Hsg
who dares wins
The jpg-engine in digital cameras are like the film emulsions of the past, its a formula that has been created by a team of experts and its tuned to work with the sensor, lenses and other quirks of that particular camera. If properly exposed the jpg quality in a decent digital camera is impossible to beat using post-processing, and even if its surpassed, the amount of time it takes to process the raw files, makes the whole processing thing a waste of time, at least if processing is not some sort of a fetish.
Can you beat your camera's jpg-engine when it comes to post-processing RAW files?
In my case, I have realized that I simply do not have the skills, the patience and the visual creativity to process RAW files. The camera jpgs makes my processing seem like garbage.
Having conceded defeat to camera jpgs, I have decided to instead try my best to get proper exposure and leave the rest to the camera jpg-engine... For me, RAW processing is OVER! And I feel very good about it. Hopefully, this decision will reignite my enthusiasm for photography.
Can you beat your camera's jpg-engine when it comes to post-processing RAW files?
In my case, I have realized that I simply do not have the skills, the patience and the visual creativity to process RAW files. The camera jpgs makes my processing seem like garbage.
Having conceded defeat to camera jpgs, I have decided to instead try my best to get proper exposure and leave the rest to the camera jpg-engine... For me, RAW processing is OVER! And I feel very good about it. Hopefully, this decision will reignite my enthusiasm for photography.
N.delaRua
Well-known
I think I may be undergoing the same journey through the RAW abyss...
ndnik
Established
Define beat ... Often different processing is not better (whichever way you choose to measure raw conversion quality) but simply aesthetically preferred.
- N.
- N.
Hsg
who dares wins
Before we do that, we must define what is image quality.
Image quality (content excluded) is the feeling of pleasure that a photo conveys to the viewer, even if its pure technical quality, in the case of pixel-peepers.
If your own processed RAW files gives you 'more' pleasure than the camera jpgs then you 'beat' the jpg-engine, if not, then you're trying to reinvent the wheel. The people who programmed the jpg-engine know more about image processing and therefore they have that job, your job is taking photos, not preparing to be Nikon's jpg programmer.
Once you accept that and you stop being a processing guru, you also stop wasting enormous effort and energy on processing RAW files and feeling crappy about them, you begin to enjoy quality output from the camera, with your own exposure skills.
There are exceptions, but if you're shooting for pleasure then jpg makes more sense.
Bill Clark
Veteran
It's not beating the JPEG engine I'm after. Who knows what that is? At least not me.
I look at in camera processing RAW to JPEG like using Polaroid film. On computer processing is where I do my digital developing, much like developing film.
Having the process stage with my computer works better for me. I can do as I see it and I get to keep the RAW files intact. And the RAW files do not change as a sidecar file tells the RAW file to make the changes w/o changing the original file. There is quite a lot of stuff to work with when using a RAW file. I find JPEG file can change each time so I use "save as" creating file name with c1, c2 and so on followed by the JPEG extension when I need to make things with my JPEG files.
I could have the camera make processed JPEGS with certain controlled instances such as in studio but I choose to still make RAW files. It's my workflow. To site pricing of hardware, in Sundays Target circular, a WD 1 TB portable hard drive is $59.99
From my research JPEG was developed when computers had little capacity, engine and storage as well as software to work on RAW files. That's all changed now and, I believe, for the better.
What I've worked hard to get with each session/gig is to get it where I want it when making the photograph. However, when working a gig that has many sets and lighting situations I find RAW works better for me.
I look at in camera processing RAW to JPEG like using Polaroid film. On computer processing is where I do my digital developing, much like developing film.
Having the process stage with my computer works better for me. I can do as I see it and I get to keep the RAW files intact. And the RAW files do not change as a sidecar file tells the RAW file to make the changes w/o changing the original file. There is quite a lot of stuff to work with when using a RAW file. I find JPEG file can change each time so I use "save as" creating file name with c1, c2 and so on followed by the JPEG extension when I need to make things with my JPEG files.
I could have the camera make processed JPEGS with certain controlled instances such as in studio but I choose to still make RAW files. It's my workflow. To site pricing of hardware, in Sundays Target circular, a WD 1 TB portable hard drive is $59.99
From my research JPEG was developed when computers had little capacity, engine and storage as well as software to work on RAW files. That's all changed now and, I believe, for the better.
What I've worked hard to get with each session/gig is to get it where I want it when making the photograph. However, when working a gig that has many sets and lighting situations I find RAW works better for me.
Sometimes it's not about beating a jpeg, but more about imparting your own signature or making it look the way you want it to look. The problem comes when you assume that others cannot process better than a jpeg because you cannot. Whoever programmed the jpeg simply chose one way to process, not necessarily the best way for your photography. There is no best way when it comes to processing since it should change for each photographic situation. There is no one size fits all in photography. What works for you may not work for me. I don't feel like I'm wasting my time when I post process... it's all part of the end result.
Hsg
who dares wins
This is clearly not a RAW vs jpg debate. This is about personal ability when it comes to RAW processing.
I'm saying, as an example, that I'm not even close to camera jpg-engine when it comes to processing RAW files, so I have decided to let the camera process and I'll do my best to correctly expose etc..
I'm saying, as an example, that I'm not even close to camera jpg-engine when it comes to processing RAW files, so I have decided to let the camera process and I'll do my best to correctly expose etc..
Lss
Well-known
kbg32
neo-romanticist
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.
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.
icebear
Veteran
What is jpg again ?? 
I only shoot raw and any "auto" correct either in photoshop or LR is rarely giving me a result that I like. So I pretty quickly stopped using any "auto" button or setting. My emphasis what's important in the picture is not in line with average values of the processing engine's pre-set values. I'll not waste any time shooting jpg and raw. I want to max out what the camera is able to capture.
I see that jpg might be good enough in 90% of shots taken / for 90% of the users.
I'll happily be a part of the minority
I only shoot raw and any "auto" correct either in photoshop or LR is rarely giving me a result that I like. So I pretty quickly stopped using any "auto" button or setting. My emphasis what's important in the picture is not in line with average values of the processing engine's pre-set values. I'll not waste any time shooting jpg and raw. I want to max out what the camera is able to capture.
I see that jpg might be good enough in 90% of shots taken / for 90% of the users.
I'll happily be a part of the minority
icebear
Veteran
Great analogy !
burancap
Veteran
Well, I have not touched a RAW in a long time. Inventory them as I may, I have not had the need to touch one -being quite satisfied with what I have seen from the JPGs at least from my mainstream digitals. I also have a Sigma DP and with that you really don't have much choice but jumping into the RAWs, at least up front.
craygc
Well-known
My problem is that I've NEVER seen a file straight out of a camera I am even close to happy with, and there is no way I could successfully process the image without it being in raw.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Can I beat it at getting the Jpeg I want..YES!
Can I beat it at getting the Jpeg it produces... Not often though I seldom try.
Simple enough right?
Can I beat it at getting the Jpeg it produces... Not often though I seldom try.
Simple enough right?
siracusa
Well-known
My take on this is simple. Photography is your hobby, right? You should enjoy it. If you feel that you will enjoy your photography more by using in camera jpeg conversion and not RAW processing, then that's what you should do. However, it would be prudent to set your camera up to record RAW files, and to save and backup your RAW files. You might not always feel this way, and if/when you feel differently about RAW processing, you will feel very glad that you can go back through your old files and be able to process the RAW files. In the meantime, just do what you need to do to enjoy photography, perhaps don't overthink it, just enjoy it. There is a difference. I once went on holiday with a new digital camera which began playing up on the first day. I did a factory reset without realising that the factory default was to record jpeg only. When I got back two weeks later and downloaded my memory cards and found only jpegs I kicked myself very hard for my stupidity. I can edit those files, but not with anything like the flexibility I get with RAW files. And no, the out of camera jpegs were not as I would have liked them. And I say this as someone who is not by any stretch of the imagination an advanced Lightroom user. So just enjoy your camera, and if that means shooting jpegs, shoot and work with your jpegs. But save the RAW files just as you would keep your film negatives. You may need/want them one day when you feel differently about RAW processing.
TXForester
Well-known
I use raw to get what I want. I know in many cases a carefully exposed jpeg will get good results, but it may not be what I want. Go back to film. If I wanted the Velvia look I'd shoot Velvia. I'd shoot Kodachrome for its look. I would not shoot Kodachrome with the intent to make a print that mimics Velvia.
Now to do that with jpegs straight from the camera, I'd need different cameras for the variations in how each manufacturer sets the engines to work with each sensor. Why not shoot raw and try to achieve what I want from a single camera (or whatever I take with me that day)?
I don't have to beat the manufacturer's jpeg (assuming I have the skill), but arrive at something I want. Heck I might change my mind on what I want in the middle of processing.
Now to do that with jpegs straight from the camera, I'd need different cameras for the variations in how each manufacturer sets the engines to work with each sensor. Why not shoot raw and try to achieve what I want from a single camera (or whatever I take with me that day)?
I don't have to beat the manufacturer's jpeg (assuming I have the skill), but arrive at something I want. Heck I might change my mind on what I want in the middle of processing.
Silva Lining
CanoHasseLeica
I rarely use RAW these days, I feel like I don't have time. I'm not really sure why as I quite happily spend hours hand developing and scanning B&W film and E6… maybe because I have come to accept the output from my digital cameras as being 'just that'. As a previous comment said, its good for 90% of my photos…. perhaps I am missing out, maybe I'll give it a try again
burancap
Veteran
That it is it for me. From my previous post, I do shoot RAW and inventory them, but my goal is to drive with the JPGs. When a JPG from my Ricoh GRDIII or my Fuji XP is approaching 99% what I would have done in post, then why waste the time? Sure the RAWs are there if there is a keeper that I utterly annihilated in some way at exposure, but I am in the shooting mode, not editing mode of my life right now.
To the point of the OP: Can I beat the engine? YES ... Do I need to beat the engine? NO
froyd
Veteran
Unfortunately, it's turning into the old jpg vs RAW debate. But I get your point. RAW is certainly more flexible, but for my style of photography, I don't need the flexibility. Jpgs already allow me to do more manipulations than I'm able to do in the darkroom, so by my standard, they are more than enough, and although they are lossy, they are awfully handy and fast to process.