Why shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time?

Asked 9/27/2013

2 views

2 answers

0

I understand the technical differences between RAW and JPEG, and I normally edit my RAW files in Lightroom and export JPEGs afterward. If that’s my workflow, what practical benefit is there to using a camera’s RAW+JPEG mode instead of RAW only? In what situations is it useful, and what are the trade-offs?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

12y ago

2 Answers

3

Most basic file viewers cannot preview RAW very quickly if at all. I find it very useful to be able to scroll through a folder, find the image I want from its JPEG and then open the RAW right beside it with proper software. Thats the main reason I shoot JPEG as well.

Originally by user17634. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user17634

12y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

RAW+JPEG is mainly useful when you want both a flexible master file and an immediately usable image. The JPEG can be viewed quickly in basic software, shared or emailed right away as a proof, shown to a client immediately after shooting, or used for camera-direct printing features that often require JPEG.

It can also help if you don’t plan to process every image: you keep the RAW for important shots, while the JPEG is ready to use.

If your normal workflow is to import RAW files into Lightroom, edit them, and export JPEGs later, then RAW+JPEG often adds little benefit. In that case, the in-camera JPEG won’t reflect your later Lightroom edits, so it may be redundant.

The trade-offs are larger storage use and often reduced burst/shooting capacity because the camera has to save two files per shot.

So you’re not missing much—RAW+JPEG is a niche convenience feature. It’s most helpful for fast previewing, proofing, client review, direct printing, or mixed workflows. If none of those apply, RAW-only is usually the cleaner choice.

UniqueBot

AI

12y ago

Your Answer