JPEG or RAW

[Gremlin]

can you batch process raws? Like lets say I shoot 100 images in raw and save them to dvd whatever as a master file for archive which i do everytime i upload to computer,
can i then tell photoshop to "batch convert" all those 100 shots to jpeg so I can edit them in PS, that way I still have the raw images if theres that one shot that begs for raw image editing?
Ive got CS4 and its making my head explode. Too much info trying to cram in my tiny tiny brain (much like an old 128mg sd class 1 card i think is a good methaphor!)
Grem

[arthurking83]

can you batch process raws? ....

Grem

Yes!(you should be able too)

of course that's going to be software dependent. Good software allows all options.

[Jacs14]

Wow! Jo thank you for posting this question ... as a relevant newbie have also wondered about jpec vs raw, and enjoyed reading all the feedback ... and it would appear that possible bobt sums it up best ... probably it'll end up with my own personal preference! Having said that, one more question ... being new don't have necessarily the best computer software ... any particular recommendations for post processing packages for raw? Wazza mentioned Lightroom ... any other packages people would recomend?
Jacs

[Xenedis]

any particular recommendations for post processing packages for raw? Wazza mentioned Lightroom ... any other packages people would recomend?
Jacs

I've not used Lightroom, but if you have Photoshop, it comes with Adobe Camera Raw. This is what I use, and it works well.

Alternatively, your camera's included software will include a RAW converter. I've never used my camera's RAW conversion software, but it could be said that it would be the most effective converter.

For my liking, ACR works fine.

[KALBO]

I first got into DSLR and photography 20 months ago and have been shooting in JPEG format... I have now shot a few RAW images in the last couple of weeks. I thinks there's a lot more detail and a lot more you can do in post processing when shooting RAW.. so why not try it and see the difference for yourself. ITs part of learning.

[Topgunn]

can i then tell photoshop to "batch convert" all those 100 shots to jpeg so I can edit them in PS, that way I still have the raw images if theres that one shot that begs for raw image editing?

Grem

Im not sure if I have got what you wrote correctly but the way you have made it sound is, you want to batch convert to jpeg and then edit them? If thats what you meant I wouldnt do it that way. You want to edit the RAW file and lastly save it as jpeg. No matter what you do you will always have the RAW file as PS doesnt actually alter it, just a copy of it. If you have photos that you dont want to edit and just convert them to jpeg then yeah PS can do that quite easily. I hope I have got what you meant right but either way it doesnt hurt to clarify.

[Gremlin]

sorry top i have the problem of knowing whats in my head but the transition from head to keybrd often gets foggy,
yep you got what i meant, I send copies of photos to friends who were in those photos and they often play with the images themselves, last time i emailed raws they didnt know what they were? so I tend to convert to joeg and for those that just want the pic only I usually resize for sending via email I have a 3rd party image resizer prgram that batch converts size only, good for posting on photobucket etc, but it doesnt do raw hence i use jpeg/tiff/png more. I get a lot of ppl in costume photos. Now if i could only work a way of getting myself in the pic when in costume would be better esp when we are on the move a lot of our pics are more "happy snaps" if i can use that term see http://tinyurl.com/yhpatm5 so raw is kinda overkill, but now Ive got decent comp gear and learning more about editing, then i prefer raw... depends on the image for me really.

[soulman]

A few points that may be of interest:

Everything is shot in RAW. When you set your camera to output JPEGs you are telling it to process the RAW file according to its own settings and save it as a JPEG. Some cameras allow you to adjust the way it processes RAW into JPEG. The difference between shooting RAW and shooting JPEG is simply that in the latter case you accept the camera's RAW processing and JPEG settings. These sharpening, white balance and tonal adjustments made by the camera cannot be undone once baked in to the JPEG.

JPEGs are to RAW files what MP3s are to WAV or AIFF audio files - i.e a conversion that involves lossy compression as a way of reducing size. Every time you save a JPEG you re-compress it, losing a bit more of what was there originally and adding compression artifacts. As has been noted in a previous post, JPEG also only allows for 8 bits-per-channel of colour - a total of about 16 million - which doesn't leave one much headroom when processing and which will easily produce banding on subtle colour variations. Many cameras produce 12 bit-per-channel colour, about 68 billion colours in total, and some do 14 bit, which yields about 72 gazillion colours all up.

I have RAW files I made 5 years ago that I am able to process much better now I have superior tools and more skill. I can do something similar with my old JPEGs but the difference is nowhere near as great because I can't restore the lost information.

JPEG is a good image format to end up with after you've worked on an image, not, I would suggest, a great one to use as a working format. Better to use a lossless format like TIFF or PSD if you can afford the disk space and, let's face it, an enormous hard drive will cost you less than a 50mm 1.8 lens.

I don't have a huge amount of experience with RAW editors - I know Lightroom reasonably well & I've used Canon's Digital Photo Pro - but I know that processing RAW images in Lr is as simple as processing JPEGs in, say iPhoto for example. The files are larger, but there is nothing difficult or unusual about the processing. Lr has more controls than iPhoto obviously, but working with images in general is very similar.

If one has to process a RAW in, say Digital Photo Pro, then save a TIFF, edit in Photoshop & then save a JPEG, then it's a tedious and time consuming process that results in many files that need to be stored and managed. On the other hand, using one of the modern RAW processing and cataloging tools like Lightroom or Aperture takes all the pain out of shooting RAW and provides a logical and efficient workflow. These apps do require a bit of learning obviously, but so does everything worth doing.

I know that plenty of people will only use JPEG and I'm not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with that. Hopefully it might be useful to know a bit more about the differences though, even if you don't think shooting RAW is worth your trouble.

[kiwi]

Well, firstly jpeg editing in lr is lossless

I like to think the Raw is a safety parachute for those that can't nail in camera jpeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soulman]

Well, firstly jpeg editing in lr is lossless

Adjustments to JPEGs made in Lr are included in the files' metadata as instructions - no pixels actually get changed - which is why they call it non-destructive editing. Opening the file in another (non Adobe) editor or viewer ignores the changes made in Lr. Once the changes get baked in, the file must be saved as normal. An excellent system to be sure - eliminating all the image degradation from saving whilst working for example - but not lossless.

John Nack explains it here for those interested in further reading.

[kiwi]

Yip, and unless you're silly and overwrite your original jpeg lossless as well as non- destructive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeffde]

Weddings / Portraits / Still Life / Landscapes etc RAW
Sport (cause of the number of images i would take) JPEG

I take 181 images on a 4Gb CF card in RAW - About 800 (i think) in JPEG mode so roughly 4 times as many...

[dowden photography]

if you have RAW shoot it, you learn more about PP and it will lead to better photos.

I shoot everything in RAW, from studio to street to sport in RAW, I have control over the PP. I use 4GB cards where I get around 250 shots from, if I'm at the football I change card every break, racing after every race and so on.

[kiwi]

Why on earth shoot sport in raw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dowden photography]

16-bit lossless v 8-bit compressed

Shooting on a fast enough card so my buffer is fine, why on earth would anyone shoot in jpeg if they have RAW?

[kiwi]

I take 400 shots a footy game on average with often having to transmit onsite, I see no reason to slow down my workflow or edit that many photos that significantly that raw offers any benefit and regardless of card speed the buffer is afftected on my d3 anyhow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clubmanmc]

I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot raw, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot jpeg

agree... but i shoot raw and jpg... when it counts... makes processing easier, if the jpg is ok i dont need to process, other wise i tweak the raw...

as for the comment its useless... my camera wont shoot any faster in just RAW, so i may as well get a free jpg...

M

[ving]

i shoot raw... but in all honesty why not try both. its a matter of personal preference really... we have read kym tirade of anti-ken rockwell sentiment and why jpg is no good and we have also read plenty of ppl state the benefits of jpg use... in the end it up to you...

[saratoga]

If you're a top notch shooter and can nail the exposure everytime then shoot HQ jpegs. If you will play with your images after the shoot...then you should be shooting in raw.

Raw gives you much more scope for editing and making changes to your images.

I only shoot Raw nowdays, unless its just throwaway shots.

[JM Tran]

If you're a top notch shooter and can nail the exposure everytime then shoot HQ jpegs. If you will play with your images after the shoot...then you should be shooting in raw.

Raw gives you much more scope for editing and making changes to your images.

I only shoot Raw nowdays, unless its just throwaway shots.

LOL, even top notch shooters CANNOT always nail the right exposure or colours or contrast etc, RAW is more than just about exposure