Reading mode: Light Dark

Using JPEG files as The Digital Negative

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niklas
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
1. More exposure latitude. You can reover from blown hiughlights to a significant degree in RAW. Once clipped in jpeg you are stuck.

2. You have complete control over the white balance an RAW. Correct white balance makes a huge difference in image qaulity.

3. You can process in 16 bits. With 8 bit jpeg images, it doesn't take to much post processing to wind up with pasterization. Processing in 16 bits virtually eleimnates posterization.

4. You can convert your RAW to any color space, not just Adobe RGB or sRGB. I use convert to the wide Gamnut ProPhoto RGB for processing in photoshop.

5. You have your choice of RAW converters - you are not stucjk with the in-camera RAW converter. I use Capture 1 and find it superioor to the in-camera or other RAW convrters.
  • Gene
--
Gene (aka hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/gaocus
http://hawkman.smugmug.com/gallery/1414279

 
aayjay said:
Actually you can also open a JPG using ACR directly in Photoshop CS3
by choosing "File-Open As"

Choose the JPG file and change the "Open As" option to Camera Raw.
This will bring up ACR.
Click to expand...
Yes, that does work in PSE 5. It certainly doesn't give the flexibility of a RAW file to a JPG when you open it that way, but it does work. I do see it being a good way to easily see blown highlights and under exposed shadows after you convert a RAW file and end up saving your tweaks in a JPG.
 
Bob Tullis said:
I couldn't agree more. Not that I fit into that class of
photographer, but I desire to through eliminating limitations.
Akin to obtaining the best gear & developing software possible, to
insure the only limitations that need mastering are my own.
Click to expand...
Heh... there's no way I fit into Ansel Adams class either. I simply threw his name out there because he is the best known of the greats who went to great lengths to control the whole process from capture to print.

Back in the 70's, when I could only afford to have my own B&W darkroom, I read all of his books and tried to apply what I learned. Having taken many transmitted and reflected densitometer readings of negatives and prints (I had access to those in the lab where I worked) I have a huge appreciation for the much friendlier digital tools we now have.
 
The reason that I am interested is that I haven’t really been able to see any significant difference between RAW and jpeg shots if things are pretty much correct in the camera. Where I have personally seen benefit from RAW is when the exposure is a bit off or there is need for WB adjustment. However, I keep reading about the superior quality of images from RAW and I am wondering if the reason I am not seeing such a difference is because I am just crummy at working with RAW files.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
RAW is exactly what it sounds like....and the benifit isnt seen by just accepting the converters defaults and letting it go at that.

The benifits are seen when you push the limits...or have clean edits as you now have the 12-16 bits of range your camera captured (12bit is most...some are at 14bit...and some MF backs are at true 16bit) This gives you better transitions between colors and shades of colors.

Ever edit a shot and see waves of colors in the blue as it changes color...that can be minimized or eliminated by using RAW as you have more data to work with.

If you like .jpg though....no reason to stop using it....it is a fine choice.

But if you end up pushing the envelope...you will want the power of RAW to insure you have more to push.

Roman
--

The Law Of Attraction is ALWAYS working. Your only choice is whether you drive 'it'...or 'it' drives you.
-Me
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Julio said:
Sorry but that doesn't work. I have seen that misconception mentioned
here and there over the years
Click to expand...
This is not a misconception the least. However, the effect is usually overrated.
Julio said:
Theoretically,
some transformations in Photoshop while working in 16-bits will
"fill-in the gaps" by creating new tones
Click to expand...
Not "theoretically". Almost all editing steps lead to rounding/truncation, interpolation. It's easier to list the exceptions (like cropping, rotating by 90°), than to list those steps, which will "populate" the range.

Now, if one carries out a serie of such steps in the same program run , then nothing has been gained. However, if the result of some manipulations is saved and opened again for another processing and this occurs several times, then the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit becomes real.

One needs to recognize, that the originally created 16-bit TIFF and the result of for example applying a curve or changing the level are formally the same (i.e. populating the 16-bit range).

The real problem is, that the JPEG version is not simply the 8-bit version of the 16-bit image.

However, it can be reasonable to convert an 8-bit TIFF into 16-bit before applying a row of changes in several program runs. (Of course, it would be better and simpler to convert the raw in 16-bit TIFF immediately.)

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
 
egd5 said:
But my problem is deciding whether to save the file after processing
as a tiff or jpg.
Click to expand...
This is where the new breed of RAW workflow applications like Apple's Aperture (Mac) or Adobe's Lightroom (Mac/Windows) come into the game.

They keep the raw file and the processing instructions seperate rather than producing a processed tiff. What that actually means is storing an 8mb raw file (plus an extra mb for adjustment and preview data) instead of an 40mb tiff file.

Basically they replace 90-99% of the need for Photoshop from a basic post processing perspective (Exposure, sharpening, levels, straighten, crop, etc), but do not offer any of the creative features like compositing or artistic filters, or the more advanced tools like lens correction (distortion, CA, flare, etc).

I shoot RAW and use Aperture. Keeps everything simple and I have the digital negative easily to hand for when I get a special shot or one which needs extra care.

The easier RAW becomes to work with, the fewer reasons there are not to use it.

As a FINAL distibution format, JPEG is excellent and has numerous benefits. But as a digital negative is has some issues.

-Najinsky
 
No, you are not crazy, JPEGs if you turn down the contrast and saturation in the camera and pay attention to your exposure and WB when shooting make a very good digital negative. They are smaller. Everything opens them. You can buffer many, many more in camera if you are shooting fast.

The price you pay is if you make very large adjustments in PP. Really, as you point out, the compression and artifacts are not a big deal. The main issue is the encoding prior to compression. The JPEG encoding really throws away lots of color information and doesn't code much in the shadows, so for example you might end up with posterization in the shadows if you tried to expand them from JPEG whereas in RAW you'd get a much better result. That said, if the shadows were important to you when you made the shot you probably should have exposed better for them :). Another hard case is very saturated colors - I can get reds to blow badly in JPEG but in RAW using the different pictures styles and contrast curves I can often get excellent results.

I have shot and use both. When I first started out with a digital SLR I was headed off to photograph lots of wildlife, this meant lots of exposures taken very quickly. For buffer and storage reasons I used JPEG almost exclusively. It worked out great. Since then I've shot mostly RAW because I'm mostly doing landscapes. This has worked out great too.

Use what works for you. It sounds like you've put a lot of thought and effort into your experience - if JPEG is doing the job for you and makes your workflow efficient for your shooting then keep doing that!
--
Ken W
Rebel XT, Fuji F30, and a whole lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the closet...
 
Wow, that's pretty cool. How come you can do that with RAW but not JPEG?
iMac said:
When doing raw conversion your adjustments don't lock in previous
adjustments. So if I adjust exposure, then adjust the highlight
recovery, then saturate some reds, alter the hue on the blues, and
apply some sharpening - I can go back and undue (or fine tune) that
first exposure adjustment without undoing all the other adjustments I
made.
Click to expand...
--
Jeremy
 
Thank you for replying, you really have some good points there. This have turned out to be a great thread for me, and maybe for others too. I've learned alot, not technically, but learned to look somewhat different at RAW, and what to expect from it.

Niklas
http://nikn.com
kenw said:
No, you are not crazy, JPEGs if you turn down the contrast and
saturation in the camera and pay attention to your exposure and WB
when shooting make a very good digital negative. They are smaller.
Everything opens them. You can buffer many, many more in camera if
you are shooting fast.

The price you pay is if you make very large adjustments in PP.
Really, as you point out, the compression and artifacts are not a big
deal. The main issue is the encoding prior to compression. The JPEG
encoding really throws away lots of color information and doesn't
code much in the shadows, so for example you might end up with
posterization in the shadows if you tried to expand them from JPEG
whereas in RAW you'd get a much better result. That said, if the
shadows were important to you when you made the shot you probably
should have exposed better for them :). Another hard case is very
saturated colors - I can get reds to blow badly in JPEG but in RAW
using the different pictures styles and contrast curves I can often
get excellent results.

I have shot and use both. When I first started out with a digital
SLR I was headed off to photograph lots of wildlife, this meant lots
of exposures taken very quickly. For buffer and storage reasons I
used JPEG almost exclusively. It worked out great. Since then I've
shot mostly RAW because I'm mostly doing landscapes. This has worked
out great too.

Use what works for you. It sounds like you've put a lot of thought
and effort into your experience - if JPEG is doing the job for you
and makes your workflow efficient for your shooting then keep doing
that!
--
Ken W
Rebel XT, Fuji F30, and a whole lot of 35mm and 4x5 sitting in the
closet...
Click to expand...
 
either the default or the "as shot" settings. I didn't believe it months ago, but have changed my opinion. (just did 2,300 images in China, Raw is better. really.)
--
Love people, not things.

See Cuba & San Francisco at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com
 
Hi Niklas.

I shot jpg too in past yers , but in recent 2 years, when I understand the great capability of raw files, I just shoot RAW

please look at the following shots. the firs is straight jpg out of camer & the second is the RAW file of the same shot converted to jpg by ACR. I can do something with the jpg format shot to enhance expoure & color tonality but I never can resque the clipped highlights.
this pic is shot with EOS400, 50 :1.8 @4 & external flash bounced on wall.

1: jpg out of camera:



2: RAW file converted to jpg. by ACR:



regards
--
Behin Nazemroaya
http://www.prophotocom.com
 
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