Post Processing of Jpegs

Hi

I tend to shoot RAW and then develop on my PC, but most (all?) of the people that I know that shoot DSLR all shoot in JPEG and do no post processing whatsoever.

I reckon they use the standard settings that came with the camera. For printing, they just pull the card out and wander down to the nearest print shop.

I've always thought that to get the most out of these cameras you needed to post process. Levels (or curves), colour, sharpening, etc.

Is this not the case if you shoot JPEG? Can you just use the results straight from the camera and still see a noticeable improvement over P&S cameras?

I'd be interested in thoughts and views!

Cheers

I shoo raw sometimes and use all the modes when I need to. If I were mking a livig out of photography I would use raw much much more than I do now, but .jpg is fine for me. I use Lightroom for my editing, it does not distinguish between raw and .jpg and any thing I can do in raw I can do in .jpg (with in limits of course). If I were to use raw all the time I would need to upgrade my computer and hard drive capacity. Every one to their own.

It's just a personal decision to edit or not to edit. I myself like to adjust my images, just another creative way to add to the mix.

There are many reasons to process your shots:

• The light isn't perfect most of the time, so you need to adjust things
• To add a personal flavor to your shots, something people can recognize you
• To make it pop more
• To highlight something to tell your story. Like selective b&w
• Adjust dynamic range for shots with very high contrast
• Corrections like removing branches, freckles, color corrections, removing noise
• etc

--
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

I PP almost all of my .jpg images.

Most P&S camera PP in-camera to pump things up.

Most people with P&S cameras have no idea how bad their images are. They shoot and accept it.

I recently was given CDs of travel photos taken by two people. I did a standard LAB enhancement on them. I spent well under a minute on each photo.

These people were amazed at how much I was able to improve their photos. One person asked me why his photos look so murky compared to what I did.

If I were to analyze the various components of my PP process for these images, I would probably decide that the biggest difference was with Shadows/Highlights. Reducing the highs 15-25% removes all of the glare and brings back the detail.

That probably contributed most to increasing the "pop".

Thanks all

I was interested, because a LOT of people who would normally be happy with a P&S have bought into the Digital Rebel line (given the fantastic value). But in doing so, they have just continued with the camera as though it is a P&S.

E.g., of all my friends who have one, not one has replaced the 18-55 (cheap non-IS version) lens that came with it.

I thought I had read somewhere that images from a DSLR look softer than P&S unless post processed slightly.

All that said, all my friends seem perfectly happy with their results.

I still shoot jpg because I would rather spend more time on learning how to take a quality photo right now then on the computer doing all the work with a raw file. I am interested in shooting raw but really only have a good amount of time to concentrate on one area. I don't really know how to do too much with the software out there and plan on buying a book soon and start dabbling a little bit with raw files.

As far as my PP, I crop/resize, adjust the lighting/shadows a bit when I need to, convert to B&W sometimes, and sharpen the photos when needed. A very few times I've used the clone stamp tool in PSE as well.

Can you explain what a lab enhancement is.
Thanks
Bob

I'm kind of in the middle here.

For critical work (e.g., a commercial poster that will be 30 inches wide), I'll post process all I need to. And for weddings, I always include RAW as an insurance policy for bad metering or WB.

But, I aim to take the shot so I can use the JPEG right out of the camera with zero PP. It's part of the fun of photography -- to shoot like you can't retouch. With weddings where I'll often shoot in excess of 2,000 shots in twelve hours, there's nothing more satisfying -- or financially rewarding -- than to look at a shot and decide, yup, that's it and there's nothing more I'd even want to do with it. It's done and I can go to the next one. I'm up to about a 65% good-out-of-the-camera rate now and hope to push it a bit higher.

Regarding the sharpness, DSLR's aren't as sharp out of cam if shooting raw as P&S b/c the P&S is applying sharpening while the RAW hasn't had sharpening applied at that point. So in that regard, SLRs can be seen as softer since the images still need to be processed. I dont' really shoot in JPEG, but I imagine if you replicated the settings that are in the P&S, you'd get the same sharpness, everything else being equal, but I'm not positive about it.

Yeah I also know a few people who don't progress past the kit lens. It stays on the camera, use in-cam flash, etc. I guess it'll still beat a P&S b/c of sensor size, lens quality, and definitely in low-light, there is no competition. Prob nothing wrong with it, but I'd imagine that a high end bridge cam would be better for the person who wants to shoot like a P&S, usually comes with a better lens, more focal range, etc.

But the RAW vs. JPEG debate seems to be heated at times. People are passionate about one over the other. I shoot RAW b/c I don't trust myself yet and want to be able to correct white balance and all without loose and I do somewhat enjoy the post processing work too. But I've seen hardcore photogs who say they only shoot JPEG b/c they dont' want to waste time in front of a computer when they could be out shooting. I just like the RAW flexibility and honestly if you are shooting good enough that you don't have to alter much (ie shoot just in JPEG), seems you could still go raw, apply a workflow, and you have your conversions done with little pain.

Sam_M said:

Thanks all

I was interested, because a LOT of people who would normally be happy
with a P&S have bought into the Digital Rebel line (given the
fantastic value). But in doing so, they have just continued with the
camera as though it is a P&S.

E.g., of all my friends who have one, not one has replaced the 18-55
(cheap non-IS version) lens that came with it.

I thought I had read somewhere that images from a DSLR look softer
than P&S unless post processed slightly.

All that said, all my friends seem perfectly happy with their results.

Click to expand...

--
Just trying to learn

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/

I tend to regard RAW as a digital negativ to be "developed" in post processing.

In RAW you have the data captured by the camera without any alterations. In JPEG the camera made changes you can't undo and any postprocessing on a JPEG will only degrade the image.
I shoot a lot and do processing only on the images I put on my flickr-account.

The rest stays on the harddrive ( and the backup ) waiting for any future processing.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86761628@N00/

There is no 'perfect' way to do anything including taking photos. Everyone does it the way they 'think' it should be done just like composing a photo, everyone has their own idea of what makes a great photo. But, being the humans we are..we always look for the 1-2-3 method for everything so in our minds we are absolutely doing the best possible process. Hell, we even have the term "workflow" now to indicate the ""steps"" and what order everything should be performed in the PP. You do what works for you. Most of my photog friends and myself cover the whole spectrum: depending on what the shot is intended for I may use it straight from the camera or it may have been shot in RAW and processed for an hour. Isn't it nice we have so many options and can decide what is best for what situation.
--
'If YOU like the shot...it's a good shot'