-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Post processing JPEGs?
- Thread starter EMV
- Start date
Okay but than you will have to crop the jpeg file which will degrade the quality.
i guess there is no way around this and it would be nice to be able to make some minor adjustments to the tonecurve in faststone. Is there any vinjettering tool in faststone?
what i am afraid of is if you will be able to notice any diffrence in quality if you print an unedited jpeg vs an edited one (cropping and minor contrast adjustment)?
cute_girl_emily
Active member
madhav56
Leading Member
Of late, I find that if you need little bit corrections like WB, Contarst, Sharpness, orientation, noise reduction, saturation etc., I find working in LR on JPG giving quicker and quite good results than working on RAW. Of-course the resultant JPG is smaller in size than original, but if desktop is the target for viewing, then its Ok.
Working on JPG in LR does not allow one to change the Film simulations which is available in RAW.
Working on JPG in LR does not allow one to change the Film simulations which is available in RAW.
vegetaleb
Senior Member
Same here, snapseed is pretty easy to use, I correct my dji spark photos with it.
For clarity tool though only capture one can do it with jpeg but its a paid software
Okay thank you. How much damage will tonecurve adjustment in faststone do to the image? I understand it’s a hard question to answer. I’m Talking about minor adjustments and quality for printing it in A4-A2 size.
sluggy_warrior
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,261
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 2,201
From your responses so far, I think you really need to reconsider shooting in RAW instead.
Storage is cheap. I value my efforts in picking and editing the photos, so I'd rather have that efforts applied to the best data source to yield the best results. Export time from RAW is cheap, I just select all the final images, hit export, go do something else for half an hour and come back.
There are a lot more values to convert from RAW yourself, even if you don't do any editing. You can have your preferred sharpening automatically applied. Noise reduction will always be better than SOOC (due to a desktop software is much more powerful and complex, and doesn't have to finish in real time), and can be tweaked to taste. The exported JPG will be more optimized toward your selected compression level instead of filesize like SOOC. Dynamic range can also be adjusted to compress more shadow and highlighs, much more than the camera engine can do.
Even with actual culling and editing, the effort will still be small. Like you said, you'll most likely be cropping/rotating, lens-correction, exposure/basecurve. Exposure and basecurve/tinecurve will completely benefit from RAW, you can pull details from complete blackness (with some noise), color radients will be smooth instead of bandings.
You might be put off by the effort in managing both RAW and JPG, but that's a different problem and can solved separately.
Storage is cheap. I value my efforts in picking and editing the photos, so I'd rather have that efforts applied to the best data source to yield the best results. Export time from RAW is cheap, I just select all the final images, hit export, go do something else for half an hour and come back.
There are a lot more values to convert from RAW yourself, even if you don't do any editing. You can have your preferred sharpening automatically applied. Noise reduction will always be better than SOOC (due to a desktop software is much more powerful and complex, and doesn't have to finish in real time), and can be tweaked to taste. The exported JPG will be more optimized toward your selected compression level instead of filesize like SOOC. Dynamic range can also be adjusted to compress more shadow and highlighs, much more than the camera engine can do.
Even with actual culling and editing, the effort will still be small. Like you said, you'll most likely be cropping/rotating, lens-correction, exposure/basecurve. Exposure and basecurve/tinecurve will completely benefit from RAW, you can pull details from complete blackness (with some noise), color radients will be smooth instead of bandings.
You might be put off by the effort in managing both RAW and JPG, but that's a different problem and can solved separately.
I agree, but the thing is I really don't have the time at the moment. I'm at work 14h a day (because long travel time) and I have a daughter <1 yo. So my priorities at the moment is not editing raw files. It will only result in less to none pictures.
Also i really think the colors in Fujis filmsimulations is great, and better than what i can pull off in LR.
So I'd like to try shoot RAW+JPEG with minimal to none editing for now. If i capture a great shot that I'd like to print I might spend time to edit the RAW file if necessary.
vegetaleb
Senior Member
Is it better to shoot raw and convert to jpeg in x raw studio or is that the same thing as SOOC JPEG?
X-t20
I use Pixlr on mobile and Fotor on PC - but I'm confused by what people are saying about not working on the original jpeg?
After editing, they save the edited file as a new jpeg. If I want to make more changes, I go back to the original jpeg to avoid image quality loss. This means re-doing the edits, but as it's normally only a crop and a heal, that's no big deal.
The 'heal' tool in Pixlr is really good by the way. I use a Samsung Note 8 phone, and editing with the stylus allows some detailed healing of minor skin blemishes etc.
After editing, they save the edited file as a new jpeg. If I want to make more changes, I go back to the original jpeg to avoid image quality loss. This means re-doing the edits, but as it's normally only a crop and a heal, that's no big deal.
The 'heal' tool in Pixlr is really good by the way. I use a Samsung Note 8 phone, and editing with the stylus allows some detailed healing of minor skin blemishes etc.
Sal Baker
Forum Pro
So much depends on how far you need to push or pull any areas of tonality (dodge and burn). The jpeg throws away 90 percent of the tonality captured by an expensive camera. With only 256 shades/tones to manipulate, tonal banding can start to show when pushing, or spreading the tones apart, particularly at the left of the histogram.
The RAW file has more than 16,000 tones/shades available so tonal editing is much more bullet proof.
Sal
pseudobreccia
Leading Member
Sal,
I'm curious whether 256 shades/tones misrepresents a JPEG file. Isn't each pixel a function of 256*256*256 (RGB) possible combinations? I'm not questioning your conclusion about banding... Simply whether the number 256 misrepresents the tonal possibilities.
I tried to tell you that I'm currently shooting raw and processing my files in LR (wich means I do have editing software).
I dont want to spend that much time on post process anymore (for now at least) because of other priorities. Therefore I'm looking for a way to get the most out of JPEG (or raw+jpeg) with minimal post processing.
I'm sorry, but the phrase "Google is your friend" really bugs me. It's a discussion forum - should we all Google in isolation and discuss nothing?
Imagine sitting in a bar with your friends, and one says "what about that match last night?", and you reply; "Google is your friend".
Pretty soon Google would be your only friend.
Last edited:
I didn't realise the difference was so big. Must start to do more with raw.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum