Reading mode: Light Dark

Shooting only RAW (RAF) with X100 from now on

Go to last post
P

prentisd

Leading Member
Messages
727
Reaction score
17
Location
Seattle, WA, US
I must be missing something but so many posters rave about the JPEG images right out of the X100. I agree they are generally pretty good but rarely has there been a JPEG shot from the camera that in my estimation couldn't benefit with some post processing adjustments. Doing so with the RAW files is always better than trying to tweak JPEGs. With Lightroom 4 I find I can bring my RAW files up to perfectly wonderful image outputs with very little effort and time expended. I then export them to JPEG for printing, uploading, whatever.

I tested this for myself by shooting for a while in RAW+JPEG Fine including trying a variety of shooting settings. Universally I have been more satisfied with my images after post processing from RAW than using the JPEGs as-is. I'm back to shooting only RAW.

Has anyone else had the same experience?
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com
 
prentisd said:
I must be missing something but so many posters rave about the JPEG images right out of the X100. I agree they are generally pretty good but rarely has there been a JPEG shot from the camera that in my estimation couldn't benefit with some post processing adjustments. Doing so with the RAW files is always better than trying to tweak JPEGs. With Lightroom 4 I find I can bring my RAW files up to perfectly wonderful image outputs with very little effort and time expended. I then export them to JPEG for printing, uploading, whatever.

I tested this for myself by shooting for a while in RAW+JPEG Fine including trying a variety of shooting settings. Universally I have been more satisfied with my images after post processing from RAW than using the JPEGs as-is. I'm back to shooting only RAW.

Has anyone else had the same experience?
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Yep. I thought I was the only one.

I'm not a big fan of the X100 JPEGs. Even doing a straight conversion of the RAW file through the included RAW (Silkypix) converter with all the default setting yields a better picture than the camera produces when shooting RAW + JPEG (IMHO).

Kurt
 
I think RAW is sometimes over-rated. I have to shoot my D700, D800 Nikon's RAW because their Jpegs suck! I have shot weddings with the S1, S2, S3, and S5 and have found that Jpegs work quite well. In fact, using a software like Gary Fong's makes Jpegs very easy to work with. I know several wedding photographers like David Zeiser that shoots Jpegs all the time.
 
I agree with you. I looked at both jpegs and RAW files from my X100 and I prefer converting the RAW files. I tried going with jpegs only, but i found that I always tweaked the jpeg's. I've been shooting Olympus dSLR's for years now and they have a pretty good jpegs too, but I process Oly RAW's as well. I use LR 4 and really like it.

Archie
 
prentisd said:
I must be missing something but so many posters rave about the JPEG images right out of the X100. I agree they are generally pretty good but rarely has there been a JPEG shot from the camera that in my estimation couldn't benefit with some post processing adjustments. Doing so with the RAW files is always better than trying to tweak JPEGs. With Lightroom 4 I find I can bring my RAW files up to perfectly wonderful image outputs with very little effort and time expended. I then export them to JPEG for printing, uploading, whatever.

I tested this for myself by shooting for a while in RAW+JPEG Fine including trying a variety of shooting settings. Universally I have been more satisfied with my images after post processing from RAW than using the JPEGs as-is. I'm back to shooting only RAW.
Click to expand...
Nope. I shoot 99% jpegs out of my X100. I found shooting RAW to be of no value at all. On very rare occasions, when white balance issues show up, I shoot RAW but still convert in-camera.

--

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.
 
X100 jpgs are fantastic. (Unlike my Canons)

But for my purposes I have never seen a jpg that I couldn't match in LR 3.x, and with process 2012 in LR4, I find the RAW files produce superior results.

This is of course the point of shooting RAW, advances in software mean your images can get better over time. When I look at the jpgs and prints I could produce from my 20D 8 years ago it's simply astonishing how much better I can do now with the new RAW converters.

Shooting RAW also means I basically never have to touch the menus except to format the card. Not because I find them difficult to manage, so much as I prefer not to fiddle with the camera. Pick it up and shoot.

--
Blog ------------------------ http://craigspics.net/?tag=blog
X100 Blog ----------------- http://craigspics.net/?cat=16
X100 Quickstart Guide -- http://craigspics.net/?page_id=1345
 
While I really love Astia simulation JPEG output I too often find the need for correction, especially the white balance and tone curve. Luckily, I've recently discovered a solution to keep Astia colors and gain full RAW capability. The name is DxO Optics Pro.

With the corrections switched off, this converter mimics Astia simulation practically 99-100% correctly and this is an excellent starting point for subsequent tweaks.

Highly recommended. BTW, you need the standard (cheaper) edition of DxO to process X100 RAFs.
 
Regardless the "look" of jpegs, I always shoot Raw. Because of it's potential, now and in the future ( my post-process skills/taste changes over the years to come, nice to have the "negative").

I'm not as "brave" as some ! :-)
--
http://www.veluart.com
 
Completely agree. Today, storage being priced as it is, and average CPU power vastly better than a few years ago, I don't understand why some people shoot only JPG.

X100 RAW files have so much 'play' in them that it's almost a shame not to have it on tap for those occasions when you need it. Even if only 1 out of every 50 shots you take could really benefit from post processing, shooting in RAW is worth it.
 
Thanks everyone. I seem to be with the majority of the responders to this thread. Nothing wrong with shooting JPEG if you don't want to spend the PP time. But I'm no David Zeiser. I'm just not that confident in my ability to nail the shot every time. Besides doing all those minute adjustments while shooting is too time consuming when you want to shoot that fleeting opportunity. Better to do it in the quiet of your computer desk. (By the way converting RAW to JPEG using the camera for PP is pretty much the same thing.) And then there is the added benefit of the much wider set of adjustments and wider dynamic range you have to work with when working with RAW images.

As I said...RAW only from now on.

PS:
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com
 
The advantages and disadvantages of shooting in raw or shooting jpg's are quite blurred. Certain in camera engines do quite excellent job producing jpg files, the X100 is one of those. On the other hand, with the speed and quality of Aperture and also Lightroom there really isn't a time savings associated with shooting jpg. The file sizes are quite different but storage is really inexpensive. The old saw about WB adjustment is hokum. I am a firm proponent of constant adjustment for WB regardless if shooting RAW or JPG. If I don't get the WB correct the first time I have a dickens of a time deciding when it is correct in PP. Also, yes Virginia, color temperature corrections are quite possible with JPG files. So, unless you dislike either output from your camera I don't expect there really is a difference.

I usually shoot both and seldom see a difference other than additional saturation on blues.

Shoot whatever you're comfortable with and move on.
--
http://dp1meanderings.blogspot.com/
http://S90meanderings.blogspot.com/
http://iPhonemeanderings.blogspot.com
 
I changed to RAW in 2003 after shooting JPEG for 1 year. On my Nikon D1 it was night and day. On the X100 the difference is smaller but I never considered switching back to JPEG. With Lightroom I see no advantage in shooting JPEGs.

--
best regards

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com
 
Press photographers need to shoot JPEG because they are on the clock to get the images to the editor. Most of us have no such time limitations. I would guess we spend time at the computer in PP messing with shots even if shooting JPEG. The X100 is a great JPEG shooter but the shots could be even better if you take a little extra time working with the RAW shots.

I pretty much use auto white balance on the X100 which seems to work very well in most situations. I occasionally need to use the LR4 white balance selector tool (eyedropper) if it seems off, which usually nails it. If I am really anal about a situation I include a grey card in the shoot.

But the major thing for me is the 12 bit per channel headroom that is inherent in the RAW file. Many is the time that I have pulled information out of the shadows in a RAW image that would have been forever buried in a JPEG image.
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com
 
I'm surprised this thread turned to more of a general jpeg vs raw discussion. Having a (brand new) X10 and reading up a little on it, I was under the impression that there was no way to match the in-camera jpeg processing results using the raw from the X-trans sensors in Lightroom, with regards to detail and sharpness? This has certainly been my experience so far, but I haven't put a lot of time into it. I do know about the need to reduce the "detail" slider to near 0 but that alone didn't do the trick. Still getting very soft results.

And I'm talking about a pretty severe lack of detail/sharpness in the Lightroom processed files, not only visible in 100% viewing. I would love to have the option of raw files, as it's what I use in all my other cameras, but so far my own results makes anything but a very small print (A5, maybe) out of the question for me.

Here's hoping I've got it backwards and someone can enlighten me. Cheers.
 
I just bought the x100 last week because everybody talked about stunning jpeg and great skin tone.

Oh man was i disappointed. Skin tone i jpeg i wierd yellow and creamish. I shoot canon 5d/550d and just sold an old Oly e-510.

It turned out that raw is the only choice now.

I was hoping the x100 could be my 'jpeg happy shooter' but lets see if i Can adapt to it.
If not i'll give Oly (em5-pl5) a chance.
 
Apart from a few experiments I'd never really shot RAW and one of the reasons I bought an X100 was because of its reported jpegs. However after the first few weeks shooting jpegs or RAW+jpeg, and experimenting with the in cameras setting, I found, to my surprise that, I preferred the results from the RAW shots.

I love the way that Aperture handles the X100 RAW files, so, despite buying the camera to shoot jpegs, I have now shot RAW only for the last 12 months.
--
Stephen
 
Stephenbw said:
Apart from a few experiments I'd never really shot RAW and one of the reasons I bought an X100 was because of its reported jpegs. However after the first few weeks shooting jpegs or RAW+jpeg, and experimenting with the in cameras setting, I found, to my surprise that, I preferred the results from the RAW shots.

I love the way that Aperture handles the X100 RAW files, so, despite buying the camera to shoot jpegs, I have now shot RAW only for the last 12 months.
--
Stephen
Click to expand...
Unless you are going straight from shooting to the drug store for prints I see no reason to prefer JPEGs. I suppose if you were at a party and wanted to take the chip out and display it on someone's computer, that might be another reason. But for me all my shots are run through PP on my computer before anything else is done with them. Lightroom (and I presume Aperture) is so quick, easy and effective that JPEGS don't buy me much and sort of get in the way.
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com
 
I shoot RAW+Jpeg. It's the best of both worlds. I mainly use my X100 for just shooting around town when hanging out with friends so I'm not particularly concerned about absolute perfection. The jpegs from my X100/Xpro1 are better than any other camera I've ever used and it makes my life easier since I can share photos and not feel I have to mess with them first. Every once in awhile I get a great photo that I want to print out or use for something more important and I'll pull out the RAW file and tweak it until I get that perfect image. When I used to carry around my 5D I used to only shoot RAW because all my images needed tweaking.

When shooting professionally I shoot RAW+the lowest quality jpeg. I just use the jpegs for quick previews and proofs.
 
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