Reading mode: Light Dark

Shooting jpeg with the GFX

Go to last post
Krinck

Krinck

Active member
Messages
54
Reaction score
75
Here is a question most of you probably will find very odd: Do any of you primarily shoot jpeg rather than raw, and how is that affecting the result?

The reason I'm asking is that I thoroughly love photography, I shoot all and everything including macro, street, portraits, with vintage lenses etc etc, but I equally thoroughly detest post processing. I don’t see the connection between the activities, shooting is fun, changing and challenging, while post processing is tedious and more resembles work than anything else. I want to shoot and be done.

Currently I shoot Fuji X since that gives me tactile manual controls and great jpegs due to their film simulations. I import the pics to my iPad and do some fast adjustments in Snapseed, something like one minute per keeper. However, I am very interested in the crisp, tack-sharp photos produced by the GFX.

Do you believe that my post-process phobia will make an investment in a GFX (in that case the upcoming 50R) worthless, or will I be able to get the results I hope for?

And don’t try to convince me to start shooting RAW and use a PC, it’s not gonna happen. I have shot over 10.000 pics per year the last ten years, not one of them RAW :)
 
Krinck said:
Here is a question most of you probably will find very odd: Do any of you primarily shoot jpeg rather than raw, and how is that affecting the result?

The reason I'm asking is that I thoroughly love photography, I shoot all and everything including macro, street, portraits, with vintage lenses etc etc, but I equally thoroughly detest post processing. I don’t see the connection between the activities, shooting is fun, changing and challenging, while post processing is tedious and more resembles work than anything else. I want to shoot and be done.

Currently I shoot Fuji X since that gives me tactile manual controls and great jpegs due to their film simulations. I import the pics to my iPad and do some fast adjustments in Snapseed, something like one minute per keeper. However, I am very interested in the crisp, tack-sharp photos produced by the GFX.

Do you believe that my post-process phobia will make an investment in a GFX (in that case the upcoming 50R) worthless, or will I be able to get the results I hope for?

And don’t try to convince me to start shooting RAW and use a PC, it’s not gonna happen. I have shot over 10.000 pics per year the last ten years, not one of them RAW :)
Click to expand...
Hi,

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG. That mean that the camera makes the choices.

Just two examples.
  • The JPEG will be based on the white balance setting you have chosen at exposure.
  • A JPEG image will have a certain amount of sharpening applied.
As long as you are happy with those choices, JPEG is just fine.

Best regards

Erik
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Hi,

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG. That mean that the camera makes the choices.

Just two examples.
  • The JPEG will be based on the white balance setting you have chosen at exposure.
  • A JPEG image will have a certain amount of sharpening applied.
As long as you are happy with those choices, JPEG is just fine.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
Click to expand...
Thank you! If you think IQ-wise, would you say that you achieve the same resolution and sharpness? That is: could I make the same crop from the jpeg as I could from the raw-file for example?
 
Last edited:
Krinck said:
Here is a question most of you probably will find very odd: Do any of you primarily shoot jpeg rather than raw, and how is that affecting the result?

The reason I'm asking is that I thoroughly love photography, I shoot all and everything including macro, street, portraits, with vintage lenses etc etc, but I equally thoroughly detest post processing. I don’t see the connection between the activities, shooting is fun, changing and challenging, while post processing is tedious and more resembles work than anything else. I want to shoot and be done.

Currently I shoot Fuji X since that gives me tactile manual controls and great jpegs due to their film simulations. I import the pics to my iPad and do some fast adjustments in Snapseed, something like one minute per keeper. However, I am very interested in the crisp, tack-sharp photos produced by the GFX.

Do you believe that my post-process phobia will make an investment in a GFX (in that case the upcoming 50R) worthless, or will I be able to get the results I hope for?

And don’t try to convince me to start shooting RAW and use a PC, it’s not gonna happen. I have shot over 10.000 pics per year the last ten years, not one of them RAW :)
Click to expand...
Let me make an analogy. Some people like ice in white wine. Some people don't. Some of the people who don't look down on the people who do.

I don't put ice in my white wine. But, although I cringe inwardly at the thought, I have to admit that a Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Montrachet with ice in it would taste better than a Gallo White Zinfandel with ice in it.

So go ahead and upgrade to the GFX if you want. You'll get better IQ with the OOC JPEGs, even if you're not getting all the camera can deliver.

Jim
 
Krinck said:
Erik Kaffehr said:
Hi,

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG. That mean that the camera makes the choices.

Just two examples.
  • The JPEG will be based on the white balance setting you have chosen at exposure.
  • A JPEG image will have a certain amount of sharpening applied.
As long as you are happy with those choices, JPEG is just fine.

Best regards

Erik
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Erik Kaffehr said:
Yes, you could.

But, there is a risk that the JPEG could have some sharpening artefacts. JPEG does a discrete cosine transform on what I think is a 16x16 box,
Click to expand...
8x8.
Erik Kaffehr said:
throwing away high order data. That will cause some artifacts, that will not be visible normally, but may interfere with sharpening.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
So, I read the Review once again, and if I read you correctly I will not be able to recover highligts as in the example picture under "Recoverable Highlights" on this page:


Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
 
Krinck said:
So, I read the Review once again, and if I read you correctly I will not be able to recover highligts as in the example picture under "Recoverable Highlights" on this page:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-50s/7

Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
Hi,

It may be a reasonable approach...

Not my approach, but a feasible one, I would say!

Best regards

Erik
 
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.
 
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
 
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
Click to expand...
My point is not that you can't find a raw developer preset that matches your chosen camera OOC JPEG flavor, but that the raw exposure that looks good with that setting is likely to be suboptimal.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
Click to expand...
My point is not that you can't find a raw developer preset that matches your chosen camera OOC JPEG flavor, but that the raw exposure that looks good with that setting is likely to be suboptimal.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
Click to expand...
My point is not that you can't find a raw developer preset that matches your chosen camera OOC JPEG flavor, but that the raw exposure that looks good with that setting is likely to be suboptimal.
Click to expand...
Then how would you know what your exposure should be? Is a histogram based on the RAW exposure or Jpeg like the preview image?
Click to expand...
The best raw exposure is the one that gives the best image quality for the final result, is defined by the photographer in relation to that particular image.

Let's say you are taking a picture of a foggy scene with no dark tones, and you are going to expand the tone curve in the processed image to add contrast. You want smoothness and freedom from noise. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a washed-out, over-exposed-looking JPEG image.

Let's say that you are shooting an interior, and want detail in the scene outside as viewed through the windows, and also in the room itself. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a very dark, under-exposed-looking JPEG image.

Jim
 
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
Click to expand...
My point is not that you can't find a raw developer preset that matches your chosen camera OOC JPEG flavor, but that the raw exposure that looks good with that setting is likely to be suboptimal.
Click to expand...
Then how would you know what your exposure should be? Is a histogram based on the RAW exposure or Jpeg like the preview image?
Click to expand...
The best raw exposure is the one that gives the best image quality for the final result, is defined by the photographer in relation to that particular image.

Let's say you are taking a picture of a foggy scene with no dark tones, and you are going to expand the tone curve in the processed image to add contrast. You want smoothness and freedom from noise. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a washed-out, over-exposed-looking JPEG image.

Let's say that you are shooting an interior, and want detail in the scene outside as viewed through the windows, and also in the room itself. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a very dark, under-exposed-looking JPEG image.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
JimKasson said:
Krinck said:
Ok, I just MAY have to learn to shoot jpeg+raw and do edits on the most extreme cases :D
Click to expand...
OK, but in my experience the correct exposure for raw is hardly ever the right one for JPEG.

--
Click to expand...
Although I shoot Canon, my RAWs look like my Jpegs exposure wise. I get some variation depending on the RAW processor I use, but for the most part, it's within the ballpark. Colors, are a different matter though. They look the same if I use Canon's DPP processor, but they're all over the place with other RAW processors.
Click to expand...
My point is not that you can't find a raw developer preset that matches your chosen camera OOC JPEG flavor, but that the raw exposure that looks good with that setting is likely to be suboptimal.
Click to expand...
Then how would you know what your exposure should be? Is a histogram based on the RAW exposure or Jpeg like the preview image?
Click to expand...
The best raw exposure is the one that gives the best image quality for the final result, is defined by the photographer in relation to that particular image.

Let's say you are taking a picture of a foggy scene with no dark tones, and you are going to expand the tone curve in the processed image to add contrast. You want smoothness and freedom from noise. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a washed-out, over-exposed-looking JPEG image.

Let's say that you are shooting an interior, and want detail in the scene outside as viewed through the windows, and also in the room itself. The correct exposure to enable that kind of processing of a raw file will result in a very dark, under-exposed-looking JPEG image.
Click to expand...
How would you determine the correct exposure though? You're essentially saying that you can't rely on the meter and you can't rely on the preview jpg and my understanding is that you can't rely on the histogram either, right?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that because it's derived from the JPEG preview? It ain't perfect, but it's better than anything else. There are ways to improve the in-camera histogram, too.

Using in-camera histograms for ETTR - the last word

If you're interested in the whole topic, it's probably a good idea to read each section in order. If you just want to do the calibration and have access to Rawdigger, Photoshop, and Excel, read this: Preparing for monitor-based UniWB and do this: A one-step UniWB procedure. Acknowledgments Why...
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
Macro guy said:
So, how do you determine the exposure if all of your exposure measuring tools are worthless?
Click to expand...
You said worthless. I did not. And I am a big fan of histograms and zebras. Histograms are your main tool, and zebras tell you where the potential clipping is likely to occur.

Until we get raw histograms like Canon users who hack their cameras with magic Lantern have (and, apparently, some Pentax MF users sort of have), the histogram is the best tool we've got. And, thanks to CMOS DR, with a little windage, it's plenty good enough in almost all circumstances.

Jim
 
Krinck said:
Ok, I’m back to indecision land. 🤔
Click to expand...
Don't worry many of us have that problem.

I used to be very indecisive but now i'm not so sure
 
Krinck said:
Ok, I’m back to indecision land. 🤔
Click to expand...
Don’t be put off by the discussion on this forum. Sure, by shooting only jpeg on a GFX you’re throwing away some of the excellent IQ the system is capable of, and therefore the money you spent on it. But if you like the X-series jpegs you’ll like the GFX jpegs even more. It's really a matter of what you use them for, and what works for you.

I shoot RAW + jpeg, but I have somebody else to do the RAW processing. If you need to work with the RAWs you can possibly set up a PS action and do batch processing so you don’t have to slave away at processing those 10,000 photos individually. But you’ll need something more than an iPad.

Another consideration is the physical size and weight of the GFX compared to the X-series, the change to the 4:3 format, and the slower overall operation of the camera. These may have more of an effect (positive or negative) on your picture-taking than the technical quality of the output.
 
Histograms and zebras are excellent tools for available light shooting. I have them on in the EVF at all times.

Just paying attention to these two exposure tools will get you better images, with better use of the DR, and few if any clipped highlights. (Unless of course you deliberately choose to clip highlights).

You can still occasionally get saturated color clipping as Jim alluded to - such as the orange lipstick color in this shot

43895890661_29726338f2_o.jpg


You learn to look for that when shooting - and you can then add some headroom into your exposure setting, backing off a little to preserve the saturated warm lip color.

If you overdrive a color hard, you can end up with some odd and unpredictable shades - you often see red flowers that have been overdriven, and go a strange magenta hue.

Overdriven red channel top, backed-off exposure bottom

Overdriven red channel top, backed-off exposure bottom

I think most believe still believe that auto exposure on expensive cameras must be 'correct' or at least 'good'. Which they are, to a point - but there's no way your camera can be smart enough to understand every scene and set exposure accordingly - at least not yet.

That's where you come in!

Hang on - isn't histograms and zebras a line in Little Wing?

Histograms and Zebras

And moonbeams and fairy tales

That's all she ever thinks about

Riding with the wind...

--
Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
It is NOT digital zoom, it is...
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
107
jhunna
J
L
GFX 100sii vs X2D: Color Comparison
2 3
Replies
42
Views
43
kciuk aka Ken60
kciuk aka Ken60
G
Getting into GFX at last - a GFX 100 (original) - tips?
2
Replies
29
Views
30
GeoffHarris
G
R
Reply to jerseyinHK (from the closed thread)
Replies
1
Views
8
SrMi
SrMi
Greg7579
Q3 - Two Months in Italy - 650 Full-Size High-Quality Q3 JPEG Exports
2
Replies
21
Views
22
Greg7579
Greg7579

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