| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2008 04:48:33 PM · #1 |
Why?
I shoot 'raw', but see that some cameras can store 'raw' and jpg, why would you need the jpg's, what's the advantage? |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 04:52:46 PM · #2 |
jpg's are much smaller.
In the studio we shoot both, and then load the jpgs up for the client to preview (much faster when you've got a client waiting). Then we edit from raws. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 04:53:45 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Why?
I shoot 'raw', but see that some cameras can store 'raw' and jpg, why would you need the jpg's, what's the advantage? |
I shoot 'RAW' & small JPEG with the 20D and 'RAW' and large JPEG on the 1d, then view the JPEGS for an idea of the 'RAW' files I'd like to edit. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 04:58:27 PM · #4 |
| The small jpg's are perfect for emailing or previewing as is. No need to process a 'RAW' file to get a small preview jpg emailed to a client. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 05:06:11 PM · #5 |
| Ahh, thanks. That'll be why I don't see the advantage, I haven't got any clients! doh! |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 05:12:33 PM · #6 |
| I also noticed that the length and height proportions are different. 'RAW' files seem more square? Can you print them as is? |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 05:19:23 PM · #7 |
While you guys are talking 'RAW' vs. JPG, I have a question. I'm not trying to kill the thread either, I just don't want to start ANOTHER thread!
I only have PS Elements (which I cannot open 'RAW' files with! :-[). Is there a program that I can get to be able to work with them? Thanks -BB
PS. ALL my shots so far have just been edited from straight JPG format.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 05:19:26 PM · #8 |
I shoot both all the time. I review them for myself in jpg (no clients either) and tag the crap then delete both 'RAW' and JPG of that image. JPG opens 100 times faster on my old piece of $4
