[WMBP]

Well, in my case that I mentioned earlier, I am in a situation where I am a hobbyist and don't travel with a computer, coupled with the fact that my uncle who likes to have photos I take at his ranch but doesn't have internet... This has been the only situation where RAW +JPG has been handy.

Yes, but I grant that you have indeed identified a situation where the jpeg as well as the raw file would be useful. As I said, I don't find myself in this situation often, but I think you've made a good point.

I'm continuing for now to shoot raw+, although this thread gave me the idea of reducing the jpegs to their lowest resolution. Previously I'd been saving highest res, highest quality (i.e. lowest compression) jpegs. That was a more or less pointless waste of disk space.

Anyway, if I do stop shooting raw+, I will remember that it may be useful in the future if I find myself away from a computer for a period of time.

I would think that even in the low contrast state, a RAW+ situation might be handy as a way of guaranteeing that you'll have more time to edit photos while allowing the client to quickly see a result. This could serve a purpose equivalent to hard proofs, which weren't often fully processed but at least showed you what you could order and have processed. In fact, if you used them as digital proofs, it might be more efficient if the client directs you to a handful of shots, ultimately allowing you to only process those the client might want. Of course there is also that dilemma of the client actually liking a photo better once it is processed, but that can go on and on.

Well, that's the problem. I've always been a believer in the importance of first impressions, and I rather want my clients to see the pictures at their best, from their first glimpse.

I am still trying to think this through.

As far as handling the RAW +JPG in general, I know the DAM software I use (IMatch) allows for me to set up "buddy" files for files so that an action on one file is carried out on its buddies, mainly with respect to moving, renaming, etc. The primary purpose is for users who either have xmp files to go with their photos or digital thumbnails such as this situation. I don't use Lightroom for DAM, so I am guessing by the responses here that it doesn't have a similar feature, but other DAM software does, so it just may be an issue of finding the right DAM software to work that into your workflow.

That sounds good. I've heard of iMatch but never used it. I feel that I'm kind of stuck with Lightroom. I like using Lightroom's develop module for processing and can't really see how I could at this point use anything else for DAM. But your comment that iMatch's buddy files can be given similar metadata sounds intriguing. Perhaps I'll give it a look. Thanks,

Will

[PurpleDragon]

I use RAW+, with a simple workflow using :

• PIE (picture information viewer) to get the images off my card, automatically placing the images in their predefined folders :

ex :
20091109 <== jpegs go here
20091109\RAW <== .dng go here
20091109\Video <== video go here

• Second Copy to copy *.jpg to /My Pictures folder where I use Picasa to post images to friends and family,

• Lightroom 2.5 to import only the .dng files from 20091109\RAW if/when I want to PP for large prints.

I'm perfectly happy with the jpegs produced by the K-7 for web/email posting, and am beginning to wonder if I won't one day bypass Lightroom altogether (sacrilege!) and use ACR with Photoshop Elements for the little postprocessing I do get around to doing (namely using plugins)

[Alfisti]

Personally, I shoot RAW+JPG and keep one *or* the other. If the out-of-camera JPG satisfies me, the PEF/DNG goes to the trash. If I need/decide to process the RAW, I overwrite the JPG with the result (and the RAW usually goes to the trash afterwards).

In some cases, "special"/"important" shoots, I will keep the RAW files indefinitely. But that has become the exception.

With all due respect, this is madness. I think the great myth of RAW is that it requires one to sit there tweaking every photo manually. The idea is to set up pre-sets, load up your RAW files, press 'go' and BANG you have JPG files. You can then go back and delete the JPG's you are not hapopy with and tweak those raw files.

Shooting JPG remains of of lifes great mysteries to me, unless you are in a situation described by emalvick, I can't see the point of shooting JPG or deleting some raw and some JPG files as RBellavance has described.

is that not more difficult than just shooting RAW?

[Alfisti]

I use RAW+, with a simple workflow using :

• PIE (picture information viewer) to get the images off my card, automatically placing the images in their predefined folders :

ex :
20091109 <== jpegs go here
20091109\RAW <== .dng go here
20091109\Video <== video go here

• Second Copy to copy *.jpg to /My Pictures folder where I use Picasa to post images to friends and family,

• Lightroom 2.5 to import only the .dng files from 20091109\RAW if/when I want to PP for large prints.

I'm perfectly happy with the jpegs produced by the K-7 for web/email posting, and am beginning to wonder if I won't one day bypass Lightroom altogether (sacrilege!) and use ACR with Photoshop Elements for the little postprocessing I do get around to doing (namely using plugins)

Again that seems a massive hassle. Why not just shoot RAW and Export JPG's from Lightroom?????? It's literally three mouse clicks to process thousands of images and you are not keepiong track of RAW folders and JPG folders and god knows what else.

I don't get it.

Shoot RAW, load files on PC, press 'Export' and wham .. it's done. This way you always have a RAW file as a back up just in case.

[Marc Sabatella]

Bottom line is that as my cameras have gotten more advanced, and the in-camera JPEG processing better and more feature-filled, I'm starting to wonder if the work of post-processing is worth it for everyday photos.

What I don't get is, why do you assume shooting RAW means you have to post process? If you're happy with the exposure and so forth straight out of the camera for JPEG, why not for RAW too? Or is it that you are making extensive use of the features that your RAW processing program cannot emulate (D-range, etc)?

[Lowell Goudge]

As far as I can see, there are several reasons for shooting Raw+

- the need to upload images quickly, for low resolution reproduction, but you still want to keep a maximum resolution shot for your own purposes. Shooting for a newspaper could be a situation like this. You may shoot with RAW set to a much lower pixel count because it is not needed for print.

- you normally shoot only JPEG but decide when shooting that the situation deserves much more than can be achieved by JPEG alone, and you press the RAW + button on the camera. Detailed control of shadows (as Marc Sabatella does with his process) is one example

- you want to generate automatically a set of "proof" images for discussion and tweeking with your clients.

[Alfisti]

As far as I can see, there are several reasons for shooting Raw+

- you normally shoot only JPEG but decide when shooting that the situation deserves much more than can be achieved by JPEG alone, and you press the RAW + button on the camera. Detailed control of shadows (as Marc Sabatella does with his process) is one example

See to me this just creates confusion when viewing files, you have JPG's, RAW files etc etc .. it' sjust messy. THen you need to decide when to switch to raw or not in the field.

Just leave it on RAw and batch process JPG's.

TBH I think there are two issues at play, peopel think you need to hand process each RAW file and people want to saver card space. Honestly, a very reliable class 6, 4GB Delkin card from B+H is $20 .... $20 .... I mean really, one can afford the disk space.

[aerodave]

What I don't get is, why do you assume shooting RAW means you have to post process? If you're happy with the exposure and so forth straight out of the camera for JPEG, why not for RAW too? Or is it that you are making extensive use of the features that your RAW processing program cannot emulate (D-range, etc)?

It's a recognition that the camera is now capable, in-body, of doing the same tweaks I've always routinely applied to my RAW files. Fixing white balance, rescuing shadows, even correcting for lens distortion. Even the in-camera noise reduction may be enough to keep me from needing Noise Ninja most of the time...probably not, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

So basically, it's more or less the last part of of your question for me. I feel like the camera wants to help me do the very same things I usually do in Lightroom. It's not that things like D-Range can't be emulated on the computer (after all, isn't shadow correction just a simple fill light adjustment?) It's that maybe post-processing is no longer the only reliable way to achieve those results.

[emalvick]

Well, that's the problem. I've always been a believer in the importance of first impressions, and I rather want my clients to see the pictures at their best, from their first glimpse.

I am still trying to think this through.




That sounds good. I've heard of iMatch but never used it. I feel that I'm kind of stuck with Lightroom. I like using Lightroom's develop module for processing and can't really see how I could at this point use anything else for DAM. But your comment that iMatch's buddy files can be given similar metadata sounds intriguing. Perhaps I'll give it a look. Thanks,

Will

Well, I do recognize that problem and only mentioned the idea of a basic "proof" as a matter of efficiency, but that is always difficult when we are all perfectionists to some degree. I just know that when it came to my wedding, our photographer gave us less than ideal proofs with a disclaimer that she would make all the photos we wanted perfect. She was also working with film, so the workflow is obviously a bit different, too.


As far as IMatch or other DAM (I think idimager is another program that allows for buddy files), I was using IMatch for DAM way before Lightroom existed. I still use it because the features that I like about it are miles ahead of Lightroom. For me, Lightroom is merely a RAW Developer, and I only use it because I had access to the student discounted version of it. I find its DAM features lacking because of what I am used to. However, if I hadn't gotten used to IMatch, I'd probably find Lightroom adequate. It is definitely more user friendly, and IMatch as it currently exists is a bit dated, which is why I mentioned idimager. It is similar to IMatch but much more user friendly and only slightly limited in features compared to IMatch.

[Canada_Rockies]

I shoot RAW only. I did shoot JPEG only once, but was disappointed with the results from my K10 because, mostly, I was shooting in a hockey rink with those ghastly lights. I then shot RAW + at another sports outing because I was out without my computer, and could give my family members JPEG images before I left. I don't need to do this any more, because that particular family member bought a K200 recently, and can read PEF files now.

I have LR 2.5, and as mentioned above, exporting JPEG files is a no brainer. For my more common exports I have created LR export presets. Each preset has its own directory on the hard drive into which it puts the file.

To create images in JPEG from any of my RAW files for upload to this forum, I select the picture(s), click [Export], click [Pentax Forums] preset, click the [Export] button on the resulting page, and let LR do its thing. This is so quick, that I often do examples while I am replying to a message. I decide to upload an image, open LR, do the output, open the Pentax Forums Gallery in another browser window, upload the file, copy the IMG address from the upload, go back to my reply window and paste it into the message. It's that quick and that easy.

[FHPhotographer]

There is one benefit of RAW+ , at least on the K20, if you frequently convert to B&W.

By setting jpeg to Monochrome and tailoring the jpeg for the conditions, I not only have a good B&W to evaluate in the camera, but have saved that image as a baseline when working on the B&W conversion in PS. It it saves time at both ends: I can more easily evaluate the tone in the camera, and saves going through several steps to make making that RAW conversion into B&W only to find out I didn't get quite what I wanted.
Brian

[WMBP]

There is one benefit of RAW+ , at least on the K20, if you frequently convert to B&W.

By setting jpeg to Monochrome and tailoring the jpeg for the conditions, I not only have a good B&W to evaluate in the camera, but have saved that image as a baseline when working on the B&W conversion in PS. It it saves time at both ends: I can more easily evaluate the tone in the camera, and saves going through several steps to make making that RAW conversion into B&W only to find out I didn't get quite what I wanted.
Brian

Brian,

You don't have to save the jpeg (in other words, you don't have to shoot Raw+) in order to see a black and white preview. And to me, at least, that is the useful thing. Once I get the photo on my computer, I usually like to SEE the colors briefly and think about them before I start my black and white conversion. Not sure I see the usefulness of saving the jpeg, even here.

At least not for myself. But I would not argue with anybody who finds that useful. It's another interesting idea.

Will

[FHPhotographer]

WMBP, true enough, but I just like to have the B&W image side by side with the RAW image to check the "that's what I saw" factor when converting,
Brian

[Canada_Rockies]

WMBP, true enough, but I just like to have the B&W image side by side with the RAW image to check the "that's what I saw" factor when converting,
Brian

I would do this in Lightroom. I would make a Virtual copy of the RAW file, convert the copy to monochrome, then do a Compare view on screen to see which I prefer.

[nnyorkie]

I never found a use for RAW+ before, but I've done a few family portraits lately, and it's very helpful in these cases. I upload the JPEGs to an online proof gallery, then work from the RAW files when the order comes in. I may have to adjust/crop some of the JPEGs, but not many.