A Repulsive Suggestion

[shimokita]

Marketing blurb: "Achieve your creative vision: The world’s best editing tools give you ultimate control."

Most digital cameras offer a plethora of settings including, in many cases, multiple "Camera User Settings" to fine tune the camera specific output for different situations. Getting it right in camera is a bit old school, but it works in my situation. If I was shooting for large print exhibitions I would use RAW and hand it over to the printer. [For me] in most cases a tuned in-camera JPG is enough.

 

[helen.HH]

ALL PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL CRAP when One has to adhere totally
to one formula... one dogma, Now that is repulsive, giggles

Jpegs or Raw:
Both work and I do like jpeg quite often
depends on the variables, exposure, type of light, what type of 'look' You are trying to achieve
😉

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

After reading this thread, I might be so bold as to suggest Mr Crawford needs to look at changing his camera brand to get a better quality jpeg.

I've tried Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Olympus. Same results. JPEGs lack the fine detail resolution that RAW gives.

 

[Dogman]

Chris, were you one of those experts on photo forums back around 2005 or so?

 

[gavinlg]

One camera I can think of where the JPEG output was incredible was the Canon 5d mk1, in monochrome. I have photos taken with that, and a 35mm f1.4L that have a tonality that I struggle to reproduce with any of my recent modern digital cameras, in RAW or JPEG.

As far as using a small JPEG as a companion file, I never touch my files outside of lightroom so it makes no difference in convenience wether I shoot RAW or JPEG, they're both imported the same and are exported the same, so there's so such need to shoot a 'pre-baked' format. If you don't use a software management program like lightroom I could understand the small usability advantage JPEGS might give.

 

[peterm1]

I've tried Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Olympus. Same results. JPEGs lack the fine detail resolution that RAW gives.

I would agree. I almost never shoot in JPEG these days except when very occasionally I shoot in JPEG/RAW simultaneously because I wish to shoot black and white in camera. And I do that very infrequently because of the limitations of JPEGs - which is partly about resolution and also about JPOEG artifacting which also messes with resolution. (One day if the money fairy taps me with her wand I may get a Leica with a mono sensor).

For me the bigger problem is not so much the fine detail resolution of JPEGs though. It is the issue alluded to by the OP - Bill of JPEG's relative inability to handle contrasty scenes by comparison with RAW and their inability to recover detail from shadows and highlight areas. While I take his point that careful metering can minimize highlight blowout, in practice I think this is mostly useful in something like a studio setting where lighting can be controlled.

Most of my shooting is out in the "wild" where careful metering of every shot is just not an option - in street shooting you need to grab the shot very quickly without much "faffing" about. So when contrast is an issue, I just use the quick and dirty trick of shooting one stop below what is metered as I guess Bill was also doing. Then I fix whatever needs fixing in post. I seldom regret having a little loss of shadow detail. I always regret having blown highlights. 🙂

if others want to do differently that is up to them - different strokes!

 

[DougK]

I've been experimenting with a JPEG-only workflow for a while, but I haven't come to any conclusions about which side of the fence I will eventually land on. One odd thing I have noticed is that my Canon Digital Photo Pro 4 software creates significantly larger JPEGs when I make them on the Mac from RAW files than when I create the JPEGs in camera. Given that I'm using identical settings in the software to what the camera is using in its onboard processing, I have no idea why this is the case.

I'll also admit that because I work with computers on a daily basis, I'm really losing the desire to spend more time processing the photos after I shoot them. I either get what I want in camera or I toss it.

EDIT: I'll make an exception for landscape or working in really tricky lighting, then I might go ahead and default to RAW.

 

[lynnb]

Bill, I was nodding in agreement until I read Oren's post. If exposure settings for optimal information capture varies for RAW and jpeg then your original suggestion is based on a false premise. Looking forward to any further info from Oren.

Off-topic, I've always captured RAW + large fine jpeg with my 5D and now 6D cameras because I found jpeg compression created banding in areas of sky with continuous tonal and hue gradation, especially if a tone curve is applied in Lightroom. Jpeg by definition throws data away. Maybe HEIF will be better in that regard. If this sort of content isn't present I find jpeg is often quite OK.

 

[Sanders McNew]

When I was in art school, the photography professor had a huge sign posted in the university's darkroom. It said: "If you're not going to do it right, don't bother to start. You're wasting your time and getting in the way of your classmates who want to accomplish something in life."

It is reassuring to know that the Professor was so certain in his convictions that his way was the "right" way. I'm sure I must be doing it the "wrong" way.

 

[drewbarb]

It is reassuring to know that the Professor was so certain in his convictions that his way was the "right" way. I'm sure I must be doing it the "wrong" way.

Sanders, I didn't see anything in that professor's quote about his way being the right way. He just said to do it the right way. We all know there are wrong ways to go about things. That fact does not imply that there is only one right way; only that it's worth doing things well. It's like the old saw that states anything worth doing is worth doing well. In other words don't half ass it. Good advice, if you ask me.

As for the Jpeg vs RAW discussion: I tend to agree with Chris here, in that after using a range of cameras I have come to the conclusion that RAW files, while being larger, more cumbersome and requiring more work are superior to shooting Jpegs in that the final results when handled properly are generally much better looking. However, I certainly agree with the wisdom in the idea that working to nail exposure will give better photos, and that since Jpegs are less forgiving in that regard they force you to work on your exposure; so that's indeed a useful piece of advice. But in the end I come back to the fact that no matter how good your exposure, if you shoot Jpegs you are stuck with your camera manufacturer's processing engines choices about your images, and that's not a position I want to be in; so I shoot RAW and accept that I have to process every single image to get Jpegs I want.

All that out of the way, let me also hello Sanders! It's nice to see an old friend here. We should catch up some time.

 

[olakiril]

Nowadays most cameras are extremely good at accurately representing real-life colors. I find it nauseating and as a consequence I can't stand the majority of the jpeg engines out there. It is the same feeling when you are used to the 24p motion blurred and color-restricted movies, and suddenly you look at 60p motion accurate, color-accurate, sharp reality.
With my Sony I have to use a B&W mode, shoot RAW and have a LUT automatically applied upon import in Lightroom. I can't use JPEG for anything, even for quick exposure evaluation disregarding the soulless colors, as the pre-applied S-curve rarely matches what I see. For my use, it is JPEG that is a waste of space. Once we are allowed to use our own 3DLUTs in-camera I am sure I will reconsider, otherwise the only cameras that I would use for JPEGs are the latest Fuji cameras.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Drew (hi!) and olakiril: I do think the Professor was myopic in his command. "Right" assigns a value to following a particular expert-blessed regimen. Regimens don't matter. images matter.

When the Professor says RAW is better because it contains more information and is more capable of manipulation in post, that assigns value to a technique. But that can be a curse as much as a blessing. Build a boat of wood, and the vessel will likely be yare -- the designer has to know the material and surrender to its idiosyncrasies. Build it of GRP and all sorts of hideous forms are possible, because the material enforces no discipline in the process.

If manipulability in post is a fair metric for one's choice, then one ought never shoot film. Shooting film is like building a boat of wood -- one must know film and surrender to its idiosyncrasies to pull it off. When I first started shooting in digital, I set the Sony A7 to B+W JPGs. I surrendered to the coder's algorithms just as I had surrendered to Kodak's decisions about how Tri-X would render color into the greyscale. In both I am given some latitude in post to tinker with those choices -- enlarger filters or Photoshop -- but I can bend them only so far.

That surrender to the algorithms forces me to learn the tools, learn the media, and build a way of seeing and shooting around them. That's how I make my photographs. So, when someone tells me that shooting JPGs is "wrong" because I am losing so much information, my answer is: Well, I lost a lot of information shooting Tri-X with Brownies. But in the end it was a technique that best enabled me to express my ideas. The more I can simplify my technique, the less that distracts me from my subject.

And that's why I get upset when I see (for the 457th time) a debate that assigns normative weight to a technique. Does RAW capture more information than a JPG? Absolutely. Does that make it wrong to shoot JPGs? Not at all. Professors have all sorts of rules that screw up how we pursue our artistic vision. Remember the one, that a print should exploit the full range of the grayscale, from black to paperwhite? Wow! That dude Sugimoto never got that message. (The Professor would have scolded him for not enlarging with a higher-contrast filter.)

Apologies for rambling. I hope I didn't offend.

 

[Sanders McNew]

After all that: I do shoot in RAW now, at least when I am shooting infrared. It takes a ton of manipulation in post to convert the infrared file into a B+W photograph. Another technique for another way of seeing and shooting.

 

[mapgraphs]

Another raw Luddite here. Well sort of Luddite, I've been shooting jpg almost exclusively for a good 25 years and pushing eight bit rgb pixels around for 15 years before that. So that's about 40 years of dealing with rgb bitmaps.

I've shot raw/jpg for event coverage when the lighting was challenging and used the raw file maybe 2% of the time. I really hate wasting time changing the color of pixels. If the output is eight bits per rgb channel, then the extra four or six bits is just more room to fuss about individual pixel chroma and luminescence levels that nobody or very few will ever see. If the output is intended for on-line only, even eight bit color is wasted on most lcd and browser capabilities... (that's a different subject though... ; - )

For the most part I treat jpg files the same way I treat tif and raw files which means I adjust saturation, contrast, color and sharpness. I can pull shadows in a jpg 5 stops just as one would with a raw or tif file. Optimal exposure does make the difference but the only real conditional are the capabilities of the bitmap editor. Everything posted on my flickr account is ooc jpg often but not always tweaked... (there might be one or two stray tifs in there however)

My design professor's only admonishment was something along the lines of "it's not what you make (create, shoot etc), it's what you show..."

Apologies for the digression... ; - )

 

[Rob-F]

Serious and accomplished shooters don't need a lesson in exposure metering. Shooting JPEG is like pulling the plug on half your car's fuel injectors to save gas.

Come on, Chris, you must be slipping! Shooting JPEG is like pulling the plug on half your fuel injectors? Wouldn't that be more like pulling half the glass out of your lens? It's just not a good analogy. No, I think shooting JPEG the way Bill said is more like shooting a Polaroid first to check your exposure, before taking the shot with 4x5 Ektachrome (or something like that).

Or maybe shooting a JPEG along with the RAW is like adding up a column of numbers first by hand, before using a calculator. I do this to stay in practice and to keep a check on myself. If my result agrees with the calculator, it was probably right.

Then again, maybe it's like guessing the exposure before using the meter. Or even guessing the exposure and taking the shot without a meter.

See what I mean? 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

Shooting JPEG is like pulling the plug on half your car's fuel injectors to save gas.

My truck shuts off two injectors automatically when they aren't needed, works great for gas mileage! 🙂 Definitely not repulsive.

JPEGs are just fine for many applications. I won't bother with raw if the final output doesn't justify the extra processing time.

JPEGs are simply someone else's representation of raw processing; sometimes that representation matches your vision, sometimes not. If it doesn't quite match, the engine settings can be tweaked. This may or may not satisfy.

Raw processing can introduce variables that interfere with the shooter's desired result, too (Lightroom's 'worm effect' to name one.)

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way. It's simply an individual choice.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

IMO a major problem with digital photography is that it can be endlessly complicated.

Though I don't mind spending 30 minutes trying to make a single good wet print
sitting at a computer for that long manipulating a RAW image would simply bore me.

I may be an old curmudgeon but I am no Luddite. I have made my living working on/with computers for 35 years.

I agree that shooting JPEGS as described more closely emulates the film photography experience.
Were I shopping for another digital camera I would likely choose the simplest model with best JPEG engine.

Chris

 

[Michael Markey]

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way. It's simply an individual choice.

Exactly ... and you`re free to change your mind at anytime should circumstances require .

 

[Godfrey]

Bill:

Seems to me that the title "A Repulsive Suggestion" on a discussion thread is a sure way to preload the discussion with polarizing intent. Not a good choice of a thread title, IMO, if you're looking for an objective discussion.

As Oren intimated, using the results of a particular camera's JPEG processing engine as a guide to raw exposure is not necessarily the best way to learn proper exposure for raw files because raw files and JPEG files represent two very different environments for the captured data, with different intents expressed. Raw files are image data intended to be rendered to a finished form; JPEGs are intended to be a image in finished form scaled to a quality spec for a particular destination display medium. What works for one with regard to exposure is not necessarily optimal for the other.

I can't say that I've observed the 'degradation' of quality between raw and JPEG outputs that Chris mentions, and certainly not across all the different brands and models of digital cameras I've owned and used. But then I only rarely judge photos by the maximum resolution or tonal capabilities of the equipment I make them with and even less frequently do I print things to sizes at the limits of the spec for that equipment.

Some of the diverse equipment I've owned and used was only capable of JPEG output, others were only capable of raw output, most could do both. I've gotten some satisfying (and very saleable, exhibitable) photographs from all of it. What that takes is understanding the particular camera, what it does, and how to get what you want from it.

I use Lightroom Classic too, which means that the actual editing workflow from raw files is pretty similar to what you have with JPEGs, and that what you can see if you are skilled is that you have fewer degrees of freedom with JPEGs.

Practice with a given camera setup, and experimentation in different lighting situations for what over- and under-exposure nets you for various types of scenes and lighting, is surely much more important than debating whether raw or JPEG should be used... to me at least. 😀

G

 

[jsrockit]

I shoot raw for the simple fact that my post processing tastes change over time and I want the freedom to completely update my images to my taste. There’s nothing wrong with jpeg if it works for you. All that matters is if the image works. We’ve all seen low res, grainy and even out of focus images that are awesome in the film days. Jpegs are high resolution compared to many beloved film images.