Can you beat the camera jpg-engine?

[Dwig]

That depends on your editing methods, and simply opening a jpeg certainly doesn't lose any data.

Opening a JPEG doesn't cause the loss of data, true, but data was lost when the camera created the JPEG from the sensor's RAW data. That lost data can not be recovered.

One aspect of IQ where post processing a RAW file can easily best an in-camera JPEG is in fine detail retention when, and if, the file is to be printed and the intermediate processed file is a non-lossy format (e.g. PSD, TIFF with other than JPEG compression, ...).

 

[kbg32]

Have a look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

A good description with examples.

 

[Godfrey]

...
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).

8bit TIFF is subject to all the same losses (from gamma and chroma interpolation required to create a channel organized image file) as JPEG other than the compression losses. I've compared the output on max quality JPEG vs TIFF from three of the cameras I've owned that support TIFF and couldn't see more than a tiny tiny difference in image quality and editability.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

8bit TIFF is subject to all the same losses (from gamma and chroma interpolation required to create a channel organized image file) as JPEG other than the compression losses. I've compared the output on max quality JPEG vs TIFF from three of the cameras I've owned that support TIFF and couldn't see more than a tiny tiny difference in image quality and editability.

G

Dear Godfrey,

Yeah, I can believe that. But as I say, I don't make the same demands on the Df as on the M9: I am normally using it in a controlled environment, with plenty of time to re-shoot. Avoiding the compression losses seemed to me a reasonable idea.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Yeah, I can believe that. But as I say, I don't make the same demands on the Df as on the M9: I am normally using it in a controlled environment, with plenty of time to re-shoot. Avoiding the compression losses seemed to me a reasonable idea.

I don't see that the camera or how you use it is much of a factor to decide by in this case.

TIFFs are typically 3-4x the file size of a best quality JPEG, which I feel is worth saving if there's little gain in image quality. JPEG compression losses at maximum quality are pretty small—virtually non-existent on most cameras.

Moving away from TIFF to full-rez, best quality JPEG made more sense when cards were smaller and cameras/cards/readers were slower. But I don't find much justification for moving back to TIFF either. If I'm not going to capture and use raw files, I just use JPEGs. Usually I have my camera set to JPEG+raw these days, to cover use in the field with the iPad as well as at home with Lightroom and raw files.

I remember when setting the camera to TIFF output would create 70 second per exposure, un-buffered write times with my Sony F707 and Olympus C8080WZ. That got old very very quickly...! 🙂

G

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I think the question comes down to, limits.

I have decided that I need the limit of jpg in order to regain some energy to actually photograph, rather than push slides and worry about a backlog.

if I had the skill to actually cook the RAW files better than the jpgs I get from the camera itself, I'd have stuck to shooting RAW, but I simply lack the processing skills.

The only time I want to spend energy on photography is when I'm taking photos, not when I'm at home, so I'll try to get it right on location. I think this is the right decision for me - to shoot jpgs.

Agreed. Endless possibilities somehow manage to paralyze me.
In photography as in other spheres limits can be a good thing.

Chris

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't see that the camera or how you use it is much of a factor to decide by in this case.

TIFFs are typically 3-4x the file size of a best quality JPEG, which I feel is worth saving if there's little gain in image quality. JPEG compression losses at maximum quality are pretty small—virtually non-existent on most cameras.

Moving away from TIFF to full-rez, best quality JPEG made more sense when cards were smaller and cameras/cards/readers were slower. But I don't find much justification for moving back to TIFF either. If I'm not going to capture and use raw files, I just use JPEGs. Usually I have my camera set to JPEG+raw these days, to cover use in the field with the iPad as well as at home with Lightroom and raw files.

I remember when setting the camera to TIFF output would create 70 second per exposure, un-buffered write times with my Sony F707 and Olympus C8080WZ. That got old very very quickly...! 🙂

G

Dear Godfrey,

First, the M9 won't shoot TIFFs.

Second, if an image is perfectly exposed with exactly the colour balance I need, I'm not going to need to process it: I could use JPEG perfectly well. This will normally be the case with the DF: I'll have plenty of time to get it right at the shooting stage. If it needs minimal processing (as may be the case sometimes), I prefer to have the file in a format where there are no losses in processing, hence TIFF instead of JPEG. The only "cost" in TIFF on the Df is bigger file sizes, which I don't care about. Right now, too, I'm shooting some rather odd B+W conversions that require playing around with filters and histograms, sometimes involving repeated opening and closing of files. These are the compression losses I am talking about, not anything that happens in camera. Again, TIFF suits these pics very well. I can just stuff TIFFs straight into Photoshop without processing in Lightroom first.

But quite often, I don't use the M9 on situations where I have plenty of time. I may be in the street; and see someone with a hot chestnut stand; then go into a bar and take a picture of the barman; then photograph musicians on the stage. Lighting may be mixed; I may make mistakes. At that point, I like the flexibility of raw.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aad]

I tried and tried to make raw work for me, until I discovered that regardless of my efforts to make my subject glow with beautiful highlights and dynamic range, it was still just a picture of a cabbage.

If I meter on the subject, it comes out well enough for me regardless of file format.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Exposure is not some big deal... once you know how to do it, you just do it. Automation does not mean you don't think about exposure... :bang:

 

[Kwesi]

Let me put down my reasons more clearly for shooting jpg, not because I want others to do the same, but simply to see if I'm not deceiving myself.


I imagine myself, as a photographer during the film era and I'm shooting Kodachrome 64. When I go out, I know the limits of the film, and so on and I meter carefully and shoot. I send the film its developed and sent back to me. i go through the slides, throw away the one's that I don't like, mostly due to bad exposure and and keep the ones where I succeeded.

Now, why I should not follow this simple and elegant system with digital?

I go out my digital camera, shoot jpg and expose carefully. During editing I pick the ones where I succeeded and delete/archive the rest... Where as I used to go out, meter casually and then during editing decide on which files to process and each files took so much time and next thing, I was too afraid to even touch the backlog.

I'm shooting slide film, with a digital camera.

No, you are not deceiving yourself. But you are selling yourself short by thinking that you have to "meter casually" which I take as code for sloppy front end work, simply because you are shooting in raw. I think this is where your argument falls apart.

A decent raw converter will use a tiny JPEG sidecar file that is attached to the raw file to use as a starting point in displaying your raw file. So the sloppier you are in the capture stage the more work you have in front of you in the raw conversion stage.

Most of us who shoot in raw are very disciplined during the capture stage and simply prefer having a digital "negative" as the fruits of our labor should we wish to take the process further.

 

[froyd]

I'm not sure I understand why people keep referring exclusively to the RAW files as a digital negative. JPGS act as digital negatives as well, albeit hampered by all their well known weaknesses.

I applaud anyone who, like Hsg, is able to resolve doubts about equipment, process, technique, etc, and be confident they have found what works for them.

Many analogies have been made in this thread. Allow me to offer one more: some people are happy with the convenience of 35mm cameras and their small negatives knowing full well that in terms of image quality, MF is better.

 

[Kwesi]

Many analogies have been made in this thread. Allow me to offer one more: some people are happy with the convenience of 35mm cameras and their small negatives knowing full well that in terms of image quality, MF is better.

Perhaps it's because the smaller the "negative" the bigger the positive! 😀
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[daveleo]

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.

@tomtofa
Your first paragraph is opposite of how I feel, but I respect that it doesn't work for you. (And I love the images you post here!).

Your last sentence also touches on what some others have implied .... that if you use the camera JPG's, you have somehow lost or overwritten your RAW file. That is only true if you never saved the RAW file to begin with.

. . . . . . .

not@tomtofa 🙂
And . . . anyone who is editing and rediting a JPG file shouldn't complain about "losses" - go back to RAW file and start again!

Also the previous comments by jsrockit and photomoof make a lot of sense to me. You can get very controllable and accurate results using automation, if you understand how your camera works. It is NOT a forgone conclusion that manual operation leads to better exposures.

Finally . . . huff and puff . . . . buying software and learning how to process RAW files and calibrating your computer-monitor-printer system simply to compensate for the occasional badly exposed original, to me doesn't make sense. I can respect other reasons for getting into the RAW process, but fixing exposure glitches doesn't seem like a good enough reason...... but, as always, "to each his own".

 

[Kwesi]

@tomtofa
Your first paragraph is opposite of how I feel, but I respect that it doesn't work for you. (And I love the images you post here!).

Your last sentence also touches on what some others have implied .... that if you use the camera JPG's, you have somehow lost or overwritten your RAW file. That is only true if you never saved the RAW file to begin with.

. . . . . . .

not@tomtofa 🙂
And . . . anyone who is editing and rediting a JPG file shouldn't complain about "losses" - go back to RAW file and start again!

Also the previous comments by jsrockit and photomoof make a lot of sense to me. You can get very controllable and accurate results using automation, if you understand how your camera works. It is NOT a forgone conclusion that manual operation leads to better exposures.

Finally . . . huff and puff . . . . buying software and learning how to process RAW files and calibrating your computer-monitor-printer system simply to compensate for the occasional badly exposed original, to me doesn't make sense. I can respect other reasons for getting into the RAW process, but fixing exposure glitches doesn't seem like a good enough reason...... but, as always, "to each his own".

Speaking strictly for myself,
I shoot raw because it's the only way I know to get as much as possible of the image data I have created.

 

[RichC]

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.

This post bears repeating...

I'm never satisfied with any "straight" photo, whether it's film or digital. I can spend several hours working up the final image. (NB: I avoid "Photoshopping" - by which I mean adding, deleting or moving objects - and prefer to limit myself to enhancing what's there.)

If I use digital, I shoot Raw.

 

[Kwesi]

Let's face it. Without raw there would be no JPEG.

 

[kbg32]

I'm not sure I understand why people keep referring exclusively to the RAW files as a digital negative. JPGS act as digital negatives as well, albeit hampered by all their well known weaknesses.

I applaud anyone who, like Hsg, is able to resolve doubts about equipment, process, technique, etc, and be confident they have found what works for them.

Many analogies have been made in this thread. Allow me to offer one more: some people are happy with the convenience of 35mm cameras and their small negatives knowing full well that in terms of image quality, MF is better.

"Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image. Likewise, the process of converting a raw image file into a viewable format is sometimes called developing a raw image, by analogy with the film development process used to convert photographic film into viewable prints. The selection of the final choice of image rendering is part of the process of white balancing and color grading.

"Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format, and it preserves most of the information of the captured image. The purpose of raw image formats is to save, with minimum loss of information, data obtained from the sensor, and the conditions surrounding the capturing of the image (the metadata)." - Wiki

A jpeg cannot be called a "digital negative" as it has already been processed in-camera.

 

[daveleo]

................
A jpeg cannot be called a "digital negative" as it has already been processed in-camera.

A negative has been processed with chemicals . . . and that is a highly variable process.

 

[kbg32]

A negative has been processed with chemicals . . . and that is a highly variable process.

Are we gonna keep beating this death? Yes, jpegs are variably processed too, according to the camera they were shot with. RAW files are unprocessed data that need a separate conversion program to be "developed". (Yes, some cameras have this built in.)

Uncle, UNCLE!

 

[kuzano]

Not Sure Why You Would Want To:

Not Sure Why You Would Want To:

If by Jpeg Engine, you are talking about the image Processing Image, I am not sure why you would not want to learn all the controls of the process engine to beat taking RAW and doing RAW Conversion PLUS Post Processing.

I keep hearing people talk about shooting Jpeg and letting the camera decide the processing that will be done.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the process engine in the camera. It is not a fixed profile of processes applied to jpeg images. In fact, you have more control with the process engine than you might imagine.

I watch the evolution of controls in the camera's relative to the process engine as new process engines came along.

I shot RAW for a few years because of the rabid rant that RAW gave you everything and allowed more Post Processing options. But I struggled with watching the controls over Jpeg evolve and more options for custom profiles in the camera's.

I shot my last RAW file about 4 years ago and I only shoot Jpeg. With the removal of the Low Pass filters on recent cameras, I am convinced I made the right decision that many years ago, and spent my time working on the controls over the process engines provided by newer cameras. I always carry cameras now and fill the typically 4 custom profiles that change the way the process engine works. You can't do that with RAW, nor why would you want to? You should have all the control you want. RAW only gives you more work.

I dumped RAW to take it entirely out of my work flow. GONE!! and goodbye.

The last path to sharpness, the removal of the Low Pass filter and AA filtering, combined with knowing the full advantage of profiling the process engine for up to 4 (in the case of a 4 custom profile camera) different styles of Jpeg, give me the latitude I need to forego RAW altogether.

Certainly I know that RAW gives me more detail, and this will rankle the RAW fanboys no end, but I am not hampered by the extra software, and work of having RAW in my computer/workflow.

I do not see that using the Jpeg processor in any way makes the camera control the outcome, nor that it leaves the camera manufacturer in charge.

In my interpretation and usage, the camera manufacturers' are continuing to give us the control we want over Jpeg, while RAW simply captures more data than we need and puts the onus on the user to use software and post processing to make the RAW file valuable at all.

I may not have explained this well, but I am happy with the results of the last four years in capturing no RAW. I do however, always make sure that I archive the first Jpeg out of the camera, and that anytime I want a new vision in any Jpeg, I pull a copy of the archived image. Reason. It may be impossible?? to ruin a RAW file, but it is possible to overwrite that first Jpeg if not carefully archived and handled.

It is, however, possible to lose a RAW file, what with having all those extra files to deal with.

The camera's will only continue to improve in this respect. As each new generation hits the floor, I look at the new benefits of the process engines, and the increase in control over these evolved process engine. That's where SOOC shots occur and "knowing your camera" has value added results.

It's the difference between making your camera produce good final results, and "just loving to work on your computer in Post Processing".