Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are you still shooting jpegs?

Go to last post
Mike Delaney said:
If you shoot it right the first time, why not??
Click to expand...
I still do a lot to images that were shot "right the first time". Subtle adjustments to the tone curve, saturation, contrast, highlight contrast, shadow contrast, even applying a certain color profile at the RAW stage...can make a significant improvement to even images that were shot "right the first time". It can make an okay image into a fantastic image. And you can apply this change to 100 or 1000 images with the click of a button. The degree of control you have over the look of your image in RAW far exceeds the level of control you have by just working with camera settings at the time of shooting.
 
fuzzytalz said:
Still, getting it right in-camera with a JPEG means I have no pp
work at all to do, even if its only batch processing. And if I'm in
a studio environment, or even on location with enough time to
optimize my lighting, there's no reason I shouldn't nail WB and
exposure to produce an ideal JPEG.
Click to expand...
It isn't just about "nailing" the settings. Sometimes, you set the camera up to capture exactly what you thought you wanted at the time of shooting-- ie. "nailing" it-- but later decide that you want all the images to have a little less contrast, or a little more saturation, or a slightly different tone curve, etc. It's the equivalent of changing your film emulsion AFTER you've taken the shot. Different film emulsions deliver different renderings of the same scene. With RAW, changing the "recipe" settings essentially allows you to change the rendering of the entire shoot, or a segment of the shoot, just as if you had used a different film. Basically, what RAW allows you to do is not paint yourself into a corner-- ie. being "nailed" to a certain set of image settings. Sometimes, it can just me a very minor tweak to WB that you thought was "nailed" at the time of shooting, but upon later review you decide that you want it tweaked just a bit.
 
T3 said:
fuzzytalz said:
Still, getting it right in-camera with a JPEG means I have no pp
work at all to do, even if its only batch processing. And if I'm in
a studio environment, or even on location with enough time to
optimize my lighting, there's no reason I shouldn't nail WB and
exposure to produce an ideal JPEG.
Click to expand...
It isn't just about "nailing" the settings. Sometimes, you set the
camera up to capture exactly what you thought you wanted at the
time of shooting-- ie. "nailing" it-- but later decide that you
want all the images to have a little less contrast, or a little
more saturation, or a slightly different tone curve, etc. It's the
equivalent of changing your film emulsion AFTER you've taken the
shot. Different film emulsions deliver different renderings of the
same scene. With RAW, changing the "recipe" settings essentially
allows you to change the rendering of the entire shoot, or a
segment of the shoot, just as if you had used a different film.
Basically, what RAW allows you to do is not paint yourself into a
corner-- ie. being "nailed" to a certain set of image settings.
Sometimes, it can just me a very minor tweak to WB that you thought
was "nailed" at the time of shooting, but upon later review you
decide that you want it tweaked just a bit.
Click to expand...
can be just as easily done from a JPEG that's 98% right to begin with. It's when you want to made dramatic changes that JPEGs are inadequate.

I'm not arguing against RAW because better than 99% of what I shoot is RAW for all the obvious reasons, but there ARE situations in which it just makes sense to shoot JPEGs the way you want the image rendered - remember slide film? - and be done with it. Primarily when I'm on a short deadline, but need to generate lots and lots of images. A catalog shoot comes immediately to mind.

--
Garland Cary
 
fuzzytalz said:
can be just as easily done from a JPEG that's 98% right to begin
with. It's when you want to made dramatic changes that JPEGs are
inadequate.

I'm not arguing against RAW because better than 99% of what I shoot
is RAW for all the obvious reasons, but there ARE situations in
which it just makes sense to shoot JPEGs the way you want the image
rendered - remember slide film? - and be done with it. Primarily
when I'm on a short deadline, but need to generate lots and lots of
images. A catalog shoot comes immediately to mind.
Click to expand...
RAW is for when you want to keep your options as open as possible. JPEG is for when you're willing to sacrifice some of those options. For example, one option you're immediately choosing is 16-bit versus 8-bit, or Adobe RGB vs sRGB. Personally, I don't recommend shooting 8-bit Adobe RGB because 8-bit already gives you a much lower degree of shades, and to have to spread that across Adobe RGB's wider color gamut can be really stretching it. And there are many cases where clients want Adobe RGB, specifically 16-bit Adobe RGB. If you head into a catalog shoot with the decision to shoot JPEG, you're already basically taking 16-bit Adobe RGB off the table as an option. Now, if you're just shooting for newpapers (with very short deadlines), yeah, they'll be fine with JPEG. But for catalogs, you're generally not talking about 24 hour turn-around time from shoot to print. And even with 1000 RAW images, it really doesn't take that long to convert them. But at least you have the option to go in any direction you want from those RAW files, because your options are practically limitless, and you can implement then practically in an instant.

You'll find that practically all catalog shoots, or commercial shoots, are done in RAW format, not JPEG. And you won't hear people saying, "Don't use RAW, it takes too long" at these shoots. Plus, the higher you go up in the photographic food chain, the less likely you're going to see JPEG's shot as the initial format. Heck, Sports Illustrated, dealing with dozens of photographers at any given moment, producing thousands of images, working on very tight deadlines from issue to issue, works almost exclusively in RAW. Talk about "lots and lots of images" on a short deadline! Read this old article on Sports Illustrated's digital workflow (from 2004):

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821

And what's more amazing was that back then, they were using Canon File Viewer Utility (FVU),predecessor to EVU, and well before the introduction of DPP, for their RAW conversions, which was GLACIALLY slow compared to today's RAW converters. Things are much faster today. And they're still shooting RAW.
 
and agree fully on all points. But the fact still remains that when I have to crank out a ton of shots and won't have much (or any) time to fiddle with them before handing them over, I'm going to shoot RAW+JPEG Large Fine, and not even touch the RAW files unless I need to make dramatic exposure or WB adjustments. I'm not challenged for speed, either. I have a dual processor G5 Mac w/4GB of RAM that tears through RAW files even using DPP, which is rather pokey. It's simply a matter of my not wanting to be bothered with batching when, for the purposes of offset reproduction at 1/2-native size, properly-shot JPEGs are indistinguishable from their companion RAW files processed to JPEG.

You, of course, will feel differently.
--
Garland Cary
 
fuzzytalz said:
David Mazeau said:
fuzzytalz said:
...and would rather use ACR.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anybody else complain about C1 image quality.

Plenty of complaints about the price... but I hadn't heard anything
about image quality.
Click to expand...
that the algorithms used by C1 are derivatives of those optimized
for very high resolution digital backs with their larger pixels,
which are Phase One's core business, because C1 is largely
incapable of rendering precise details from the files of
small-format digital captures, particularly high-resolution
1.5/1.6/2x cameras which have such fine pixel pitches that it
appears to confuse C1. Every other RAW processor I've tried
produces superior details. I wouldn't gripe about C1's price at
all, except that it doesn't deliver results commensurate with its
cost premium over competing products.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I've posted numerous samples here that show more detail extracted with less artifacts when using Capture One than ACR, DPP, Bibble, or DPP. Capture One doesn't become confused....although it appears some photographers do!
fuzzytalz said:
As for color, C1 does a better job with reds than ACR, but nothing
touches Canon's latest version of DPP for color accuracy and fine
detail reproduction, which I find cleaner and more realistic than
with anything of the alternatives (stands to reason, though, since
it is Canon's camera). Too bad it doesn't lend itself well to a
speedy workflow, but for quality, I use DPP as much as I can.
Click to expand...
DPP is atrocious for handling bayer conversion compared to Capture One. You'll get more jagged edges with DPP than you ever will with Capture.

Please post some samples showing greater detail extracted from ACR or DPP than from Capture One.
fuzzytalz said:
My $0.02 only, of course.

--
Garland Cary
Click to expand...
 
fuzzytalz said:
as I find sharpening algorithms in RAW processors to be coarse. In
particular, on top of its already hamfisted coversions, sharpening
in C1 results in an unpleasant granular appearance at high-contrast
edges.
Click to expand...
Somehow all this reminds me of something like a guy preferring
to drink red wine at 75 degrees Farenheit. And then adding in
with great disdain that at anything less than 74.5 degrees or
greater than 75.5 degrees it's really "quite undrinkable".

I find C1 to be fine, but I probably am a bit casual about this stuff,
I guess.
fuzzytalz said:
I find 5D images generally plenty sharp for my taste straight from
the camera.
Click to expand...
Oh, 5D. Yes, that's different than my 1D Mark II. I really have to
sharpen.
 
astefot said:
astefot said:
The guy is drawing...
Click to expand...
Yep. I actually find it rather scary how people are reacting here.

By the way: I'm a "sissy". I shoot mostly RAW, and I'm "man enough"
to be called a "sissy"... ;-)
Click to expand...
Another Sissy here for you too....I shoot RAW. Mine is with a CAPITAL "S" if you don't mind.

Boy, some people take this stuff too seriously!

Have a great weekend.
 
After processing a full wedding with many and many of raw files, many gigs of harddrive space, I realized it's not worth it. Learn how to use camera (which means nail the exposure and flash, check you histogram), dont rely on software! I understand that less, but better photos will make a good album, but brides generally like a full coverage and not best photos, but most wide coverage with all the people captured. I shot a 2 day festival (Bamboozle) where I captured 42 bands! I ended up with 24 gigs of photos which I harshly cut down to about 12 gigs. After a nightmare of processing so many photos you almost want to give up on this! RAW is made for precision and quality. Not all of the shots need that precision. When I go to smaller gigs with 1-4 bands, I shoot RAW becuase I know I can handle a gig of photos pretty easy...

--
http://www.madeincamera.com ~ http://www.genesm.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genesm/
 
Well, you could improve some of the shots with blown hilights, bad WB or narrow dynamic range. Most of your shots are solid - they would still be solid in RAW and require little to no tweaks. So why not shoot RAW to have far more latitude fixing the shots that need fixing?

Joe
Michael James said:
after reviewing my weddings:

http://www.ilikewhatisee.com/wed/gallery

Why would I want to shoot raw? I know what I am doing.
Do you qualify other DJs based on their gear?

Shooting thousands of images for a wedding is smart. Telling a
story is what the day is about.

--
http://www.photo-synthesis.com
Click to expand...
 
This is not always the case. Plenty of pros shoot RAW and simply process very efficiently (custom WB and manual exp) so any tweaks are done in large batches of images.

My RAW images require very little post work yet I still shoot 100% for pure quality output since the 12-bit data is a requirement to use Pro Photo RGB for maximum color gamut for my Epson 4800 printer.

Joe
fuzzytalz said:
...with lots of time to meticulously process every single RAW file.
Working guys learn to get the exposure setting right in the camera
so they can get on with the next paying job rather than waste
billable hours fixing problems in post.

If you'd ever produced a few thousand images for a single job,
you'd understand the need for high quality JPEGs and would respect
the ability to produce near-perfect images in-camera.
--
Garland Cary
Click to expand...
 
Most of my editing is done on a TiBook that's growing old, so I shoot a raw and a jpeg. I make a list of selects from the jpegs, then convert only those raw files. Works good for me. Will buy a new laptop sometime soon. If I know I'm going to edit on a tower, then I normally shoot only raws. Being able to browse through hundreds of jpegs quickly makes for easy editing, but for final production, you can't beat a raw file.

matt

--
Be Good Humans

http://www.theMirrorpool.com

Hobbies: Art, Photos, Shooting, Music, Etc.
 
T3 said:
Subtle adjustments to the tone curve, saturation, contrast,
highlight contrast, shadow contrast, even applying a certain color
profile at the RAW stage...can make a significant improvement to
even images that were shot "right the first time". It can make an
okay image into a fantastic image.
Click to expand...
Erm...Sorry, isn't this the sort of thing that can be corrected in photoshop? My Jpgs still have more than enough information for my work, so why add in another hurdle in the way of the final image,
T3 said:
And you can apply this change
to 100 or 1000 images with the click of a button. The degree of
control you have over the look of your image in RAW far exceeds the
level of control you have by just working with camera settings at
the time of shooting.
Click to expand...
But if they are subtle changes, surely it's better to deal with each image on an individual basis rather than running 100 of them through the same batch, why not just pic the fantastic image and work on that one in PS?

No one was saying just use the settings out of the camera and be done with it, but the images I get from my 1dsmkII are pretty fine without having to batch process the lot before/after or during the editing process, and they can still have subtle adjustments made.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
 
T3 said:
If you head into a catalog shoot with the decision to shoot
JPEG, you're already basically taking 16-bit Adobe RGB off the
table as an option.
Click to expand...
16-bit jpg aren't an option to begin with for the print medium.....

There is no noticeable difference between a printed RAW image in a catalogue and a printed jpg image in the same catalogue/magazine. After the printing process has butchered your work (for butchered see reduced gamut of CMYK and then reducing to what the printing inks can produce, and use of paper stock) You could shoot on 16-bit RAW or 8-bit jpg there is NO visible difference

fyi the images that sports illustrated et al are buying in (not comissioning) will be shot by picture agencies, most of whom shoot on jpg, because SI are not their only client.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top