JPEG or RAW

[bigdazzler]

Wow ... I just ate a whole pizza reading this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xenedis]

Wow ... I just ate a whole pizza reading this thread.

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

[Error99]

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

I like my pizza cut into 6 bits because I cant eat 8 bits

[bigdazzler]

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

booom .... you know I was gonna write something cheesy like that but thought better of it ..

[darkbhudda]

I was using RAW+JPG so I could review my photos easily but I've switched to RAW only thanks to a handy little free tool called Instant JPEG from RAW.

http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-j...om-raw-utility


Once I copy my files off my camera I select the RAW files then right click click on the Instant JPEG from RAW option and it extracts the jpeg that's stored in the RAW files.

Best of both worlds so far, easy review of photos and also ability to work with the RAW file. Less space used than RAW+JPG too.

[arthurking83]

buddah!

some image viewing software uses the embedded jpg file in the raw for display purposes anyhow.

So your use of IJFR is probably not really required anyhow.

Still a great program to have handy tho.

(Nikon specific.. because I use Nikon! )
ViewNX uses the jpg image in the raw file for browsing, but CaptureNX doesn't.(possibly for thumbnails tho??).

(generic software)
Another image browser I use a lot is FSViewer(FastStone), and it can be set to load the jpg file for browsing raw images for faster browsing .... or not.

[Gaz]

Well this post sure answered a whole lot of questions !!!
Thanks

[moonshine]

When i am snappy happy and just having fun i use jpg. When i do a shoot i use raw.

[arthurking83]

When i am snappy happy and just having fun i use jpg. When i do a shoot i use raw.

LOL! funny that you say that moonshine... should I dare explain how I have a jpg set memory bank in my D300 too?

While my replies may have a very serious tone to them, it;s usually just so that the newcomer to photography fully realises that once you commit to shooting in a non raw format(and many DSLR's may have various file types to choose from.. such as jpg, tiff(whoa! on the file sizes.. forget it ), and then the respective raw formats, which I understand on Pentax'es to be both their proprietary PEF format, and DNG.

many camera's come with software from the manufacturer, and that software usually integrates very well with the camera itself, allowing in camera editing/enhancing to be done via the PC, to determine what, if any enhancements in the camera can improve the quality of the resultant image. But this only applies for the raw format and not the raster formats(jpg and tiff) as there is no 'intelligent data' in the raster formats for the manufacturer specific software to read.
Stuff like sharpening! much better done via the PC with either (my preferred USM) or High Pass. In camera sharpening results in a more grainy looking blur/bokeh.. mainly in the blue channel. I've noticed that(with Nikon cameras) the in camera sharpening settings are 'very coarse' compared to how you can apply it via USM via your image editing program.
Hence I have all my in camera sharpening set to zero.
ie. all in camera enhancements set to zero, should I decide to use them
The images still come out looking standard, neutral or vivid for each enhancement type, but there is no sharpening or other tweak enabled.

So, if I 'only shoot raw' as I think I've already stated, why would I have a jpg set memory bank in my camera?
On the odd occasion, non intelligent (ie. raster) third party human life forms have used my D300 for the purpose of attempting to "see if a better camera is something they'd like to have"??
Because of the way memory banks work, and the way I have my camera set up to only focus via the AF-On button, they've never been able to use it correctly, and end up with a 6fps burst of 12 images(buffer deliberately set! ) of very artistic blur.
up until I took the time to set it up that way, the consensus from these non intelligent raster types, the consensus is that these big cameras are too complicated to operate!

So I dumbed it down, and made sure that if any images on my camera are jpg only, they're not mine. I've only used that setting once, and that was to confirm that it worked correctly
Geezus .. I felt so dumb afterwards tho.

[darkbhudda]

buddah!

some image viewing software uses the embedded jpg file in the raw for display purposes anyhow.

So your use of IJFR is probably not really required anyhow.

Still a great program to have handy tho.

Another image browser I use a lot is FSViewer(FastStone), and it can be set to load the jpg file for browsing raw images for faster browsing .... or not.

The embedded jpgs will still be useful for a while. I have an old computer so they display faster and they've come in handy for some of my image manipulations. I have been reading up about FSViewer and I think I'll give it a try, thanks for the tip.

[arthurking83]

The embedded jpgs will still be useful for a while......

Always!

a case in point is the differences in how a non manufacturer raw converter/viewer will render the raw image as it deems to be the best way.
From my experiences, the manufacturers software generally displays the raw image as your camera captured it.

And the embedded jpg can help you to determine how good or bad third party software shows the differences between the two images.
A jpg is a set image. Once it's been made, all software will render it to be roughly the same looking. There may be some very subtle differences in tones and colours, but I suspect that in the majority of cases they're going to be nothing by comparison to the differences between the rendering of raw images.... that I've seen between the different software I've used.
I've used PSCS2 or thereabouts via ACR(something early), Bibble Pro, LightRoom3, And just about all of Nikon's own raw viewing software.. except I hated Nikon View, which was an early and buggy program form many years ago(replaced by ViewNX).
The example screenshots I have currently are only with Bibble Pro< as I never thought to record the differences when I had a working copy of LR3 trial. LR3 is not quite as bad as Bibble with 'over exposure', but far worse in terms of colour and contrast looking so flat in terms of tone that I'd be inclined to give it all away! With Bibble, all have to do is set -1.5Ev compensation for every image and I'm done.
But this is a seriously deluded workflow system as the exact same image opened as a jpg and rendered by Bibble is perfectly acceptable!
I noted similar differences with LR3 too(compared to how my camera renders the images as well as Nikon software does).

The main point is that my digital camera is loaded with it's own specific image rendering substance. I capture it one way in the camera, and when I get it home and see it via thirdparty software... it can only be described as crappy looking!.. unless the raw viewing software displays the embedded jpg file(as FSViewer does)

Maybe this is isolated to Nikon only raw images...on my PC?? ... or something, as there are a lot more people that seem to be happy with their images via these thirdparty software vendors than I would ever imagine possible .

FSViewer is what Nikon ViewNX should be(like).
ViewNX is a crappy program that is more than capable(if that makes sense ). It has barely any editing ability other than very mild tweaking and really only good for viewing and mass converting NEF images into more manageable jpgs.
FSViewer is awesome considering it's free.
The flexibility of how it allows you to save images and with what compression settings and some of the editing ability is very nice. Only problem is that it's woeful at converting raw images into jpgs. it creates badly rendered images, just as the others do.

it's also great in the way it's almost nonexistent on resources on your PC, and you can run it directly off an external memory source(such as a USB drive or whatever!!) but that's a separate program to the one that installs on your PC. The slideshow feature is also very good. Good for old PC's or laptops and suchlike.