I am the only one to find jpeg junk?

Started Mar 20, 2017 | Discussions thread
ScottD1964 Senior Member • Posts: 1,870
Re: RAF vs JPEG example

stevo23 wrote:

ScottD1964 wrote:

PT wrote:

ScottD1964 wrote:

nixda wrote:

PT wrote:

Might be time to shut this thread down ! nothing useful coming from it anymore, the OP has succeeded in kicking a hornets nest. Different people have different priority's and if they are skilled enough at setting the camera for each shot fast enough not to miss it and manage to get a perfect jpg straight out of the camera whilst not rejecting many shots that are easily saved if shot in RAW then they are indeed a very highly skilled photographer.

Hahahaha, you have been successfully brainwashed by the "sooc-JPEG crowd". I know your post is somewhat sarcastic, but it needs to be pointed out that exposing a shot to satisfy the limitations of the in-camera JPEG engine does not constitute photographic skill ("I aspire to get it right in the camera"). In fact, it rejects the very fundamental notion of how digital cameras work. One cannot begin to aspire getting the very best from a digital camera if one doesn't do ETTR, but ETTR isn't in the vocabulary of the sooc-JPEG shooter. The conclusion is that the sooc-JPEG shooter is happy with what they consider "good enough", not "best".

Let me make it clear, that approach is perfectly fine of course. But to deduce from that approach that JPEG shooters possess special photographic skills, as some try to make us believe, is highly fallacious.

To some extent, the camera manufacturers are to blame here as well. If they only provided tools so that even the poor sooc-JPEG shooters could practice ETTR and got images with proper brightness sooc, then we could start narrowing the gap somewhat.

I am not in that class ... nowhere near it, but I can process a RAW file to my liking. Showing pics that are shot in jpg and look great does not mean that all jpg's are great. As for the in camera jpg conversion (that takes place from the RAW before it is discarded) ..... why does Fuji not make that magic converter available for use on your computer since it is apparently the only converter that works properly ? remember that the best cut diamond was once a rough stone.

Shut it down !

Oh no, this is fun, as always; keep it going

And another enthusiast with too much time on his hands chimes in. You find a PJ shooting RAW for a living and I'll show you an unemployed PJ.

Perhaps this is due to REUTERS placing a ban on RAW pics or even edited jpg images since 2015 so if you are a PJ and want to earn a living you don't have any choice really.

Part of that is correct. Photojournalism is about recording what you actually see as part of a story. It does not include post processing an image to your personal liking or editing it in any way to change what you are seeing. As I stated in a prior post, many PJ competitions are now disqualifying entries that are post processed or edited in any way.

It's mostly about what you submit. But if your photo wins an award, you want that raw for the big spread. So raw + jpeg was put there originally for journalists I'm told.

That may work if you're on a long assignment for Nat Geo, but it won't work for spot news and certainly doesn't work for sports.  Files are too large and chew into buffers too quickly creating huge lag writing files.  Shooting sports or press conferences at 10-15fps will physically not allow the camera to work to its capabilities if shooting RAW + .jpeg .

another reason is called a deadline. Once again if you've ever worked on assignment and had to transmit photos while on scene in order to hit a deadline you will know there is barely enough time to download your images, edit (you may be asked to submit 10-20 images out of hundreds taken), identify, caption and then transmit. Having to first download RAF files which are generally much larger and more time consuming to download, then process (either one at a time or batch) wastes precious time. PJ's don't have the time that a wedding or portrait shooter does to sit around for a few days tweaking images before submission to the client. As a PJ proper exposure is a requirement, not an option. If need be, the office staff can make a quick color correction or adjust shadows or highlights a little but it is fairly rare especially if working for a newspaper unless it is a case where say indoor lighting just wreaked havoc on your WB. Even setting WB based on color temp you may get weird lighting in an indoor arena.

if you love to spend time post processing your images so be it. It's your own choice what to do with your images much as its your choice as to what software and workflow one uses vs another. But to come out with basically an "I'm right, you're wrong attitude" about shooting RAW vs .jpeg is a crock. The OP was just trying to get people worked up for about the one billionth time in here on the RAW v. .jpegs debate. I guess his inability to be able to set his camera to get a proper OOC image meant that .jpegs from Fuji are crap and that no one else should be able to use them either.

Would a RAW shooter ever shoot chrome? They can't do anything other than expose correctly in camera. For me shooting .jpeg is like shooting chrome. Shooting RAW is like shooting neg. You can work on your negs in how you process your finished print much more than you could making a print from chrome. You can burn and dodge from a negative to pull back shadows or get a bit more detail in a highlight. Chrome is a positive so it's pretty much WYSIWIG to fixing blown highlights and pulling shadow detail just makes it muddy. That's why you have to be so right on exposure wise.


 ScottD1964's gear list:ScottD1964's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +3 more
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