I am the only one to find jpeg junk?

Started Mar 20, 2017 | Discussions thread
Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 9,470
Re: I am the only one to find jpeg junk?

michaeladawson wrote:

Ed B wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

I have the X-T10 since summer and I absolutely love it, Raf photos editing is a pure pleasure with Capture 1 (Windows 10) the results fantastic compared to my ex-D90, but every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

There is a huge universe between the jpeg out of the camera and the Raf, I think X-Trans cameras are made for Raf only if we want professional results and not instagram quality.

Every time I read comments like this I ask myself: Is the OP talking about straight out of the camera JPEGs or are they talking about JPEGs that have been post processed in a decent program like Photoshop.

First of all, I do agree raw images retain more data than in-camera processed images (JPEGs) and I do agree that if a photographer wants to "cover all their bases" and ensure they have the best opportunity to correct errors, raw, because the images retain more data, is a safer format.

I'll also agree that because Fuji changed their processing algorithms, with their X-Trans II processor, shooting raw would alleviate any problems a person might have with the waxy skin issue.

Just the same, I have to disagree with your JPEG junk comment and don't think there's anything wrong with shooting JPEG, 90% of the time, if a person knows what they're doing and if a person knows how to use a good post processing program.

I firmly believe every image should be post processed but because of improvements/advancements in programs like Adobe Photoshop and Corel PaintShop the gap between JPEG and raw has narrowed.

Raw does allow a person a better opportunity to drastically change their image and present something that is more of a manipulation but, strictly from a technical standpoint, a properly taken and processed JPEG image can be every bit as good.

Naturally, all this is just one old photographer's opinion and I'm sure a lot of "experts" would disagree.

This is why I don't even bother shooting JPEG. I did when I bought my first DSLR over 15 years ago. But I didn't know much then. I shoot exclusively RAW now. Except with Fuji, where I shoot RAW + JPEG, but only because I want the ability to zoom in on the camera LCD.

In my mind there is little merit in shooting JPEG and then doing post processing. With a proper computer and software you may as well just shoot RAW. This assumes, of course, that you like the conversion engine of your favorite software.

I use Photoshop/ACR and I don't use Fuji film simulations. If you know your software it is really no more effort to shoot RAW than it is to shoot JPEG if you are going to make post processing changes. So if you're going to post process every image I don't see any advantage to shooting JPEG.

Everyone is different and what you've said makes a lot of sense.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow