09-04-2011, 09:29 AM

OK. I am a keen amateur and the amount that I shoot is going up up up.

Until now, I have been using my Canon 500D in JPEG mode most of the time (casual shots etc) and JPEG+RAW for special occasions (on safari etc).
I use iPhoto for organising, and PS CS5/Bridge if I want to play with a RAW image (not often). Library is expanding, so have decided to change things up and get more serious.

1. Will change to lightroom or aperture. (prob Aperture, so iPhoto library import is easier)
2. Will start to use RAW as a default.

so my questions are:

1. If I just shoot in RAW and import into Aperture, will I have to convert all photos to JPEG in order to be able to easily browse through folders etc, or do I only need to convert for exporting etc.
2. Is there any advantage to JPEG+RAW mode? could I use this mode, importing everything in JPEG, but only selected RAW images (the ones I know I will want to tinker with - perhaps one in five)

overall, just an Idea of how people in similar positions handle their images would be much appreciated. Dont really know the practical implications (downsides) of RAW shooting.

Many thanks
Doug

(sorry for any naivety here, I am looking for advice, not sarcasm)

09-04-2011, 10:06 AM

Just a question of curiosity, no sarcasm intended. If you're going to be using a photo-management app like either Aperture or Lightroom, why would you import to iPhoto? Or, are you looking to import your current library into the new management tool?

1) Aperture (and Lightroom) both handle RAW files from most manufacturers (well, pretty much every at this point). So there's no need to convert to jpeg for your browsing needs.

2) I, personally, see no point in storing both a RAW and JPEG file. I work with RAW files, and if necessary export to jpg (this depends on my output device, for web I output to jpg, really I just let Lr do it when I export to smugmug, and print I generally send a TIF.)

Downsides to RAW? File size is bigger, but this is because it carries a much greater amount of data and storage is cheap. I can't think of any real downsides to that. I can, however, think of downsides to shooting only in JPG. Especially if you do any editing of your files. Every edit degrades the image file, if for no other reason than it recompresses an already compressed file.

09-04-2011, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dysfunction

If you're going to be using a photo-management app like either Aperture or Lightroom, why would you import to iPhoto?

Planning on importing my existing library FROM iPhoto. Don't plan to use iPhoto again after that.

Should have made that clear.

Thanks for the other tips..

09-08-2011, 09:25 AM

Both Aperture and Lightroom will display raw files with ease. You needn't convert until you've finished playing with them.

Personally, I use Lightroom 95% of the time and Photoshop if needed. I shoot in raw only - shooting jpg + raw chews up way too much space on the card way too fast and I probably would trash all the jpgs immediately anyway.

09-08-2011, 09:55 AM

I use Aperture 3 and shoot in RAW only.

Main advantage to me of Aperture over iPhoto is Library Management, as I generally use Adobe PSE for editing. I agree with others, in that I see no reason to shoot both JPEG and RAW. May be beneficial to some, but not to me.

09-08-2011, 11:28 AM

I also use LR and only use PS when necessary. As far as shooting JPG +RAW, it really depends. Jpgs are great for immediate soft proofing with clients when you're in the field, since you can send them straight to mostly any device via wi-fi or an ad-hoc network over 3g etc..

Or let's say you're at a paid gig, and an editor needs immediate access to the files as you're shooting. You're certainly not going to shoot RAW in that case. Or if you do, it will be for archival purposes. The Jpgs are going right to the chief editor for publication. Think sports game...

Doug

09-08-2011, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Doug b

I also use LR and only use PS when necessary. As far as shooting JPG +RAW, it really depends. Jpgs are great for immediate soft proofing with clients when you're in the field, since you can send them straight to mostly any device via wi-fi or an ad-hoc network over 3g etc..

Or let's say you're at a paid gig, and an editor needs immediate access to the files as you're shooting. You're certainly not going to shoot RAW in that case. Or if you do, it will be for archival purposes. The Jpgs are going right to the chief editor for publication. Think sports game...

Doug

To be honest it would depend on the kind of shooting you're doing. If you're softproofing on a set/studio location with the client there (kind of like softproofing with polaroids, for those of us who are old), then shooting tethered would be far superior anyway. The added advantage of this (assuming you're using Lr for your tethering) is that the images are also stored locally to the computer, not on your CF card. This would also mean that an export to jpg would be quick, and you'd still retain the ability to make quick and dirty image modifications (all the Lr stuff, not pixel editing). Same, IMO, with the second example.

If you're shooting in the field, this is far more difficult. Unless, of course, you have an iPad (mostly for the cell ability) and an eye-fi card, and ShutterSnitch and then set up RAW's to saved to the card anyway and the jpgs transferred. This, would also work nicely in a studio environment, at least in theory.. I don't have an iPad yet, but can see how nice it would be to shoot tethered, without a usb cable.