RAW from JPEG

Call me daft if I am but I just have to ask this ?

I have been shooting in RAW for ages now and never hardly use JPEG, but as I was just playing with my new flash gun I was using jpegs. I have just noticed I can open up a jpeg in CS3 in Adobe RAW and convert it just like a regular RAW file and save as a TIFF.

? is what is the down side of doing this if any, I am sure there must be?
Because when I go away on my long trip I can take jpegs instead of RAW and save a whole lot of storage problems and just convert to TIFFs the ones I want.

Comments and correct me please

Lilly

Aperture handles all files (raw, jpg, psd) seemlessly. On the surface you just work with your image.
But under the hood, so to speak, the files are different. Raw is more flexible, you're working with more data in the file.

now jpegs, if you are a good and careful shooter, meter properly, expose correctly, color balance right on, and you happen to like the (soft comparered to canikon) way your camera processes the file, are just fine.

I used to shoot jpegs, I'm not a sloppy shooter, and jpegs would do me just fine. But....I have several, powerful computers, tonnes of storage, and lot's of cameras. I shoot weddings and to be honest, shooting raw has made the shoots go faster, and on a few occasions saved some shots (usually the weddings that plan to be outdoors, during the worst times of the day, no shade...).

At $2400.00+ a pop, I'd say Raw is worth it for me.

but I know, if I need to, I can switch to jpeg in the feild, and fit a few more images on the card before swapping...

There's absolutely no point in processing a JPEG through the RAW converter as a routine operation. All you need to go is copy the JPEGs from the card to the computer. This will not change the JPEGs in any way and you will be able to open any of them later to either process through the RAW converter if you want to apply those sorts of adjustments that are available there, or, more likely, just open them in Photoshop.

The essential point is that once you open a JPEG and work on it you never, ever resave it as a JPEG. Always resave as a non-lossy format such as PSD or TIFF.

Many people argue for shooting in RAW on quality grounds, but the case is often very over-stated so that many expect dismal results from JPEG capture. This is just not true and all my exhibition and competition A3 prints start off life as JPEGs. When displayed side by side on a wall, you will not tell the difference between RAW and JPEG images, not with modern DSLRs anyway.

If you shoot in best quality JPEG on your long trip, just expose the images correctly and you will be fine. Life will also be much easier when processing the hundreds or thousands of shots you will take!

If you shoot JPEG though some decisions need to be made upfront. I would suggest Daylight or Cloudy as the WB setting and values of 0 for sharpness, contrast and saturation. Experiment a little before you go to ensure you are happy.

John is absolutely right in saving jpegs youhave altered in a lossless format. Aperture does not alter your originals, but saves a file outlining the changes you made (like a recipe) and only applies those to a copy (version) of the file when you export/print/share the image.
Other wise it just uses the recipe to display the image on screen....your original is untouched.

Hi Lilly, I had the same thought as you have a while ago. I opened a jpeg in LR and I could do a lot of things to it, just like the raw files. But......than I tried the recovery tool to save some blown highlights As ACR in CS3 is similar to LR you can try it your self. Than you know why you want to work in Raw.So.....yes, ACR can do some things to your jpeg's but not everything.

Martin.

PS: I am not starting another boring Jpeg vs Raw debate here.


edit: PS notion.

RAW enables better quality, especially when you want to use a different type of sharpening or noise reduction than the camera applies, or alter the brightness/contrast beyond certain points. You have more data to play with, and it has been less messed up by the camera.

It does however depend a lot on the RAW converter and what you do with it. You won't necessarily get better results with RAW, but there is the potential to.