What Is Your DSLR Out-of-Camera-JPEG Story?

ANY DSLR can get jpgs like those out of the camera consistently, even Pentax....

Just set the in-camera processing to duplicate what you like. I'm sure out of all the photos some were not to your liking...

Anyways this next part is not a critique (not really qualified) BUT if they were my photos this is what I may do to enhance them a bit and most likely would have either had to tweak th jpg settings or shoot RAW and tweak the jpg settings
This has a before and after:



After then before. Note the histogram in the before shot. Very bunched (low contrast)





--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

'The exposure meter is calibrated to some clearly defined standards and the user needs to adjust his working method and his subject matter to these values. It does not help to suppose all kinds of assumptions that do not exist.'
Erwin Puts

Great Info, thanks (nt)

Bob Tullis said:

Odesius said:

I agree, I see no reason to post-process that. It's a solid image.

Click to expand...

Sure, the conditions were conducive. Just as were Vaughn's gallery of JPGs. Lovely images.

Conditions are not always optimal, or one may want to capitalize on the inherent potential that can be obtained through intervention. Such as when conditions are extreme - one could assume there is no opportunity to exploit, and take it like a man. Or, question that notion.

All I had was my P&S, and this is what gave me pause:



I like turning to the P&S with no filters or set discipline because it allows the muse to play freely. I don't worry 1/2 as much about IQ and focus, but because sometimes a hero image can occur, I still shoot RAW +JPG. What came out of the camera, without any picture style settings, was this:



A considered picture style setting might come a little closer to the objective, but not nearly as well as that manual intervention. A moment I didn't want to, and didn't have to, pass by.

All I suggest is the abhorrence for post processing is a valid subjective call, but to suggest it is unnecessary reeks of personal protectionism. I one wants to shoot with the 1-hour processing mentality, kudos. Work out and express in style, and knock 'em dead. Just be a bit open to other objectives/expressions - even if over processed. You might consider giving the respect you'd like your undeveloped expressions to receive.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

Click to expand...

--Outstanding! Your processing really brought out the beauty of that scens.
Brian Schneider

Gato Amarillo said:

One of the mysteries of digital photography to me is that every drug-store minilab could achieve decent prints even from fairly horrible negatives, but no home software that I am aware of can do as well from digital files.

Click to expand...

And that is the big problem with most people and their home post processing!

I see it all the time in our photo lab.

People spend hours and hours working on their RAW files, only to find out that they didn't really fix their images . . . but actually made them worse!

The biggest problem is that there really is no way to calibrate monitors so everybody has the same calibration of colors and contrast.

No matter how much one may spend on monitor calibration stuff . . . who is to say that they are really calibrated?

And calibrated to what?

And how long does that calibration last . . . a day . . . a week . . . a month . . . before you have to do it all over again?

And how about those RAW files that were worked on toward the end of that calibration cycle before you have to recalibrate everything?

Chances are they will be off from those that were worked on just after the monitor was calibrated.

Even if you print your own images at your home or office . . . how often does the printer stray from the monitor, and vice versa?

What I've found is that my OOC JPEG's directly from the camera seem to match our photo labs' output, which seems to match what I see on the LCD on the back of my cameras.

Yet they don't look as good on my computer monitors, or anyone elses for that matter.

RAW files, once processed, look really good on a computer monitor, but the benefits of RAW is not always apparent on the final print.

Unless you are doing your own printing on a printer that you have calibrated to your own monitor, then printing RAW files at a photo lab can be a crap shoot at best.

JPEG's do look much better in print than they do on a computer monitor.

And a photo lab is where you get your best quality prints!

Just to many variables for consistancy to rely on your own computer monitor . . .

--
J. D.
Colorado

Another OOC JPEG (from Pentax *ist DS w/Tamron 70-300 Di LD lens):

Odesius said:

Vaughan, did you use any filters with those.

That is obviously one major limitation with my P&S pics. Some of mine would have looked a lot better with a polarizer.>

Click to expand...

No filters....nothing at all, those were all shot in my first 2 weeks of ownership of the A330....you need to change some of the default settings (sturation/sharpness/contrast) then the images just fall out of the camera lookung like that....just straightened and cropped, nothing else....BTW the A230 which is the same cam but no LV will do the same job and its cheaper than many compacts,............ anyone reading this post in isolation, we are talking about these Sony A330 shots



--
The photographer formerly known as Kodakuser



Sony A330/kit lens samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/

Sony have decided that there is a market for P&S type DSLRs, and have developed several, the best are the 330/A500 IMO

Many old tme DSLR users are scornefull because they see them as dumbded down DSLRs....but I love them, I call them ..."uber P&S interchangeable lenses"(UPASIL)

They are infact very similaar to use to a P&S....but faster and with an Optical viewfinder as well as great live view....ignore the opinions of the people that say they are no good because thay lack "advanced features"....99% of users will never miss mirror lock up or Depth of field preview.....but I do like the great tilt screen Live view, the built in steady shot, the great kit lens and the price.....try one for yourself....ignore the A230 and the A380 (230 is great IQ but has no LV)....best ones IMO are the A330 and the A500....both excellent cameras for the guy that wants great JPEGS out of cam
--
The photographer formerly known as Kodakuser



Sony A330/kit lens samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35161694@N03/sets/72157622495084386/

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Gato Amarillo said:

One of the mysteries of digital photography to me is that every drug-store minilab could achieve decent prints even from fairly horrible negatives, but no home software that I am aware of can do as well from digital files.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have to admit to being impressed by Kodak's printers. When I dabbled with printing for a work-related need, I usually had to make multiple attempts to get satisfactory images from my Olympus printer, but my aunt and my dad got great results the first time using the auto settings of their Kodak printers.

MusicDoctorDJ said:

What I've found is that my OOC JPEG's directly from the camera seem to match our photo labs' output, which seems to match what I see on the LCD on the back of my cameras.

Yet they don't look as good on my computer monitors, or anyone elses for that matter.

Click to expand...

Interesting. After reading these forums, I used GaryDem's suggestions for setting the in-camera controls to give the output I desired on my calibrated monitor (and you had a good question, calbrated to what?--I just used the calibration tools that came with the monitor, but that doesn't mean it will look exactly the same as someone else's "calibrated" monitor). Since that's the output device I use most of the time, my images seem fine to me. I don't even look at pictures on the LCD of the camera; they never look as good as what I see on my monitor, and I save battery power by just never turning the LCD on (except to set menu items such as picture size, compression, or metering mode).

MusicDoctorDJ said:

JPEG's do look much better in print than they do on a computer monitor.

Click to expand...

I used to print a few images to share with people who desired them, but in my circle of family and friends everyone has now gone digital, viewing and sharing pictures on their computers, televisions, or in a digital picture frame. Our out-of-camera JPEG's seem to translate well enough across a wide variety of output devices. We just share images through e-mail or, when visiting, take along a memory card that will fit into that person's HD television (at present, either an SD card or a memory stick). For us, it sure beats photo albums or lugging along a slide projector and screen, and for some of us the major reason for getting one of these new televisions was having a nice way to show our pictures. And the television's picture controls can be set to approximate the image quality we get on our computer monitors.

P.S. One camera I could not get satisfactory JPEG's from is my Sigma SD14. Fortunately, their raw software, Sigma Photo Pro, is very easy to use. Instead of using the in-camera controls, I just tweaked SPP's settings to give the output I wanted on my monitor, then kept those settings as defaults for all my pictures.

P.P.S I know this thread is about shooting images for the purpose of making prints, but, as some others have mentioned, there are many for whom printing has become a non-issue. A long-time slide-film user, I held off buying a digital camera long after they came out because I never saw a projected digital image that looked good to me. Then I saw my cousin display his pictures on his television through a Microsoft TV Photo Viewer; not great, but pleasant enough to get me to buy both the viewing system and my first digital camera (a Digilux 1). With the convenience of a memory stick or SD card slot and provision for giving "slide shows" on many of today's high definition televisions, I now find digital imaging more than a match for projected slides. And the small, compressed image files my family and friends share with each other via e-mail look great to us. I know my world is small, but I know very few people who continue to have their pictures printed.

Some random thoughts after reading the replies:

One of the tough choices I've made with digital is to largely give up control of how people see the finished photos. There are a few I print myself (or have done through MPIX) that I show in galleries or portfolio, but the vast majority are seen only on-screen, through Myspace, Facebook and e-mail. Even when my clients want prints, they often want printable files they can take to a lab or email to friends to print out.

One thing I do is try to look at my photos on a wide selection of monitors -- whenever I get the chance I'll call up my online photos at work, at a friend's or at the library to get an idea how the pictures look on different screens in different settings.

Given the variations in monitors and the low standards of the viewers, I sometimes wonder how much I really gain in postprocess -- certainly a lot of the subtleties of color balance and contrast are lost. As far as the end product, I could take a decent point-and-shoot, slap on a quick curves, and ship 'em out -- very few of the viewers would see the difference.

As far as printing, "keep it simple' has worked very well for me. I profile my monitor with an Eye 1 puck, keep everything set to sRGB, and make a couple of small tweaks in the printer settings to match the paper I use. (I use two papers, one matte, one luster, and have saved settings for each.) I find this gives me professional quality commercial prints on the first try almost every time, both with my Epson home printer or lab prints from MPIX. They are as close to what I see on the monitor as I would ever expect. When I do have a remake it is usually something I should have seen -- I was either tired or in a rush when I did the computer work, or just had a moment of stupidity.

Exhibition prints sometimes take a second or third try, but nothing like the number of tests it used to take in the darkroom. Compared to the Epson, MPIX needs a hair more contrast and a little less sharpening, but that's easy enough. Overall, my reject rate is far lower than it ever was with film and lab prints, and the amount of time I put in doesn't touch what I used to spend in the darkroom.

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com

Thanks for all the useful posts (nt)

Using Olympus E3, E330, EP1.

I've forced myself to shoot RAW on three occasions. Not just a day, but for a couple of weeks.

Bottom line: for the landscapes, nature, and macro shots I like to take, there was no IQ benefit to shooting RAW. The results did not look any better, while the workload was definitely higher.

I have shot RAW+JPEG when I wanted to play with the art filters. They can be applied during conversion to RAW files. The art filters were kinda neat.

My original Olympus E-300 seemed to need some adjustment especially in white balance, but my E-1, E-330, E-520, and now E-620 have produced JPG images that have needed little or no adjustment. Although I've worked with RAW, to learn what it can provide to me, I have found that, at least with my cameras and subjects, there are few situations when I would want to go there. No surprise - since I selected and continued in the Olmpus sysem to a large extent based on its JPG performance.

If you want more data, you may want to have a look at the postings on the various forums here, and see how many times RAW is suggested as the only solution for image problems - that will probably give you an idea of how robust/advanced each vendor's offerings are in JPG processing.

I am just wondering how often you use a polarizing filter under challenging / bright outdoor lighting conditions in order to avoid blown highlights. Does it go a long way to avoiding having to use RAW to recover the hightlights?

Haven't read all the posts but.....

I think I urged you to post some shots so that we could discuss pics rather than froth at the mouth with words.

Those pics you have posted are bearable but small. Hard to appreciate the aesthetics. I would put minimum size at 800x600 or 1024x768 - they're not that detailed at that size for someone to misappropriate your photos and print a coffee table book.

Now, to your pics. To my personal assessment, they simply lack contrast.



except for this one



which is in bright sun textured.

The first pic could easily have been taken on a cloudy day or in the shade. If you are documenting reality on a scientific basis, well and good. But most of us shoot photos for joy and happiness they bring and we visualise photos as having more impact on us.

For me that means slightly (depends on salting to taste) how much slightly it is.

I loaded it into pixlr - anyone can and did

Adjustment > Brightness Contast > Contrast > 7

and I was much more pleased.

It's not hours and hours of post processing and you may not need to do any pp if there is a setting in the camera to up the contrast a bit, that would be fine.

http://www.pixlr.com/editor/?image=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_fX8zOO09YPw%2FSyAvVlaqnFI%2FAAAAAAAAAJA%2F3QQf5BX51c0%2FIMG_0129.JPG

But more importantly, the sun and light are extremely significant depending on any equipment or post processing factors. If the first pic had more sun on it, it would look more impactful like the second pic.

Odesius said:

Cedar,

those were just the thumbnails, which i've now reduced the slider for so it is more obvious. Or are you saying that 500 by 375 is too small?

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.mp

Odesius said:

I am just wondering how often you use a polarizing filter under challenging / bright outdoor lighting conditions in order to avoid blown highlights. Does it go a long way to avoiding having to use RAW to recover the hightlights?

Click to expand...

Not at all. It can bring better definition to an almost washed out range of highlights, and tame reflective glare, but the main thing as far as exposure is that a CP will reduce the light reaching the medium requiring on average a +1.5 compensation correction for exposure (as compared to w/o a CP; TTL metering makes this computation unnecessary).

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com

Ananda: Thanks for the constructive feedback (nt)

I have a Canon 450d (very satisfied!!!). I spent several (many) shots in order to find a general purpose setting able to satisfy most conditions (neutral picture style, +2 saturation, +1 contrast, 5 sharpness) remembering also to change every time the WB according to the scene/illumination (the AWB is not so reliable IMO).

Now I shoot jpeg in 99% of cases. I have to say I'm against shooting RAW always, maybe because I spent years and years with film reflex cameras and in that case you could not modify (nearly) anything after the shot... Of course it is very good to have the chance to increase the quality of your pictures. In the past you had to throw bad pictures in the bucket, but I have no intension to spend 2 hours to shoot photos and then spend 40 hours to make them acceptable!! It seems to me in this second case you are not a good photographer but only good with the computer& specialized software!!!(and I spend already too many hours working with computers). For me a good photographer is good in catching the moment, the correct exposition, the correct position of the subject, the correct light.

Maybe my point of view is too old. Now also here, in the challenges, i see a lot of pictures really beautiful, really pleasant to my eyes, but they are not pictures, they are paintings! beautiful, but with not natural colors and effects, beautiful but at the same time not real, but of course it is only my opinion...

I'm wondering if the out of body (OOB) experience makes you take better
photos with your DSLR(s)????

OOBwayneb.

Odesius said:

I am hoping to get feedback from those of you with experience shooting out of camera (OOC) JPEGs with your DSLR(s).

I am very interested to hear your specific story / opinion, based on your direct shooting experience with one or more DSLRs brands / models (ideally under a range of shooting conditions).

Click to expand...

[snipped]

WBirch said:

I'm wondering if the out of body (OOB) experience makes you take better
photos with your DSLR(s)????

Click to expand...

I am usually flying and am not sure I could carry the weight without affecting performance.

--
..

ɹǝpunɥɔ uǝɯ puɐ sʍoןɟ ɹǝǝq ǝɹǝɥʍ
ɹǝpun-uʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ
..

EnricoM said:

Maybe my point of view is too old. Now also here, in the challenges, i see a lot of pictures really beautiful, really pleasant to my eyes, but they are not pictures, they are paintings! beautiful, but with not natural colors and effects, beautiful but at the same time not real, but of course it is only my opinion...

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is old, but I think it's an opinion shared by many. In addition to unreal colors and effects, bizarre angles and the obvious effects of extreme wide-angle or telephoto lenses spoil an image for me. My biased opinion is that photography is a way of showing what you saw to others or to yourself as a lasting reminder of people, places, and events; the more "real" a picture appears, the better it is. In a 1940 book, Samuel Grierson contrasted two ways of working, the first emphasizing manipulation in the darkroom after the exposure had taken place, the second emphasizing trying to get what you wanted at the point of capture. I think his conclusion agrees with your position, "Pictures produced by the second method always impress people with their feeling of naturalness. They are less artificial, and pictures should not appear artificial. Photography is an art form in itself, and a photograph should be admired and loved for what it is, not for what has been added to it after exposure."

Fact. With DSLR (and P&S) we all shoot RAW. No-one shoots Jpeg. There is no such thing as shooting Jpeg.

Now some of us choose to set our camera so that the camera converts the RAW file into a Jpeg. To do this we need to advise which parameters the camera shall use to make the conversion, i.e. sharpness level, brightness, contrast etc.

Others prefer to use the RAW file that is created by the DSLR and use another method of creating Jpegs. Most will use some sort of computer software to do this.

With that background lets look at what the OP is asking.

Odesius said:

Are you able to achieve OOC JPEGs that are reasonably close to what your RAW files are giving you? Which tweaks, if any, do you find necessary / do you find to be most important?

Click to expand...

Nope...never. The OOC Jpeg will NEVER be close to the RAW file. That is because you cannot see a RAW file until it has been converted and there are an infinite number of ways that it could look depending on the parameters you use to convert it. The question should be the other way round...i.e. can you get your RAW files to be close to your OOC Jpegs. The answer to that is that you may be able to process your RAW files to get something close to your OOC Jpeg buts thats about it. I never do because I prefer a different result from what I get when the camera creates a Jpeg.

Odesius said:

Are there any shooting conditions where the OOC JPEGS were particularly bad relative to the RAW files?

Click to expand...

The jpegs created by my camera were often inferior compared to what I could create from my RAW files using computer software (I no longer let the camera create Jpeg files)

Odesius said:

Were you ultimately satisfied with the OOC JPEG performance of your camera(s)?

Click to expand...

Nope...was never satisfied. That is why ALWAYS process my RAW files using computer software.

As requested I will not attempt to explain to you why you would get significantly better results if you use RAW files and computer software rather than letting your camera create the Jpegs for you. I suspect, however, that you already know that !!

I have one regret after taking 20,000 + shots with my Canon 30D. That is that for my first 150 shots I let the camera convert the RAW file to a Jpeg and did not keeep the RAW. Fortunately for the next 19,850 photos I kept the RAW files.