove the Microsoft one first.
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.