Jpg?????????

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
4:11 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
A photographer friend asked me if I shot raw or jpg or both. If he had asked me that question a month ago I would have answered, “Raw only!” and would have expressed my contempt for jpgs. But curiosity started me looking at jpgs, something I hadn’t done in a long time. Many cameras afford a variety of contrasts and color interpretations. Sharpness and tonal range have continued to improve. Do they have the processing flexibility of a raw file? Of course not. But they are an interesting way to explore color and even when the image processing program you use can apply similarly named profiles to raw files, they’re quite often not the same as those produced in camera.

My preference is for a jpg file with a long tonal range, low contrast and relatively low saturation simply because that file is the easiest one to set the tonal range, contrast and saturation to levels I want for the final image. While I don’t look at the initial jpg as the final image, the quick tuning of those three setting is hardly elaborate or time consuming.

Fuji is known for the variety of jpg styles afforded by its cameras. I tend to use Eterna which is an inherently low contrast, long tonal range setting initially set up to provide a manipulable initial file for those shooting motion with their Fujis. I do explore other profiles but set the contrast and brightness range to lower values than the default setting.

With Leitz I tend to use their “Natural” color setting, a low saturation setting, at low or normal contrast levels. Once again, you see the parallel to the low saturation, low contrast files used by movie makers who don’t have access to the more complex raw file formats available to still shooters. Of course, if you use some Sony cameras you can go this route or actually set up and shoot stills at parameters developed for their movie mode.

In essence, we are doing what movie makers have always done, even in the film only days - start with a low contrast, low saturation original and tune it to the final image that we want. Is this better for still shooters than raw? Of course not. But it often results in a final image that is quite different from the one you would routinely produce from you raw file - and these days that’s not only an education; it’s a pretty high quality result.

As always - your thoughts?
 
Your approach sounds reasonable (as always) but my concern with shooting JPEGs is the natural compression which occurs each time you edit and save the file.
 
When I got my first digital camera (CoolPix 995), a friend suggested that I shoot jpg+RAW, even though, at the time, I didn't know didily squat about how to process RAW (and still don't really).
So, I set up the camera to record both since it could and the files were relatively small by today's standards.
I still don't process RAW files, but I got 'em saved! I like to try to get the jpg's out of the camera and not have to process them much except for cropping maybe, sometimes I hit the auto adjust button on the exposure in the PP software too. Just for fun to see how much it changes the picture vs what came out of the camera.
I'm currently signed up and taking my first photography class which is a year long and promises to get me off 'AUTO'.
We'll see how that goes.
 
I’ve shot jpgs in my X100 for nearly ten years, occasionally pressing thee raw button (like less than ten times) for a very challenging scene. It’s very hard to blow the highlights with that camera.

OK. I like the black and white jpegs in the M9. I’ve had shots in raw and JPEG as well where in Lightroom with the raw file I really cannot reproduce something I like in the JPEG.

Now, only with your lead, I am actually shooting colour JPEGs in the M9 nearly all the time now.

Here goes. And in the Monochrom too most of the time....

Mainly it’s file size. Sure storage is cheap now, but redesigning my whole set up is a pain.
 
I'm sure that approach works fine for many photos. But my concern is there are going to be times when I'd want/need more info than the jpg provided -- 'cause there are many times I wish I had more than even the raw file provides -- particularly for things like shadow and highlight detail, and it just wouldn't be available in the jpg.

With storage space and processing power so cheap these days, I'd find it hard to justify going the jpg route. But if time is more important than flexibility, I agree with your approach.
 
When you get banding with JPEG gradients, you will switch to raw.

Now I make JPEGS only for the few occasions the SOOC needs to go to printer fast. They are untouched.
 
About twenty years ago I was working in the motion picture field and worked with digital compression of motion picture files. Ever since I learned how compression worked, I've made it a point to give myself as much breathing room as possible when capturing images, so it RAW only for me.

I'm not saying you can't make really interesting images shooting OOC jpgs with all the bells and whistle newer digital cameras possess. It's just not the way I shoot. I like to concentrate on the moment when capturing in the field, and then have the most flexible file possible when I'm back in the office processing the images. YMMV.

Best,
-Tim
 
Bill Pierce said:
...
In essence, we are doing what movie makers have always done, even in the film only days - start with a low contrast, low saturation original and tune it to the final image that we want. Is this better for still shooters than raw? Of course not. But it often results in a final image that is quite different from the one you would routinely produce from you raw file - and these days that’s not only an education; it’s a pretty high quality result.

As always - your thoughts?
Click to expand...

There is much more different between a raw file and *any* form of JPEG image than just whether it is low contrast and low saturation. And, as I highlighted in the partial quotation above, there are quite a lot of assumptions going in in the notion of 'what you routinely produce from your raw file'.

When I make film photographs, usually B&W and color negatives, I don't think about the end product just yet. I think about obtaining proper exposure of the film such that I can render a photograph however my mind's eye is seeing it after the point of exposure. The process of getting that final rendering is a matter of how I have previsualized the development of the film and then how I've learned to manipulate the process of exposing a piece of paper with its subsequent processing to net the final effect. The key thing is that I don't have to know up front, when I'm taking the photograph, what all those other steps have to be to get what I want, I just have to know how to expose the film to keep the recorded image within the film's boundaries of dark detail and saturation.

That simple effort at the moment of making exposures is what I want with my digital cameras as well. As soon as I start thinking about JPEG output, I have to know much much more .. about the camera's JPEG options, styles, adjustments, etc, all to the rendering process, not the taking process. Because a JPEG image essentially strips away more than 60% of the raw data through the demosaicing, gamma conversion, and compression ... the final images are a severely reduced data set with much tighter limits on adjustability than the raw file has, so you better produce something pretty darn close to the final result straight out of the camera.

Learning how to do that in the camera just isn't, to me, a sensible use of my time and effort. Every camera seems to have a different take on what all those adjustments mean, every camera needs to be learned to get the most out of it, and every exposure can need some tweak of the controls one way or the other.

I'd really rather not have to deal with that at the time that I'm making my exposures. I'd rather just think in terms of available dynamic range at a given ISO setting, and what the right aperture and shutter time are to obtain all the data I need to do whatever processing I want to at rendering time.

And I produce a wide variety of different 'looks' with raw exposures ... I'm not always going for the same aesthetic as I work through different image notions and different themes of images. The same exposure I might render in color with deep saturation and dark tones could also be part of a set that I work in high-key gray scale at another time, for another set of images. I don't have that flexibility when I have to pre-judge what the photo is going to look like and fix it there in a JPEG RGB rendering.

Of course, there are plenty of times when I use a camera that makes JPEG output files that look great just as they come from the camera ... like a good bit of the time that I make photos with my iPhone. I can do that pretty reliably and with satisfaction

a - when I'm not being that critical of ultimate quality
b - because the iPhone's display screen is quite high resolution
and has excellent color balance
c - because most iPhone photos are simple recordings of a person,
a place, a thing and are not the sorts of photos I am spending a
a lot of thought about "how does this work together as a set to
make a statement" on.

For years, I have set all my 'real' cameras to capture raw files only, and have a huge library of different starting point presets in my image processing software to see what works for a given set of photos. I can make some nice quick photos with the iPhone, but I'd hesitate to call what I'm doing there as analogous to what I'm doing when I'm doing Photography otherwise.

G
 
RAW vs JPEG1 was over to me after I read how successful weddings photog switched to JPEG1 only. It was around 2009 and Canon 40D were in use by this photog. One of the few who was capable to make weddings photos as not clichés.

I was really needed RAW until I gain enough confidence to take it right at the moment of exposure.

Personally, I still don't mind RAW files at all. It just depends on camera capabilities. So called Leitz can't figure out sRAW and mRAW, just as they are still in total Leitz for IBIS and dust reduction.

I liked small by the nature of the sensor DNG files from M8 and RAW files from Canon 5D. Both are gone now, but I have Olympus E-PL1 now and it gives juicy, yet tiny RAW files.
I have zero needs for enormously sized RAW files. On more advanced than Leitz cameras I choose small or medium RAW files. But rarely now with my Canon cameras.
They are this good. JPEG1 and no in camera processed color, contrast shifts a.k.a. film emulations.

Canon and Olympus are good on their own colors, SOOC :) . I liked Nikon DLSR SOOC colors as well. Where are Canon and Nikon colors. Just like Provia and Gold colors.
I learned to live with what film, camera gives me. SOOC all the way. But I control it (if camera is capable).

Never liked FujiFilm film colors, btw. They are next to bad to me. I'd rather see Konica films reincarnated.
 
Almost all JPEG implementations are 8-bit, using a standard that originated 30 years ago when digital imaging was fairly new. JPEG always had a 12-bit version, but it was not royalty free. Think I looked at it some 25 years ago, there were ~28 different algorithms in the JPEG standard, of course the royalty free baseline is the one that gets used. The baseline- still the same 8-bit algorithm being used from ~1991; still in use these days when most higher end sensors use 14-bit sample, the highest end use 16-bits.

If the out-of-camera image perfectly suits your style, and is ready to print and ready to post (with downsizing)- then the onboard processing engine did a good job. If you need to post-process, you want all the data- not just ~60% of every pixel. The 8-bit image does not have enough depth to support a lot of mathematical operations.

I normally shoot uncompressed raw on the M8 with the button dance- which also produces jpeg, uncompressed raw on the M9, raw only on the M Monochrom, and uncompressed NEF+JPEG on the Df. I can post the jpegs quickly, but normally run the full images through LR to get Jpegs.

Back when the D2x was new we had a professional photographer take portraits of my Daughter in her 1st Communion dress. Got into a conversation with the photographer, who had switched to digital and complained that portraits of the Bride and Groom were always giving trouble: white dress blown out, and groom's Tux underexposed. He was shooting in camera JPEGs. I showed him Raw mode, I've dealt with image clipping for a very long time.

Having the M Monochrom- I've looked into the DNG file. The DNG files for the M8, M9, and M Monochrom are very easy to write code for.

Black level as set, and what Lightroom would normally export:

L1005046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

L1005046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

What the sensor really recorded, and produced after changing the "Black Level" parameter in the DNG.

G5046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I just have a bias against throwing away data. I spent the 1980s working on data acquisition, image processing, and image display for the early Digital sensors. I did my own lossless image compression routines before there was a JPEG.
 
I only time I used digital was for a theater group promotion images. I had to use RAW and I wanted to because the director always had a different take on each image than I may have had when I took it. So that added latitude of RAW was almost always needed.
 
Saul said:
Your approach sounds reasonable (as always) but my concern with shooting JPEGs is the natural compression which occurs each time you edit and save the file.
Click to expand...

A good strategy is to use Save As after every file adjustment and change the file name with a modifying number. This way the original JPEG is unchanged and hence doesn’t suffer degradation.
 
I've mostly used jpeg only since I went digital more than 15 years ago. When I was using film for the 25+ years before that, I followed a fairly simple work flow, from exposure to printing. I didn't explore the depths of film development or printing.



So I remain happy with jpegs and a fairly simple work flow. I find that jpegs from my modern Fuji cameras have more 'wiggle room' than I ever had with film. I'm always able to eke out enough detail in the shadows and highlights. But as with film, I need to be careful how I make the original exposure. Since I enjoy thinking about the available light before I make the exposure, no problem.


Other factors that play a role in my disinterest in RAW: It seems that every few years, when I upgrade my camera, the photo processing software I've become comfortable with doesn't support the newer camera's RAW files. I'm tired of having to relearn a new software/workflow every time I upgrade the camera. And of course there's the greater storage required for the big RAW files.
 
I feel that it's silly to shoot JPEG only as your medium of recording the photo. Why not use RAW??? You're just limiting your dynamic range and potentially increasing noise and artifacts.

However, most modern cameras allow you to process RAW files in-camera. Also, more and more frequently camera manufacturers are trying to put compelling JPEG styles in their cameras - Fuji, the Ricoh GR series, even Panasonic now have some great ones. So if your camera has a style you really like, you can make a JPEG after the fact without having to move files onto the computer and edit. I do this all the time with my GR III, and probably almost nine times out of ten that's all I want. But I still value the RAW latitude for things like decreasing highlights or raising shadows. I may still save the RAW files later on, but cameras are definitely at a level now that JPEG output can be quite good - again, it's crazy to make ALL your editing decisions at the time of capture. Shoot RAW.
 
With my DSLRs, I have the camera make RAW files.

To note analog and digital, it kinda reminds me like this:

In camera JPG’s made is like using a Polaroid. The Polaroid does all the processing with no control over development.

Making in camera RAW files is similar to using film. Where film I use a darkroom, with digital I develop the RAW files with my iMac and Bridge/Photoshop.

Why let your cameras computer/software develop your RAW files where you have little control over processing the files?

It used to be, years ago, card capacity for cameras, software and hardware, there was no doubt, in camera JPG was the only way to go. My first CF card had a whopping capacity of 512k!

Just my thoughts.
 
I shoot JPEG because it is a better match with my shooting style.

I usually do not discuss my JPEG choice just as I do not usually discuss my religious choice because I do not want to be converted and the discussion degenerates into an argument.
 
Bill Clark said:
With my DSLRs, I have the camera make RAW files.

To note analog and digital, it kinda reminds me like this:

In camera JPG’s made is like using a Polaroid. The Polaroid does all the processing with no control over development.

Making in camera RAW files is similar to using film. Where film I use a darkroom, with digital I develop the RAW files with my iMac and Bridge/Photoshop.

Why let your cameras computer/software develop your RAW files where you have little control over processing the files?

It used to be, years ago, card capacity for cameras, software and hardware, there was no doubt, in camera JPG was the only way to go. My first CF card had a whopping capacity of 512k!

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...


I would argue that there is WAY more latitude in jpeg processing than Polaroids offered. And there was nothing in the film world that could match the latitude offered by RAW processing. The digital technology has shifted processing latitude radically from film days, IMO.
 
I shoot both RAW and JPG in camera (although I NEVER use the in-camera JPGs). When I process my RAW images in post I save final images to large TIF files for printing and small (~5-10mb) JPG files for posting on-line and emailing.
 
agentlossing said:
... You're just limiting your dynamic range and potentially increasing noise and artifacts...
Click to expand...


But not when compared to what we had with film. With my Fuji cameras, I can change my film type and white balance 'mid-roll'. No way I could do that in the film era. And with negative or positive film, you had to be super careful to not blow out the hightlights. And bringing back details from the shadows was much more difficult with film than it is with a jpeg file (remember bleaching prints?). I'm sure that there were expert printers that could eke out details in a film-based print that most of us couldn't, but the digital jpeg file has given us amateurs the ability to approach those prints. RAW processing provides even further processing latitude never available to the film printers of old, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom