Considering lightening my post processing load with the new X100s

[Richard G]

One thing about raw shooting which I do with the M9 and the Monochrom, is that I know there's something that will need to be done. And this means I am more likely to achieve something more pleasing or different, perhaps. All M9 shots need something. Some Monochrom shots don't. I hate to have a blanket preset, however. And even after reading through this thread, I am still happy with the X100 jpegs. I do fiddle with some of those in Lightroom.

 

[gavinlg]

I've trialled this a few times. Basically it doesn't work (for me). If you are going to process (resize, store with any sort of folder structure) it doesn't matter what format they are in with a program like lightroom/aperture/capture one. I can't control contrast or colour or whitebalance with jpegs at a satisfactory level without fiddling constantly with the camera which I hate doing. If you make raw presets or use a preset like vsco it is literally no harder than just using jpegs, but if you need to make minor changes it's a)easier and b)yields better results.

 

[jordanatkins]

I don't like just shooting jpeg with most cameras, but I found that the X100's jpeg engine produced colors that couldn't be matched in raw without a large amount of post processing.

I don't fault anyone shooting jpeg with fuji cameras. They're just that good.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Doesn't make sense to me to buy an expensive camera, fuss about the lens and particulars, go through all that decision making and photographer's voodoo... only to shoot jpgs.

I feel much the same about making wet prints.
But I'm confident most film shooters here have never set foot in a darkroom.
Shall I hold that against them?

Chris

 

[daveleo]

I've found my personal photographic choke point is postprocessing - shooting everything in RAW+JPG and running it through PS after has turned into drudgery. I was never a big darkroom person, either.

Now that I have the new X100s on the way I'm giving serious thought to shooting JPG only and doing all my processing on my iPad using simpler post applications. I've dabbled a little with this using my NEX7.

Has anyone else gone this route?

When I want to shoot a set with minimal computer work, I shoot the x100 in raw and process it to JPG several ways in the camera. 99 out of 100 times, one of those JPG is exactly where that picture needs to be for me.

When I am snapshotting, I shoot JPG only.
You should go with whatever works for you personally, and take all commentary with a grain of salt and a glass of water 😀

 

[JoeV]

I've used JPEGs with the iPad while on vacation, editing the images using the Filterstorm app, then uploaded to Flickr. But I've also saved raw files to be archived once I return home. Can't say I've actually gone back and revisited those files, however. Usually out of a batch of images from a day's shooting it becomes obvious which ones are the keepers.

I've also heard the advice to delete the non-keepers, but for me, with storage being relatively cheap, I keep everything.

~Joe

 

[Ken Ford]

I think I'll take a hybrid approach: shoot RAW + JPG, upload the JPGs to the iPad for post and archive the RAW on my PC as usual. That way I'll have the advantage of the "digital neg" in the rare case I need it and the convenience of working with the JPG for web display.

 

[taemo]

I've found my personal photographic choke point is postprocessing - shooting everything in RAW+JPG and running it through PS after has turned into drudgery. I was never a big darkroom person, either.

Now that I have the new X100s on the way I'm giving serious thought to shooting JPG only and doing all my processing on my iPad using simpler post applications. I've dabbled a little with this using my NEX7.

Has anyone else gone this route?

I know what you mean and the reason why I decided to shoot mostly film now as it makes me appreciate the shot the way it is instead of spending ours processing the image on LR.
For digital, when I'm shooting portraits and landscape, I still use RAW but for casual shots, I have no problem with JPEG

 

[willie_901]

It turns out as the exposure and color temperature approaches perfection for the scene at hand, the information content discarded by JPEG compression is becomes less harmful to the final IQ seen on a screen or in a print.

Similarly, avoiding distortions/distractions from converging vertical and, or horizontal lines is also important if you use OOC JPEGs without spending any time at the computer.

So the photographer's skill is a factor in the decision to use OOC JPEGS.

I never, ever use OOC JPEGs.

 

[Ken Ford]

It turns out as the exposure and color temperature approaches perfection for the scene at hand, the information content discarded by JPEG compression is becomes less harmful to the final IQ seen on a screen or in a print.

Similarly, avoiding distortions/distractions from converging vertical and, or horizontal lines is also important if you use OOC JPEGs without spending any time at the computer.

So the photographer's skill is a factor in the decision to use OOC JPEGS.

I never, ever use OOC JPEGs.

This brings up a good point. I tend to shoot architectural details (the usual door, window and wall texture stuff) and find myself doing a fair amount of minor perspective correction in post. I wonder if I'll miss doing that, or if I'll just revert to working with what the camera records like I did back in film days?

WYSIWYG or crafted?

 

[redisburning]

It turns out as the exposure and color temperature approaches perfection for the scene at hand, the information content discarded by JPEG compression is becomes less harmful to the final IQ seen on a screen or in a print.

Similarly, avoiding distortions/distractions from converging vertical and, or horizontal lines is also important if you use OOC JPEGs without spending any time at the computer.

So the photographer's skill is a factor in the decision to use OOC JPEGS.

I never, ever use OOC JPEGs.

the photographer's skill can't make up for the lens or the sensor not doing what the operator wants.

photoshop, to some degree, can.

 

[KM-25]

I use the X100S strictly for paid magazine editorial and corporate photojournalism work, lots of behind the scenes with big wigs. Only on very rare occasions do I use it in RAW and only for a few frames.

I nail it in camera as a jpeg and then off it goes to the editor, art director or publisher, no post at all, ever. The jpegs from the X100S are just *that* good out of camera once you take the time to set the parameters they way you want them. I have never had a complaint, only compliments and happy clients.

 

[Ken Ford]

I use the X100S strictly for paid magazine editorial and corporate photojournalism work, lots of behind the scenes with big wigs. Only on very rare occasions do I use it in RAW and only for a few frames.

I nail it in camera as a jpeg and then off it goes to the editor, art director or publisher, no post at all, ever. The jpegs from the X100S are just *that* good out of camera once you take the time to set the parameters they way you want them. I have never had a complaint, only compliments and happy clients.

Interesting, and encouraging! Have you posted your camera option setup anywhere?