I use to shoot in JPEG the first 2 months I got my DSLR. Every since I found out what I can do from shoot in RAW I never went back to JPEG. With RAW I can change the white balance, noise reduction, clone, etc... with the outcome looking much better than if I would of done those editing when shoot in JPEG.

sevencrossing said:
Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

It will be arriving from B & H on Thursday. I did not need to try it out as I have Lightroom 3 and find it is wonderful. I understand Lightroom 4 will allow the RAW 14 Bit Lossless, compressed files to be used, so, the D4 will be producing some even more exciting photos...... And I will be back to seeing the humongous files in my computer once again. Ha, ha, ha...

Pierre said:
Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

That is just you creativity bursting to get out ...

msmoto said:
Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition.

Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

bjrichus said:
Ah ha! A voice of reason...

Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.... you folks are all great. Of course no one answered the question, "Do I even know what I am doing?" Ha, ha, ha.

Most likely, I will go with Lightroom 4, as I am becoming a little familiar with LR 3. Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition. Eventually I may try some HDR stuff, really love it, but the end is almost always to attempt to emulate the Ansel Adams tonal range but do this in color. I think I can actually see some differences in the RAW images which I put on my desktop, import as DNG, then process. There is more available than with JPEG. And in the past with the D90, D200, I was always in RAW, shooting that is.

OK, please remember this is my ATTEMPT, to have nice images... so, thanks again for the help... from and old film photog...

Pierre said:
Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

Ah ha! A voice of reason...

I shoot 100% raw and process on the computer, before exporting to JPG for final use that get sent to printer department with machines like large format inkjet, offset (still have one left), Xerox high speed etc, for magazines, document, poster, or web use.

While I certainly *could* shoot just JPG (especially when its going to be used on a poster sized thing like something that gets hung in a 2 story stair well to advertize an event), how I record the image is because I want to be able to give the printers the best quality image for the tasks they have to perform.

If I am going to do a portrait that will get used no more than 3"x5", then while a small JPG might be all I need, I do not know if that is the only use it'll get. I may need to produce something that is not just a 3"x5" but also gets used at six feet on the long edge too. Doing as much of the editing and cropping etc in RAW (largest size and maximum detail) lets me keep as much of the quality until I can reformat it into the right size and resolution for the end result(s).

Note the plural above.....

All you have to do is update the camera raw to 6.7 beta and your set supports the D4 and D800. Im sure it will officially released soon but meantime just use the beta version.

msmoto said:
Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom 3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files.

I could be wrong but I think I have read, Adobe are only updating L4 for the D800 and D4

LR4 is a big improvement on LR3 particularly the brush tools and the clarity shadow and high light sliders

msmoto said:What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

upgrade
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/06/adobe-lightroom-4-released-with-nikon-d4-d800-d800e-85mm-f1-8-support.aspx/

msmoto said:How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

TBH i think you'll find developing RAW of little use to you, as you can shoot with a D4 and 400 2.8 anyway, so won't need to get extra out of the files.

Maybe white balance might be of use.

I suggest reading up on raw and possibly getting the "raw without fud" instructional dvd. it was useful to me when I first looked into raw.

msmoto said:
... new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. ... What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed? ...

As I mentioned before, that's part of the fun of being an early adopter, you may need to wait for the vendors to update their softwares (probably at some cost).

In the mean time, you could save both raw and jpeg for the shots you think may be improved in PP for later. Storage is rather cheap.

I have keept all of my raws thinking that when my PP skills improves, I have the option of going back to my prefered shots and give them another workout.

The raw has so much more information that can be retrieved simply not available in jpeg.

Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

TaoTeJared said:
The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

Thanks for explaining.

I highly doubt 14 bit, I was just curious about the different sorts of RAW.

adamz said:
no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Thanks for letting me know.

Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. So, I am shooting in JPEG Fine, giving me 8-10 MB files before fiddling.

What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Gareth said:
You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

AS FOR JPEG VS RAW.

My kids teacher had some wedding shots done which were very nice. I offered to print one for her as prints weren't included in the package she got.

The photographer used a d300 and a 85 1.4. they shot the photo i want to print at f2.2 ISO400. so this shot should look good.

when viewing at 100% (approx print size) I can see horrible grain, aliasing and noise. I asked for the RAW file to maximise for print, but it has been deleted.

I am a bit gutted as I could end up with a MUCH better print if I had the original RAW file, but with the jpeg I am limited. The photographer says that the file is the maximum quality, but I think they ran it through post to add pop, and in doing so added noise.

IMO, the photographer should offer RAWS for print, and stipulate this in the contract.

The teacher is still happy to have the pic printed, and I am having it framed very nicely, so it should look good from a couple of feet away, but up close, not as good as it could.

Not a question of RAW or jpg, I was just curious about RAW.

How much data are you losing when you move from 14 bit to 12 bit?

And if it does not specify what type of RAW file it is, can I assume it's 12 bit?

I'm asking specifically about a D40.

Thanks.

I shoot in NEF and then use a tool to convert the file to JPG when needed.
The NEF files I download them from the camera using a tool called "Downloader Pro", that also allows me to rename the file name and make it "read-only". This tool also generates the directory hierarchy I use for post-processing.

The NEF files I store on a file hierarchy named "Originals", located on a specific hard disk that is well backup-ed. Postprocessing results go to a different file hierarchy I call "Dark Room".

The reason I make my NEF files read-only when I download them is that I treat them as "negatives" from the film era, once the negative is processed, it can't be changed. If I want to do some PP on the NEF file, I copy the NEF file to a different directory and do as I want.

Alastair said:
What I would like to do is import the JPEG and then save the RAW file to an archive or HD. So a few questions:
1) is it possible to save Raw files just to a hard drive?

It sounds like you're using a mac, and I don't use one so don't know if the proceedure is the same, but on my PC I just go to the folder/file on the memory card that contains the pictures, and "sort" or "view" by file name (or even size as the nefs will be larger than the Jpegs), this will separate the .jpg files from the .nef ones and then just highlight the nef files and copy and paste them to you backup location. Is this what your were asking or am I missing the problem?

I think the bigger question is; why do you shoot both? I really don't see any need for shooting both Raw and Jpeg all the time unless you have an immediate need to post or print when shooting AND major editing later.

It sounds like your workflow is like mine where you use Jpegs most of the time (family, pets, friends, snapshots) but Raw files for the best photos. I have trained myself to switch over to Raw when there are images that Jpeg will not do justice to and shoot Jpeg the rest of the time. I burn back-ups to DVD which keeps the original Jpeg and does not harm the re-saving of it. I just don't see the need of having multiple copies making a mess of my hard-drives.

There will never be a different format for jpeg. Raw (NEF) files are more likely to change. Either way, they will always be editable just as many other dead extensions that are supported by programs that have not been used for 10+ years. If one is really fearful of the file formats not being supported, PSD (Photoshop) or Tiff is your best bet.

On a side note: Please oh God, please no RAW debates - I urge everyone to recognize how he currently works and suggestions what he can do.

I do save all raw separate, the JPEG's are only needed when printing or formatting for the web.
The RAW are also for archiving, so that when someone would come up with a new format for JPEG, I can alway start from RAW again if needed..

I don't know how aperture works, but assuming it is similar to Lightroom, it should be possible to keep all your the RAW files on a separate hard drive(s) or even the cloud. again assuming its similar to Lightroom, there should be no need to shoot jpegs at all

I currently have a D3100 and shot Raw + JPEG. I import into Aperture with JPEG as the master. I mostly edit the JPEG but once in awhile I have a great shot that I need to work on using the RAW file. My challenge is that Aperture is, of course, struggling to keep up with the rapidly increasing library size. What I would like to do is import the JPEG and then save the RAW file to an archive or HD. So a few questions:
1) is it possible to save Raw files just to a hard drive?
2) is it possible to separate the JPEG and Raw files when saved to a SD card in a D3100?

I am thinking about upgrading to the D7000 (for many reasons) where I can save the jpeg to one card and the raw to the other card. I assume that would make it easier to archive / save the raw files without importing to Aperture.

Appreciate any insights.

Hi DaveyJ,

I think for your purposes and tastes, JPGs are fine.

It's not a 'one size fits all' world; I have a lot of caps that prove that.

For me, I like to take my RAW images and tinker with them as I would (with some anguish) in the darkroom, only now I'm enjoying it more.

Layer masks, HDR, a slew of other things are better done with RAW files as the beginning ingredients.

Somehow I think we lose sight that everyone has their own way to get to their where their going.

My best,

Mike

Thank those who commented on JPEG fine large for individual manufacturers. Very helpful!