gavinlg
Veteran
So here's some b&w JPEGs from yesterdays Zombie Shuffle in Melbourne. I used the following settings:
- JPEG fine
- BW in camera mode
- Highlights med-soft
- Shadows std
- Sharpening hard
- Auto ISO, 3200 max
All images went through contrast correction/dodge&burn in LR3 - about the same amount as I would have done for a RAW file. As I said before, it'll be all RAW in the future - same as I do with my 5d.
The rest of the set can be seen @ gavinlagrange.tumblr.com
I'm a RAW only type, but if I was going to shoot JPEG, I'd at least shoot jpeg and RAW. What happens if you get your best photo ever and it's a jpeg that isn;t exactly exposed right... would be nice to have the RAW then no? There are no absolutes in photography.
avikrc
Established
yeah. that's what makes the most sense I guess. The X100 mostly produces pretty good jpegs, but for certain cases it is most comforting to know that I also have the RAW file somewhere.
Just the other day I was shooting indoors with a custom white balance and forgot to change it later and the jpeg came out all blue. It would have ruined the fun if I didn't have the RAW to sort things out...
..Just my two cents..
celluloidprop
Well-known
X100 B&W jpgs are quite gray, IMO - playing with the shadow/midtone/highlight settings helps that quite a bit (even 'medium-hard' settings don't blow shadows or highlights on a regular basis), but I've never gotten the results I can get from SEP2.
It is nice for viewing B&W in-camera, though.
It is nice for viewing B&W in-camera, though.
Archiver
Veteran
I am following this thread with interest as I do not (yet) have a X100 but I shoot a range of cameras, all in raw if possible. I have the X10 and I find that the jpeg output is surprisingly good enough to use as a default, although I shoot in raw + jpeg in case there is something I want to tweak extra hard.
I am very interested to know just how good the X100's raws are in Lightroom. I shoot in raw with every camera since I discovered how much more I can get out of my images when I do. But if the X100 jpegs are good 'enough' like the X10's, then it will be a very pleasant surprise.
I am very interested to know just how good the X100's raws are in Lightroom. I shoot in raw with every camera since I discovered how much more I can get out of my images when I do. But if the X100 jpegs are good 'enough' like the X10's, then it will be a very pleasant surprise.
gavinlg
Veteran
The JPEGs are good sometimes, and sometimes they can ruin a bunch of photos - like when there's odd light (fluorescent etc). I just shoot raw now - no extra effort, better IQ. No brainer IMO.
The x100 jpeg is good, but there's nothing like being able to control exactly what the contrast and color is in a photograph.
The x100 jpeg is good, but there's nothing like being able to control exactly what the contrast and color is in a photograph.
rbelyell
Well-known
we can complicate this up, but its really simple--its visually visceral--what looks better coming out of the X. to my eye the jpegs have more dynamic range and more 'pop'. that's pretty much it, not much further analysis is necessary except for settings, which in my case are: Fine, provia, med hard sharpness, auto iso, auto DR, everything else to default. i find astia a little soft and shadows a little clipped and skin tones not as pleasing or realistic.
i think astia is actually a less 'garish' or saturated version of velvia setting, which i do use for some nature/landscapes, but then i put DR to 100 and 'shadow tone' to lowest setting to mitigate shadow clipping.
i extremely low light i do shoot RAW plus b&w jpeg to get better WB control of the color and easy immediate qualitative comparison between color and b&w. typically in those situations i'm shooting people so i 'spot meter' with a greatly reduced-in-size focus frame, and use the green filter setting, which really conveys subtleties of skin tone. ive found no need for any external b&w processing as the OOC renderings are among the best ive ever encountered.
i think astia is actually a less 'garish' or saturated version of velvia setting, which i do use for some nature/landscapes, but then i put DR to 100 and 'shadow tone' to lowest setting to mitigate shadow clipping.
i extremely low light i do shoot RAW plus b&w jpeg to get better WB control of the color and easy immediate qualitative comparison between color and b&w. typically in those situations i'm shooting people so i 'spot meter' with a greatly reduced-in-size focus frame, and use the green filter setting, which really conveys subtleties of skin tone. ive found no need for any external b&w processing as the OOC renderings are among the best ive ever encountered.
gilpen123
Gil
Very true get your exposure right and you're ok, however, opening and closing Jpeg files will eventually degrade the file. Best to save as TIFF after shooting Fine Jpeg.
kuzano
Veteran
Every Jpeg file>save or file>save as discards data
Every Jpeg file>save or file>save as discards data
I don't really concern myself with RAW vs. Jpeg in editing. What I DO concern myself with is the amount of data discarded from the file on any and all Jpeg functions which involve the creation of a new file, including the first Jpeg out of the camera.
Jpeg is a lossey algorithm that discards data from the file on every edit>file>save or save as. This should be obvious from the choices one makes on quality out of the camera, as in fine or high quality vs. standard or low quality on Jpeg creation. It should also be obvious when one gets that last dialogue box, in most editing software, on saving a Jpeg, where one chooses the % quality of the image.
You are instructing the camera, or the computer, specifically how much "like" data to round up and throw out of the image.
I believe more people would shoot RAW + Jpeg if they realized how a Jpeg degrades EACH time it is saved once at creation by the camera and each time you edit/change the image.
It only takes about 8-10 saves in the computer using a low percentage of file save in that final dialogue box pertaining to Jpeg quality, to visually detect degradation.
Jpeg stands for Joint Photographer Experts Group, the people who got together long before we had "broad band" over the internet, to devise a compression algorithm for files that would speed transfer via telephone modems and similar problems.
With the advent of broad band internet and cheap storage, Jpeg may actually be somewhat obsolete considering it's originally intended purpose, but the camera manufacturers will surely not let it go. Too heady to explain to the end user/consumer.
And, for some people, the processing engine in the camera takes care of a lot of hours of begrudged time spent in front of the computer. So, in that case, the first Jpeg OOC is useful and a great time saver. If you take the time to properly understand your computer and it's internal "edit" functions, Jpeg gives you the opportunity to get very satisfactory results bypassing a lot of time spent massaging raw.
So the point that makes the most impact for me is the fact that EVERY Jpeg loses data on the save, because the file on a save is a new file and the Jpeg function ALWAYS discards SOME or much data depending on your choices.
If you never intend to edit (using ANY software that offers a Jpeg save) you pictures, then perhaps that one first Jpeg save OOC, is perfect for your needs and has enough data for a high quality image, using High, Fine or Super quality. That way the data loss is one time only, OOC, and minimal loss because of the quality selection, in addition to the resolution (pixel count).
So I can agree with Nick and everyone else on this thread, as long as you understand the degrading impact that Jpeg has on repetitive editing and saving of the file.
Some people also believe that opening and closing or transferring Jpeg files runs the compression algorithm and that is NOT the case.
This is a very helpful article on some of the Jpeg myths:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm
Every Jpeg file>save or file>save as discards data
I don't really concern myself with RAW vs. Jpeg in editing. What I DO concern myself with is the amount of data discarded from the file on any and all Jpeg functions which involve the creation of a new file, including the first Jpeg out of the camera.
Jpeg is a lossey algorithm that discards data from the file on every edit>file>save or save as. This should be obvious from the choices one makes on quality out of the camera, as in fine or high quality vs. standard or low quality on Jpeg creation. It should also be obvious when one gets that last dialogue box, in most editing software, on saving a Jpeg, where one chooses the % quality of the image.
You are instructing the camera, or the computer, specifically how much "like" data to round up and throw out of the image.
I believe more people would shoot RAW + Jpeg if they realized how a Jpeg degrades EACH time it is saved once at creation by the camera and each time you edit/change the image.
It only takes about 8-10 saves in the computer using a low percentage of file save in that final dialogue box pertaining to Jpeg quality, to visually detect degradation.
Jpeg stands for Joint Photographer Experts Group, the people who got together long before we had "broad band" over the internet, to devise a compression algorithm for files that would speed transfer via telephone modems and similar problems.
With the advent of broad band internet and cheap storage, Jpeg may actually be somewhat obsolete considering it's originally intended purpose, but the camera manufacturers will surely not let it go. Too heady to explain to the end user/consumer.
And, for some people, the processing engine in the camera takes care of a lot of hours of begrudged time spent in front of the computer. So, in that case, the first Jpeg OOC is useful and a great time saver. If you take the time to properly understand your computer and it's internal "edit" functions, Jpeg gives you the opportunity to get very satisfactory results bypassing a lot of time spent massaging raw.
So the point that makes the most impact for me is the fact that EVERY Jpeg loses data on the save, because the file on a save is a new file and the Jpeg function ALWAYS discards SOME or much data depending on your choices.
If you never intend to edit (using ANY software that offers a Jpeg save) you pictures, then perhaps that one first Jpeg save OOC, is perfect for your needs and has enough data for a high quality image, using High, Fine or Super quality. That way the data loss is one time only, OOC, and minimal loss because of the quality selection, in addition to the resolution (pixel count).
So I can agree with Nick and everyone else on this thread, as long as you understand the degrading impact that Jpeg has on repetitive editing and saving of the file.
Some people also believe that opening and closing or transferring Jpeg files runs the compression algorithm and that is NOT the case.
This is a very helpful article on some of the Jpeg myths:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm
chris00nj
Young Luddite
An older thread, but as someone who is potentially moving to digital for the first time with the X-pro 1, I thought this thread would be a useful read as I thought "oh jeez, does going digital mean I have to learn to use RAW and buy Lightroom?"
Nick, thanks for the sanity check.
I'm transitioning to digital because I can't keep up developing and scanning with two small children. Spending hours processing RAW files to get a result that is 0.1% better than the JPEG does not seem like a worthwhile effort for me.
Nick, thanks for the sanity check.
I'm transitioning to digital because I can't keep up developing and scanning with two small children. Spending hours processing RAW files to get a result that is 0.1% better than the JPEG does not seem like a worthwhile effort for me.
celluloidprop
Well-known
You won't spend hours on RAW files. There's no reason to do an entire PP process on every image you take.
These days I'm shooting RAW + mono JPG for previewing. Then I import into LR3, delete the obvious missteps, decide which are good enough for displaying then (Flickr, RFF, etc.) and edit in Silver Efex Pro 2 or Color Efex Pro after making the RAW low-contrast in LR3. In each of those programs I have recipes set up that get me 90% of where I want to be with one click. Sounds complicated, but the process really takes only moments per image. A bit more if I use SEP2's selective adjustments tools for dodging and burning.
I really can't imagine not having as much control as possible over my images.
These days I'm shooting RAW + mono JPG for previewing. Then I import into LR3, delete the obvious missteps, decide which are good enough for displaying then (Flickr, RFF, etc.) and edit in Silver Efex Pro 2 or Color Efex Pro after making the RAW low-contrast in LR3. In each of those programs I have recipes set up that get me 90% of where I want to be with one click. Sounds complicated, but the process really takes only moments per image. A bit more if I use SEP2's selective adjustments tools for dodging and burning.
I really can't imagine not having as much control as possible over my images.
celluloidprop
Well-known
There is a grayness to the unaltered image in LR (it almost looks like a fog over the image) - generally bumping blacks from 5 to around 10 takes care of a lot of that and makes the entire image look richer.
Unlike Canikon models, Adobe has no camera profile under the calibration area for the X100 - with my D700, you could see Camera Standard, Camera Vivid, Camera Neutral, analogous to the various JPG settings available in-camera. If you could select X100 -Provia in that drop-down, you'd see something much closer to JPGs from the camera.
Unlike Canikon models, Adobe has no camera profile under the calibration area for the X100 - with my D700, you could see Camera Standard, Camera Vivid, Camera Neutral, analogous to the various JPG settings available in-camera. If you could select X100 -Provia in that drop-down, you'd see something much closer to JPGs from the camera.
Turtle
Veteran
Its very simple. JPEG will give a 90% result 99% of the time. Thats fine, even desirable for general usage, but far from fine if you want the very best possible. The camera's engine cannot possibly know what you want, only you can... and you have to put the time in to get it.
My solution is to capture both files. Use the JPEG when it suits,but have the RAW there for when I need to really work on a file.
Nick, a lot of the best photographers shoot in very challenging lighting conditions most of the time because its a good way to produce powerful images. Visit a Salgado exhibition (pre-Genesis) and then think about whether you'd have shot them in JPEG or wanted the latitude of RAW...
My solution is to capture both files. Use the JPEG when it suits,but have the RAW there for when I need to really work on a file.
Nick, a lot of the best photographers shoot in very challenging lighting conditions most of the time because its a good way to produce powerful images. Visit a Salgado exhibition (pre-Genesis) and then think about whether you'd have shot them in JPEG or wanted the latitude of RAW...
Turtle
Veteran
But KR's photos are not demanding from a technical perspective. I don't look at them and think 'wow, what technically impressive work.... how has he so delicately balanced X & Y... I can see that must have been a nightmare to achieve'
It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.
It is easy to see from the sort of work he shoots that he has little need for RAW as the lighting and other factors are relatively straight forward. As long as KR has lots of contrast and lots of colour punch, he seems to be happy and that's fair enough considering his creative objectives. His images are bold rather than subtle and they are rarely shot under nasty lighting conditions.
rbelyell
Well-known
i think yours is the exact point for a different conclusion, which is UNLESS you are in a technically demanding situation, especially as respects lighting, shooting raw is a waste of time, space and energy. most of us are not professionals testing the limits of man and machine. if we were we'd be using much different equipment. for 90% of us in 90% of the situations we encounter there is no longer any reason whatsoever to shoot raw.
for the space this argument engenders, the definitive conclusion is quite easy and objective to achieve. shoot the same normal scene at the same time raw and jpeg and try to find a difference in your prints. unless youre postering a wall with them, my bet is you won't be able to find any noticeable difference. if you do, that would be worth hearing about!
jamesbf
Established
Pereonally I shoot jpeg. I think I'd only go raw if I was shooting magazine fashion or some type of commercial job. For street and everyday I alway shoot jpeg. If I spend more then 2 min on a edit in photoshop I usually scrap it.
Turtle
Veteran
Sure, but are you going to switch from JPEG to RAW and back and forth when your lighting varies from shot to shot?
I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.
You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....
I guess if you are a challenging photographer you have little choice but to shoot RAW. If you play it safe, ensure lighting is always 'compliant' etc then there is no need.
You can always work a RAW file towards the JPEG your camera would have produced, but you cannot always work a JPEG towards the file you would have produced from RAW....
Turtle
Veteran
I'd add that with a very small amount of thought, LR or the like can be set up to squirt out your RAW files pretty much however you want, so you can get out what the camera JPEG would have been with the click of a button.
Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!
While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
Besides, we can shoot RAW and JPEG together. I know I do.... Aside from quantum speed, I cannot see any reason not to have those RAW files there just in case. You can always delete them!
While I understand the point about lots of people not being professionals, that's no argument, because the point here is that Ken Rock suggested, as supported by Nick Trop, that there is 'no point' shooting RAW unless you want to spend your time tinkering for the sake of tinkering. That is patently untrue and there seems to be consensus on the idea that if the highest standards are your goal, esp if the lighting is nasty, RAW is the way to go!
willie_901
Veteran
I will always shoot raw because I refuse to automatically destroy information before I know whether or not that information is valuable.
I shoot RAW and will work on a file as long as it takes to get it to my liking. My thinking is that if I get the best photo of my life, I'll be glad I used RAW. J-peg is only for convenience or for those who are too lazy or don't have the desire to post-process.