JPEG's, Our Dirty Little Secret

willie_901 said:
I agree.

At the same time the almost every brand spends resources creating and marketing in-camera JPEG rendering profiles. So, either all these brands are throwing money away or enough people are interested in how in-camera JPEGs look to make the investment useful.
Click to expand...

I suspect that JPEG profiles are important to people who shoot video, which is a major component of the mirrorless movement. Having “flat” profiles that are amenable to manipulation by color-grading software is key for many creators. This is where most pure photographers shooting RAW wouldn’t know a thing about it.
 
It is interesting to see a small elite insisting that RAW is the way to go, period. And for a large catalog of reasons. I wonder how many could pick the JPG's from the RAW's in a double-blind test. If it would be anything like the audio world with MPG vs WAV there would be an embarrassing failure to get it right. But I must be wrong, the eyes here are better than the ears there.
 
boojum said:
It is interesting to see a small elite insisting that RAW is the way to go, period. And for a large catalog of reasons. I wonder how many could pick the JPG's from the RAW's in a double-blind test. If it would be anything like the audio world with MPG vs WAV there would be an embarrassing failure to get it right. But I must be wrong, the eyes here are better than the ears there.
Click to expand...

Shoot a few frames RAW+JPG. Adjust the JPG and RAW images to taste. If you don't see any difference, or prefer the JPG, or don't want to spend time adjusting images, by all means shoot JPG. If you prefer the adjusted RAW images, shoot RAW. Why do you care what "a small elite insisting that RAW is the way to go" says? Do whatever you want to do. You don't need anyone's approval.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Shoot a few frames RAW+JPG. Adjust the JPG and RAW images to taste. If you don't see any difference, or prefer the JPG, or don't want to spend time adjusting images, by all means shoot JPG. If you prefer the adjusted RAW images, shoot RAW. It is whatever you want to do. You don't need anyone's approval.
Click to expand...

I suggested a double-blind test. I plainly stated that. It is how to eliminate bias. You are interested in eliminating bias I am sure and in your excitement missed that part of my post. Please be kind enough to go back and re-read the post and then respond to what I posted and not some fanciful imagining. If you could do that this would become a lot simpler and easier. That is what you want, isn't it? If that is not what you want I am sorry but this is pointless. I clearly stated my point. You responded to something else. Why?
 
boojum said:
In the Pixii forum, a Pixii question. But yes, I should have been clearer, who is shooting JPEG's on a Pixii?

No, I am not interested in a replay of the JPEG vs RAW files wars any more than I am interested in the replay of the APS-C vs FF wars. There are other threads for that. The question here is who is shooting JPEG's on a Pixii and what are their results.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I am re-posting this so that the lost in this thread can find their way. I am not interested in a replay of the RAW vs JPG. This is about the Pixii camera and is in a Pixii thread. I apologize for being drawn into this tired Raw vs JPG tussle. Thank you.
 
boojum said:
I suggested a double-blind test. I plainly stated that. It is how to eliminate bias. You are interested in eliminating bias I am sure and in your excitement missed that part of my post. Please be kind enough to go back and re-read the post and then respond to what I posted and not some fanciful imagining. If you could do that this would become a lot simpler and easier. That is what you want, isn't it? If that is not what you want I am sorry but this is pointless. I clearly stated my point. You responded to something else. Why?
Click to expand...

If you would like to do a double blind test, by all means do a double blind test, and report back your findings, which we can then accord whatever weight we deem appropriate.
 
boojum said:
I am re-posting this so that the lost in this thread can find their way. I am not interested in a replay of the RAW vs JPG. This is about the Pixii camera and is in a Pixii thread. I apologize for being drawn into this tired Raw vs JPG tussle. Thank you.
Click to expand...

No one is lost and you are not being drawn into anything. You instigated the discussion three posts above.

boojum said:
It is interesting to see a small elite insisting that RAW is the way to go, period. And for a large catalog of reasons. I wonder how many could pick the JPG's from the RAW's in a double-blind test. If it would be anything like the audio world with MPG vs WAV there would be an embarrassing failure to get it right. But I must be wrong, the eyes here are better than the ears there.
Click to expand...
 
JoeV said:
I suspect that JPEG profiles are important to people who shoot video, which is a major component of the mirrorless movement. Having “flat” profiles that are amenable to manipulation by color-grading software is key for many creators. This is where most pure photographers shooting RAW wouldn’t know a thing about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, for sure, I did instigate the RAW vs JPG derailment. You are correct again. And I guess I am not among the elect "pure photographers" but, oh, how I long to be among that revered and elect group. I'll work on my dance steps.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Typical victim behavior. Poor me. I'm oppressed.
Click to expand...

Not only a great photographer but a practicing degreed psychologist. I marvel at your breadth and depth. Why do you not post your photos? You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?

I'll not respond until I see a good bit of your work. You do have a camera, right?
 
boojum said:
Not only a great photographer but a practicing degreed psychologist. I marvel at your breadth and depth. Why do you not post your photos? You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?

I'll not respond until I see a good bit of your work.
Click to expand...

Although invoking a red herring and going off in a huff is not a good look, just as with choosing between JPG and RAW, it is entirely your decision.
 
Isn't it fascinating how we often overlook JPGs in favor of discussing DNGs? It's like they're the unsung heroes of our photography journey! But let's give them the spotlight they deserve. Who else here embraces shooting in JPG? Share your experiences with us! How do your JPG shots turn out? Do you notice any differences in write time compared to DNGs?
 
I was told by experts from the very beginning of my digital journey that real photographers shoot Raw and only grandmothers with blinky cameras shoot JPEG. That's why I shot Raw for so many years.

Then one day I shot a JPEG for no apparent reason. And I've shot nothing but JPEGs since.

Experts. Who needs 'em.
 
Dogman said:
I was told by experts from the very beginning of my digital journey that real photographers shoot Raw and only grandmothers with blinky cameras shoot JPEG. That's why I shot Raw for so many years.

Then one day I shot a JPEG for no apparent reason. And I've shot nothing but JPEGs since.

Experts. Who needs 'em.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you're going to do with the image--my clients are frequently going to make expensive print materials from my images and they need the best possible quality. So raw is what I do, with finished TIFF files as the final product. If all you're doing is posting small images on the web and you get exposure and color right in the camera, then JPEGs are fine.
 
Cascadilla said:
It depends on what you're going to do with the image--my clients are frequently going to make expensive print materials from my images and they need the best possible quality. So raw is what I do, with finished TIFF files as the final product. If all you're doing is posting small images on the web and you get exposure and color right in the camera, then JPEGs are fine.
Click to expand...

Sweeping generalizations are usually total BS. To say that one should not shoot JPG's is a sweeping generalization that is kind of funny as most platforms will publish only JPG's. So, great, shoot some form of RAW file, edit it and then export it to what, yeah, right, JPG. My perspective is that unless one is creating content for really critical applications that the JPG's are good. And while I have a personal preference for the old CCD sensors today's CMOS have been tuned quite nicely on some cameras and return great results. So really good JPG's are possible.

JPG's are degraded in the edit process. But there are editors which can do non-destructive JPG edits. And now we have HEIF's which can be edited with, I read, little degradation and have a higher image quality out of the box than JPG and 10-bit color. So if we can count HEIF's in with JPG's under the banner of highly compressed images the argument for using other than RAW gets stronger. From my perspective we are still where JPG's are fine for almost everything that we mere mortals are doing. There are folks on the board who enjoy editing RAW files and that can be a rewarding pastime. But for the vast majority of applications JPG's seem to work just fine. And quite often heretically straight out of the camera. YMMV
 
I've been told there's not enough information in JPEGs to maintain shadows and highlights. Okay. If you're trying to make you photo look like a Brett Weston 11x14 contact print, you're right. But I'm into down and dirty, Tri-X pushed into the stratosphere type photos that will never see the drip of pigment inks--just posting on websites and an occasional email.

But JPEGs look best with processing. Here's a color original JPEG straight out of camera:

_XPB0021-2.jpg

That's my blushing bride hidden in the shadows. I really wanted a B&W of this. And to be able to see her. So I did this:

_XPB0021-1-2.jpg


You might not be happy with this if you have a masterpiece and intend to print it wall size and gain fortune and fame. I don't do that. I just take pictures and I don't do perfect. But I like it for what it is which is nothing special of an election day at the voting machines in 2022. All it took was a little work in Lightroom and my crappy old JPEG is pretty OK for me.


..................................
 
Last edited:
This gets into a pissing contest of RAW vs JPG quickly, so I will dash in and try to get out before it is too wet around here. ;o) I have had some good luck with JPG SOOC. I avoid editing because it screws with the lighting, making it unnatural, to my eyes. I know folks, one in particular, who is pretty good with an editor but their photos often defy belief. Unless, of course, you believe that there are sets of soft spotlights that follow this person around to make their photos "nice" and sparkling.

I'll just add a couple of links to SOOC JPG's. One the trusted M9/J8 with great color and IQ and another of a friend with the X2D/XCD 55V.





These have been posted before because I look at them as good examples of what a JPG can do. It's not perfect but it is damned good. You know the old saw about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Are you still making her blush? ;o)
 
Well, Ken Rockwell says JPEGs are the way and the only way, and if The Master Guru claims it, then it must be true, no?

I mostly shoot JPEGs on large and fine for most things. Did RAW for years but then the converting to JPEG and then the post processing got to me. When I'm on the road in some exotique place in Asia I often shoot both RAW and JPEG. The latter get used for my usual purposes, the RAWs get stored in a hard disk and often as not never again looked at. But I do have them, just in case. So insurance.

I mean, every stock photo agency and publisher I've dealt with in the last 20 years wanted JPEGs. Which ways it all, for me anyway.

When I scan from my humungous film archive (100,000 images or maybe more, I stopped estimating-counting at 100K) I usually do it as TIFFs, which I then reduce to a manageable size as I really don't want a room full of hard disks. This after I've done a JPEG for my usual purposes.

Which takes us back to our original intent of this post...

As for the Weztlar beauties, if I had my choice (and more so the spare $$) I would be using a Q2. But I don't, so I don't. My circa 1952 Leica big LTM and a few old Leitz lenses suffice on those few days when I'm up to loading and unloading the darn thing and then spending all that time in the darkroom. Which I rarely do nowadays, life is too short. A beaut camera, tho'.

Oh. And yes, Dogman (#58), it amazes me how JPEGs converted from color to B&W take on an entirely different look all of their own. Beaut mid-tones. Like those gorgeous 1960s enlargements on quality Kodak or Agfa papers I used to aspire to doing back then, but somehow never quite achieved on the budget Kodabromide and Polycontrast papers I could afford. Then came Ilford Galeria (now sadly gone, at least in darkroom printing paper) and my photo world changed, but that's about analog printing and not today's way of doing things. So enough said.

One last comment. Boojum #59), I reckon a better saying has to be "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough". This is what I've aspired to for most of my adult life, and to quote my best source - myself - if it's good enough for me, it's good enough. Heh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom