Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Yeah, but...JPG Follies  (Read 8318 times)
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2007, 06:18:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Not the RAW v JPEG issue "again" lol

Anyway, I see what Micheal is saying here, and its a valid point. However, not all jpegs are created equal. I have always been very happy quality wise with my KM5D on jpegs, excellent processing, and low compression offered too.

I have taken shots jpeg, maybe I could have done RAW, some good ones too. I do not have sleepless nights over it, nor do I worry that my compact is jpeg only. There is a place for both, and most of us are well aware of the pros and cons.

I don't subscribe to the RAW only way of thinking. For the simple reason:

You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files? Not me, so I use jpeg for that kinda thing. Even working stuff, used jpegs, not a problem. I do use RAW a good bit too.

I imagine most jpeg shooters are in the know on things, esp exposure. So if I shoot jpeg, and expose more for the highlights..problem solved.

I will have to point out a few things though:

You can adjust WB with jpegs, though its not "as easy" or you may run into trouble if your WB is miles off.

You can also pull up shadows pretty well on "some" cameras, the ones with "good" jpegs.

Maybe Micheal is a tad one sided on this issue, a bit more balance wouldn't be a bad thing. I am not suggesting he does a "Ken Rockwell" and jpeg love etc etc. But its a bit like the endless film v digital debate. Its a non issue. Use what you like, be aware of the pros and cons, and take those shots! I frankly never wonder if a photo is jpeg, raw, film, shot with a tasty lens, or a beaten up ancient thing, its just the image that counts.

Cmon folks, we don't know how good we have it nowadays..maybe time to crack out some wetplates and get back to the real thing? eh? lol
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2007, 11:05:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not the RAW v JPEG issue "again" lol

Anyway, I see what Micheal is saying here, and its a valid point. However, not all jpegs are created equal. I have always been very happy quality wise with my KM5D on jpegs, excellent processing, and low compression offered too.

I have taken shots jpeg, maybe I could have done RAW, some good ones too. I do not have sleepless nights over it, nor do I worry that my compact is jpeg only. There is a place for both, and most of us are well aware of the pros and cons.

I don't subscribe to the RAW only way of thinking. For the simple reason:

You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files? Not me, so I use jpeg for that kinda thing. Even working stuff, used jpegs, not a problem. I do use RAW a good bit too.

I imagine most jpeg shooters are in the know on things, esp exposure. So if I shoot jpeg, and expose more for the highlights..problem solved.

I will have to point out a few things though:

You can adjust WB with jpegs, though its not "as easy" or you may run into trouble if your WB is miles off.

You can also pull up shadows pretty well on "some" cameras, the ones with "good" jpegs.

Maybe Micheal is a tad one sided on this issue, a bit more balance wouldn't be a bad thing. I am not suggesting he does a "Ken Rockwell" and jpeg love etc etc. But its a bit like the endless film v digital debate. Its a non issue. Use what you like, be aware of the pros and cons, and take those shots! I frankly never wonder if a photo is jpeg, raw, film, shot with a tasty lens, or a beaten up ancient thing, its just the image that counts.

Cmon folks, we don't know how good we have it nowadays..maybe time to crack out some wetplates and get back to the real thing? eh? lol
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, this is silly. This entire premise: "You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files?"  Is just false.  Really, there is NO additional time to process RAW files compared to JPEG files if you use software designed for it, e.g. Aperture or Lightroom.  Aperture when it was released had the tagline "Makes RAW as easy as JPEG."  And it is.  If you want to sit there with a convoluted ACR+Photoshop workflow, that's your problem, but I can take 250 shots, edit each of them for white balance and make slight corrections, at maybe 15 seconds per photo.  Certainly faster than doing WB correction on one JPEG.

So time for editing either is the same with the right software, and there's a lot more flexibility if you shoot RAW.  I simply don't see the downside to RAW, other than disk space.  As such, given cameras I have that shoot RAW, I will always use it.  It's not magical, it's just better in every way with few to any downsides.  You can feel free to shoot JPEG if it's more convenient for you, but there need not be ANY convenience advantage if you use the right software.
Logged

David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2007, 02:06:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Again, this is silly. This entire premise: "You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files?"  Is just false.  Really, there is NO additional time to process RAW files compared to JPEG files if you use software designed for it, e.g. Aperture or Lightroom.  Aperture when it was released had the tagline "Makes RAW as easy as JPEG."  And it is.  If you want to sit there with a convoluted ACR+Photoshop workflow, that's your problem, but I can take 250 shots, edit each of them for white balance and make slight corrections, at maybe 15 seconds per photo.  Certainly faster than doing WB correction on one JPEG.

So time for editing either is the same with the right software, and there's a lot more flexibility if you shoot RAW.  I simply don't see the downside to RAW, other than disk space.  As such, given cameras I have that shoot RAW, I will always use it.  It's not magical, it's just better in every way with few to any downsides.  You can feel free to shoot JPEG if it's more convenient for you, but there need not be ANY convenience advantage if you use the right software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Complete nonsense. You photograph with jpeg, connect the camera to a printer and hit go. Now there's workflow for you! Mind you, the thought of doing that is about to send breakfast back up. Excuse me while I go lie down
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2007, 02:18:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Complete nonsense. You photograph with jpeg, connect the camera to a printer and hit go. Now there's workflow for you! Mind you, the thought of doing that is about to send breakfast back up. Excuse me while I go lie down
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My thoughts exactly. And I have done that more than a few times. I begin to tire of people telling me I "MUST" shoot RAW all the time. I dont see the point for casual shots like I said in my post.

I dont lecture others on what to do, what maker to use, or how to do what they want to. I expect most not to care..after all I expect to be judged, on what I produce, does how I got there really make any difference at all?

Maybe, just maybe I am smart enough to use a camera, to get what I want, maybe I am aware of the pros and cons of both formats. Its such meaningless arguments all the time that never cease to amaze me.

I am going out now to take some photos with my cheap kit lens, and jpeg mode ;-)
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3209



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2007, 02:44:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Again, this is silly. This entire premise: "You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files?"  Is just false.  Really, there is NO additional time to process RAW files compared to JPEG files if you use software designed for it, e.g. Aperture or Lightroom.

So time for editing either is the same with the right software, and there's a lot more flexibility if you shoot RAW.  I simply don't see the downside to RAW, other than disk space.  As such, given cameras I have that shoot RAW, I will always use it.  It's not magical, it's just better in every way with few to any downsides.  You can feel free to shoot JPEG if it's more convenient for you, but there need not be ANY convenience advantage if you use the right software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that's exactly why I now shoot RAW + JPEG, whereas before I used to shoot RAW only. I deal with people who do not have the right software and are not going to buy it either. So if I shoot JPEG as well, I can give them the JPEGs to flick through. I started doing this after having to let the computer run for a couple of days processing a shoot [a 4 week shoot] and the client insisted on JPEGs.
The time for editing is quicker with JPEG no matter what you say. It takes longer to open a RAW file regardless of software used - which may only be 5-10 secs, but those seconds can add up. Besides LR or Bridge have to render any adjustments you may have applied to the RAW images, which is not always very speedy. And I quite like the tweaked picture styles out of my 5D and whilst working in Sweden  this year [using an 18 month old laptop, not the latest dual, quad core monster], I nearly always used the JPEGs with a quick tweak as I was going along. Now when selecting the final images from that 5 week shoot, I will use the RAW files for any exhibition imges. But they will in fact look very similar tonally to the PSed JPEGs as that's the look I want.

Most of the images shot on film would not have been good enough for some of the JPEG snobs here as the quality and WB tweaking wasn't there. The flaws in a medium are not flaws in the right hands. If you always want maximum DR, noise free and detailed shadows, RAW is the way to go, but sometimes dark black shadows or blown highlights is also perfect.

To add to other posts saying RAW is overkill, I sometimes use my girlfriends's 850IS Ixus rather than my 5D as I like the different pics that come out of it and for some shots, that camera is far preferable. I may get more DR or what ever with the 5D but it doesn't have IS or the ability to do really close imaging like the little compact. And being so tiny, it'll get used when even my RAW shooting S70 is too bulky to fit in my pocket. Besides the S70 isn't much cop over 100ISO either. Plus it's quite nice to simply point and shoot sometimes without thinking. And the IXUS very rarely gets the exposure wrong either.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3209



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2007, 02:49:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Complete nonsense. You photograph with jpeg, connect the camera to a printer and hit go. Now there's workflow for you! Mind you, the thought of doing that is about to send breakfast back up. Excuse me while I go lie down
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The perfect workflow for doing continuity shots on films in fact. I get asked to do those shots sometimes when doing stills [and I've done continuity too on occasions] and if I had one of those printers that can plug and print I could do images straight from my camera very, very quickly. Polaroids still get used for wadrobe/makeup as it's the perfect workflow.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2007, 01:38:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The perfect workflow for doing continuity shots on films in fact. I get asked to do those shots sometimes when doing stills [and I've done continuity too on occasions] and if I had one of those printers that can plug and print I could do images straight from my camera very, very quickly. Polaroids still get used for wadrobe/makeup as it's the perfect workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly. I stay away from jpegs now only for one reason I confess. It's not the expense of the camera or printer or dedicated monitor, or the expense of the sharpening and noise reduction software, and monitor and printer calibration stuff, pixel editors, file managers, RAW converters blah blah blah. No, it's that almost none of this stuff works out of the box. It's like buying a car only to find it has last year's engine which won't work with this year's petrol. And you have to fix it yourself with a workshop manual written in bunkum by a theoretical mathematician needing vapulation. Then it comes back from it's first service with the steering wheel on the other side and the cd player upgraded to an air freshener for my convenience. Labile stuff sold by fabulists. No, I stick with RAW through bloodymindedness that I have got this far and will one day make it all work at once. David
Logged

Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2007, 06:15:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot jpeg sometimes.

A example: I helped my motherīs husband to take photos off their hunting dog fetching a dead duck. I shoot 1200 shoots that day in jpeg. It really saved me time. As I just imported them to their computer directly.

They asked me as my camera can shoot faster than their point shoot. They wanted a serie with the dog fetching and collecting the dead duck to their homepage. They use like 300 pixels wide jpegs on the homepage.

I saw no reason at all to waste my time with RAW. The camera did great job. They got 400 photos they chose themself. They where more than happy with the result.

As a thank you I will get a monopod this christmas.

If I been shooting raw, It would just made take alot off memory cards. I had to import them all export them to later send them to their computer. Sure I could do it Lightroom but my mother and her husband wouldnt probably see the diffrence.


You can get good results with Jpeg if you mind the exposure and whitebalance. Just shooting in manual and keep mind off the focus. The cameras got quite good Jpeg encoding this day.

For my own use I always use RAW.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 06:22:01 AM by Sunesha » Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2007, 12:22:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't find it such a religious principle.  Shoot whichever suits the circumstances, but be aware of the consequences you incur.  For some circumstances it's silly to shoot RAW.  If you're doing an onsite handoff from the camera to the client, the only discussion may be whether to shoot jpeg or tiff.  Some clients want one, some the other.  

In a direct handoff, you are not going to have the opportunity to process RAW, and if the client doesn't want delivery in RAW, he's going to hire another photographer.  If you encounter those situations, you darn better know jpeg limitations intimately and be able to work around them in your lighting controls and camera management.  In your location survey prior to a shoot you can also ID for the client the extra costs incurred in all the extra lighting required, and probably garner payment for the extra processing time incurred for shooting RAW in lieu of bringing along an extended light kit and a tech or two.  

Yeah, I prefer RAW any time lighting conditions are challenging.  But you're whacking yourself off at the knees if you fail to learn how NOT to use it when non-photographic factors dictate use of jpeg or tiff.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 12:23:38 PM by Hank » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad