Can you beat the camera jpg-engine?

Hsg said:
Is that a factual statement or you're simply repeating catch phrases from the forums?
Click to expand...

Don't be snarky. It's my analogy. If it is a catch phrase from somewhere, it was unintended.

For myself, and a lot of others, NOT ALL, jpegs are like a preview. They are just the means to the beginning of the end. The End being the processing of the RAW file. It is just a reference. That's all. Just like a negative. Even someone like HCB had his negatives dodged and burned during printing. Take a look at the workflow of a master printer like W. Eugene Smith. He painstakingly burned, dodged, bleached, and used hot developer, to bring out his vision in his prints. He fought for total control of how his work was reproduced and sequenced.

For clients, when I am photographing a corporate event, the jpeg is more then sufficient. I found a camera system that produces an OOC jpeg that I love. I do color correction, tweak, resize, etc., over a thousand files in Lightroom in no time. A godsend. If these were all RAWs, eesh, I'd still be doing last week's shoot.

Anyway, you choose how YOU want to work, and the rest of us can choose our own workflow thank you very much.
 
I normally shoot RAW (occasionally with fine jpgs stored in parallel) because most of my work is in the street where lighting conditions are uncontrolled. In this situation, I feel I need RAW because even the very best digital cameras have a fairly poor dynamic range. I hate it when an otherwise great image is ruined by blown highlights or unrecoverable shadows. RAW files and a good processor definitely assist. But I do know some pro photographers who shoot JPGs in studio - time is money. I guess controlled lighting allows this luxury. As a humble amateur I can afford to spend time converting, processing and optimizing RAW images. Besides I almost never go for a standard look in my images. I like them to have something out of the ordinary so even if I store images as JPGs I would need to work them over pretty extensively - maybe even more extensively to try to fix the inevitable shortcomings that in camera JPGs have.
 
In this situation, I feel I need RAW because even the very best digital cameras have a fairly poor dynamic range.
Click to expand...

I'm always fascinated to try to understand this statement when I read it. All of my digital cameras since 2006 have been able to achieve 11 stops of dynamic range at least, some even more (up to 14 stops). I have never been able to get that much DR out of film except in the edge case-special B&W emulsions with highly customized processing.

The characteristics of film are quite different, yes, but in terms of measurable DR, any modern sensor in any current FourThirds to FF format digital camera can measurably out-perform at least 35mm film handily. The top line models take a serious run at 645 and 6x6 format film as well. IMO at least.

I shoot film for other reasons, mostly aesthetic, but it is terribly restrictive on DR and editability compared to any of my digital cameras.

G
 
of course am "beating" the jpeg engine, because am already shooting in mind that raw is going to be finished in post, not during exposure.
 
I can honestly say that yes my skills can surpass the camera's jpeg engine for much of my work. There are plenty of times when the in camera jpeg is fine and works great as well. I use the method that suits the needs for the task. To go into it any further would start to debate RAW vs Jpeg. Simply put, any time when it may or may not be a tough edit I use RAW.
 
Hsg, skills come with time, with practice. When I first started to process RAW files, there were no books, no guidelines. I jumped right in and began to work. I trusted my instincts on how I wanted the finished image to look like. I treat the RAW file just as I would an image in the darkroom. But this is just me and how I do my work. Not everyone would want to work this way. I feel that if I have an image I like, to put my signature on it, I have to work it to where I feel it should be. In the beginning, when I first entered the digital arena, I knew nothing. I shot jpeg only and adjusted and tweaked until I got what I wanted. I had no understanding of what RAW files did or what they could be. I was walking barefoot through broken glass. Not the best workflow, but at the time it worked. If you put in the time, you will see the difference. If not, fine. Be cool. Be done.

BTW, I feel Fuji give the best OOC jpeg of any system I've tried. Some people might not think so. You experiment, try different things, and see what works for you and what doesn't. Two people can do the same exact thing in photography and arrive at a different conclusion. That was especially true in the film days. That's the beauty of photography. You put your personality into it.

There are no blanket statements. We can all argue what is better then the other. Lets just enjoy the outcome of our endeavors.
 
kbg32 said:
Processing RAW takes patience and practice. It's akin to being in the darkroom. For me, and I think for others as well, the RAW file is the same as a film negative. It is the basis from where I begin to embark and process on my own visual signature and style.

A jpeg is like sending your film to the drugstore or a one hour photo finisher to have your film developed and printed. Some might be satisfied with what they get back, others look for something more.
Click to expand...

WELL SAID.

My nikons and Leicas have settings on how the JPEG is supposed to be rendered. If you leave it alone, it is flat and lifeless. If you like certain features turned up the same thing can be don in the raw processor.
 
Well, I can see there are well-established opinions here.

First, I'll say that I have no wish to change anyone's mind.

I shoot raw+jpg. I run just about everything through Lightroom (using its raw converter) and I tweak the results on most every image I care about.

When I shot B&W film, I made adjustments at print time. I liked making adjustments at print time. Don't you, or didn't you, as the case may be?

Now, with digital, I made adjustments to my images. I like making adjustments and tuning things to my liking. Correcting "errors" made at exposure time. Changing my intent for the image. Trying alternative renderings.

My conclusion: If you are going to do much adjustment, it's better to do so from the RAW rather than from the jpg.
 
Last edited:
Hsg said:
Can you beat your camera's jpg-engine when it comes to post-processing RAW files?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is trivial to get better results than the in-camera JPEG rendering. And there is no fundamental reason why one can't get the same quality by skillful rendering of the raw file.

Information Theory suggests one should never destroy original data.

1. The technical people responsible for the in-camera firmware have to guess what parameters will best render the image. Yet they will never see the image in person. This is a huge disadvantage compared to the photographer who can select the optimal parameters for a each image during post production. This means it is easy to get better results than strangers who have never seen the image at hand. A better result is one you prefer compared to the stranger(s).

2. With raw the rendered image can be saved in a format that is not lossy. Information is not destroyed if you repeatedly save TIFFs, DNG or PSD images after making small improvements. If you make a change to an in-camera JPEG rendering, then the lossy compression can degrade the image every time a new version is saved. Another difference is many raw rendering programs are nondestructive. They only make virtual changes to the original data. By contrast once the in-camera renders the raw data, it is deleted. One option for in-camera JPEGs is to save both raw and JPEGs to the storage card. Given the processor speed of modern cameras and the low cost of storage, saving raw + in-camwera JPEG files simultaneously is attractive to some photographers.

In the first case consider what happens when the scene is lit by multiple sources with different color temperatures. Rendering with selective color temperature parameters can be superior with raw images because all the data is available. There are several other examples of how destroying data via in-camera JPEG compression is a handicap.

It turns out that if the in-camera color balance is perfect and the exposure is perfect and the dynamic range of the scene does not exceed the sensor's analog dynamic range, then rendering the image from raw data during post-production has no technical advantage over the rendering of an in-camera JPEG. Raw rendering in post production can not perform miracles. It simply gives you the most flexibility if you happen to need it.

There are situations where the convenience and speed of using in-camera JPEGs is important. There are other situations where producing the best possible rendering is not a priority. It would be silly to claim it is always necessary to have the raw data.

In a prior life I was trained to never destroy original data. It's hard to abandon 27 years of data handling procedures. I never, ever, just use in-camera JPEGs (except for when I use my iPhone camera).
 
kbg32 said:
Processing RAW takes patience and practice. It's akin to being in the darkroom. For me, and I think for others as well, the RAW file is the same as a film negative. It is the basis from where I begin to embark and process on my own visual signature and style.
Click to expand...

For sure, but a JPG is that as well, only with more limited headroom for modifications. Still, in many ways, JPGS are already more flexible than film so I can see how some people would not need anything more.
 
Jpegs are "lossy". Every time you open, modify, and save them, you are losing data degrading the file. Jpegs may be more "flexible" to you then film, but much less so than a RAW file. RAW is unprocessed captured data. Jpegs are run through the in camera's processing algorithms and are ready to go. Nothing wrong when one needs something quick, but when processing quality is paramount, I'm speaking for myself here, I'll take a RAW file anytime.
 
I've really tried with my Fujis to adjust the in-camera RAW development settings to my satisfaction, but for 95% of shots it doesn't succeed. The user-adjustable parameters are simply too limited, and the film simulations, which seem to use more complex adjustments, combine them in ways I wouldn't. Some cameras may have more user-adjustment possibilities, but many I've used have even fewer.

Every once in a while I can get a JPEG that comes close enough to what I want, and even more rarely one that exceeds what I can do (in Lightroom/RPP/Iridient/PS, etc.) - one that shows the picture in a way I hadn't thought of but prefer. But I'd still rather have the non-destructed RAW for when I want a different look sometime down the road.
 
In order to have satisfactory jpgs, one must shoot with full control over exposure - M mode.

Now, tell that to people who use auto mode, auto ISO and yet expect the result to be "personal". I don't wish to get into that debate, but manual exposure is something that anyone who calls himself a photographer must be able to work with.
 
Beat for what?
If I need clean picture for e-bay, here is nothing to beat against.
If I want to be creative in PP, I have to take it in RAW.
If I want something fancy and quick, iPhone apps are really good for it, in JPEG.
 
I'm so much better with Lightroom processing RAW files from my cameras to get what I want it's not even funny. I don't just beat the in camera jpegs I blow them out of the water. It's not about lossy or anything like that, I just know how I want my images to look and I know how to get it.
 
i wish cameras offered a raw+small jpeg option for those mostly use jpegs for proofing and stuff like that.
 
I don't know how often I need raw. But I do know that if I switch to JPEG, then sooner or later I'll need raw and I'll have forgotten to switch back.

Usually with the Df I just shoot TIFF as a compromise. But I don't make as many demands on the Df as on the M9 (difficult exposures in fast changing light).

Cheers,

R.
 
Stuart John said:
I'm so much better with Lightroom processing RAW files from my cameras to get what I want it's not even funny. I don't just beat the in camera jpegs I blow them out of the water. It's not about lossy or anything like that, I just know how I want my images to look and I know how to get it.
Click to expand...

+1

With m9 it's only raw for me and tweak in LR.

In about 1-2 mins I have most files as I like them.

I often paste settings from one image to next.
 
For my purposes, it is situational. There are reasons that your camera can produce jpg format and there are also good reasons to keep a RAW version. I do not like to post process, so I use my camera's jpg output a lot. But I also save the RAW files and have done that for a long time.

I think the biggest issue for me is the improvement in software over time. I use an old Pentax dslr that I really enjoy. Though it only saved 6.1 megapickel files I have always like what those files look like. But I like what those files look like even more today. The reason is that I did save my RAW files and the software processing of those files is far better now, and the printing technology is far better as well.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I am NOT an editing guru. But sometimes editing is very useful. I have a picture of an old, wooden, grave marker, taken while lying on my belly as a storm was beginning to move in on the horizon. It was exposed correctly and the composition is terrific (IMHO :)). But there were some faint lettering on the marker itself that was discarded by the jpg engine. With Photoshop I was able to manipulate the contrast on the front of the marker just enough to bring out the rough texture of the weathered wood, and in turn make those letters partially legible. It was just enough to take a very good photograph and turn it into one that has won a couple contests.

So, do I edit most of my digital photos? Nope, not even close. But I am glad that I had the RAW file on that photo. I may have been able to do that in jpg, but I just may have screwed it up too, and actually I did, several times over several weeks. (Did I mention that I am not an editing guru?) With the RAW I wasn't afraid to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom