Reading mode: Light Dark

Post processing JPEGs?

Go to last post
JPGs will be perfectly OK if your technique is OK. Minor adjustments of colour and density won't make much difference nor will modest cropping. Any program will be OK. Personally I've bought Affinity, which isn't costly and works well.

If you save the RAWs if you do find an image that will be better with a lot of processing then you've got the option. Storage is cheap, esp. if you cull ruthlessly. I use Adobe Bridge (free) for that and it works well.
 
Thank you, how about small adjustments in contrast (tonecurve)? I guess the same goes for that.
 
Sal Baker said:
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.
Click to expand...
To clarify, it's 8 bits (256 shades/tones) per colour channel (which, with three channels, gives 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 colours), not 8 bits/256 colours total.

More info about JPG vs RAW bit depth.
 
EMV said:
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.
Click to expand...
A couple more suggestions (because you only have 900 other bits of software to look at so far):

- DxO PhotoLab or Optics Pro 11 -- edits (basically a series of transforms) are saved in sidecar files so do not affect the original JPG. Unfortunately the DxO RAW engine does not support X-Trans RAW files, but it is excellent for working with JPGs. Standard editing stuff -- cropping, levels, noise reduction, dust spot removal, horizon levelling, etc., with the option to export files at whatever quality levels you prefer. There are fairly frequent promotions to get a free copy of the old version, DxO Optics Pro 11.

- GIMP -- free Photoshop alternative. I use this for any major editing I need to do -- keystoning, cloning, healing, creating star trails, etc. IMHO the interface isn't as user friendly as DxO for basic photographic adjustments.
 
ialarmedalien said:
EMV said:
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.
Click to expand...
A couple more suggestions (because you only have 900 other bits of software to look at so far):

- DxO PhotoLab or Optics Pro 11 -- edits (basically a series of transforms) are saved in sidecar files so do not affect the original JPG. Unfortunately the DxO RAW engine does not support X-Trans RAW files, but it is excellent for working with JPGs. Standard editing stuff -- cropping, levels, noise reduction, dust spot removal, horizon levelling, etc., with the option to export files at whatever quality levels you prefer. There are fairly frequent promotions to get a free copy of the old version, DxO Optics Pro 11.

- GIMP -- free Photoshop alternative. I use this for any major editing I need to do -- keystoning, cloning, healing, creating star trails, etc. IMHO the interface isn't as user friendly as DxO for basic photographic adjustments.
Click to expand...
thank you :)
 
Yes, I think so, but if proves not you can fall back on a RAW file. I think the area where you'll benefit from RAW is if you try to lift shadows an awful lot or have very underexposed images. Highlights have a bigger margin in RAW too, when they might be blown out in a JPG.

As you are currently using RAWs why not simply shoot both and see how you get on? JPGs are small, don't take as much space and you'll risk nothing.

--
Andrew Skinner
 
Last edited:
dmaclau said:
OK. Not what you asked, but....

I added Perfectly Clear to my workflow and have moved virtually all my processing from RAW to JPG.

It’s not free however

--
absolute power corrupts...absolutely
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. I will probably try it out.
 
a_c_skinner said:
Yes, I think so, but if proves not you can fall back on a RAW file. I think the area where you'll benefit from RAW is if you try to lift shadows an awful lot or have very underexposed images. Highlights have a bigger margin in RAW too, when they might be blown out in a JPG.

As you are currently using RAWs why not simply shoot both and see how you get on? JPGs are small, don't take as much space and you'll risk nothing.

--
Andrew Skinner
Click to expand...
I will shoot both and probably edit the raw for shots I intentionally underexposed and/or want to make major adjustments.

I just want to get away with as little post processing as possible for my every day photos and not be forced to process a raw for every shot i take.

I feel like the SOOC JPEGs often need some contrast boost for me to be happy with them though. They seem a little bit flat in many cases.
 
EMV said:
a_c_skinner said:
Yes, I think so, but if proves not you can fall back on a RAW file. I think the area where you'll benefit from RAW is if you try to lift shadows an awful lot or have very underexposed images. Highlights have a bigger margin in RAW too, when they might be blown out in a JPG.

As you are currently using RAWs why not simply shoot both and see how you get on? JPGs are small, don't take as much space and you'll risk nothing.
Click to expand...
I will shoot both and probably edit the raw for shots I intentionally underexposed and/or want to make major adjustments.

I just want to get away with as little post processing as possible for my every day photos and not be forced to process a raw for every shot i take.

I feel like the SOOC JPEGs often need some contrast boost for me to be happy with them though. They seem a little bit flat in many cases.
Click to expand...
That is one of the reasons to use the "Q" menu to set up presets with different H, & S tone adjustments along with many of the other options for producing those SOOC JPEGs.
 
Len-O said:
EMV said:
a_c_skinner said:
Yes, I think so, but if proves not you can fall back on a RAW file. I think the area where you'll benefit from RAW is if you try to lift shadows an awful lot or have very underexposed images. Highlights have a bigger margin in RAW too, when they might be blown out in a JPG.

As you are currently using RAWs why not simply shoot both and see how you get on? JPGs are small, don't take as much space and you'll risk nothing.
Click to expand...
I will shoot both and probably edit the raw for shots I intentionally underexposed and/or want to make major adjustments.

I just want to get away with as little post processing as possible for my every day photos and not be forced to process a raw for every shot i take.

I feel like the SOOC JPEGs often need some contrast boost for me to be happy with them though. They seem a little bit flat in many cases.
Click to expand...
That is one of the reasons to use the "Q" menu to set up presets with different H, & S tone adjustments along with many of the other options for producing those SOOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Any suggestions for those settings?
I'm currently using NR -3, Sharpening +1 and rest at 0 but will probably boost color with +1.

I feel like the shadows gets a little bit to dark with shadows +1.
 
Last edited:
I've not thought that since my D200 was retired. None of the stuff on my Flickr pages has been contrast boosted, it is pretty much all SOOC or with small changes of density.
 
EMV said:
Len-O said:
EMV said:
a_c_skinner said:
Yes, I think so, but if proves not you can fall back on a RAW file. I think the area where you'll benefit from RAW is if you try to lift shadows an awful lot or have very underexposed images. Highlights have a bigger margin in RAW too, when they might be blown out in a JPG.

As you are currently using RAWs why not simply shoot both and see how you get on? JPGs are small, don't take as much space and you'll risk nothing.
Click to expand...
I will shoot both and probably edit the raw for shots I intentionally underexposed and/or want to make major adjustments.

I just want to get away with as little post processing as possible for my every day photos and not be forced to process a raw for every shot i take.

I feel like the SOOC JPEGs often need some contrast boost for me to be happy with them though. They seem a little bit flat in many cases.
Click to expand...
That is one of the reasons to use the "Q" menu to set up presets with different H, & S tone adjustments along with many of the other options for producing those SOOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Any suggestions for those settings?
I'm currently using NR -3, Sharpening +1 and rest at 0 but will probably boost color with +1.

I feel like the shadows gets a little bit to dark with shadows +1.
Click to expand...
I use different settings for different film sims, and situations, and taste being what it is my settings might not match your taste.

That said here are a few of my "Q" presets:

Acros R: NR 0, HT -2, ST 0, Sharp 0

Acros: NR -3, HT -1, ST +2, Sharp +2

Astia: NR -3, HT -1, ST +1, Color 0, Sharp +2

Velvia: NR 0, HT -1, ST 0, Color -1, Sharp +1

Classic Chrome: NR -2, HT -2, ST -1, Color -1, Sharp 0
 
a_c_skinner said:
I've not thought that since my D200 was retired. None of the stuff on my Flickr pages has been contrast boosted, it is pretty much all SOOC or with small changes of density.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you, will check it out
 
Last edited:
Matter of taste. Using the Velvia film simulation may get what you want, I am using the less colourful option, can't recall which as I was a Kodak chap (Astia I think) but the Fuji default (Velvia) is too colourful for me. The B&W ones are all conversions in Affinity. These may be RAW conversions as if you plan to do a lot of processing you may as well load the RAF file. Some Fujis will bracket film simulation IIRC, so you can experiment easily.

In the final analysis you'll need to experiment and tolerate some compromises or stick with RAW and a lot of work.
 
a_c_skinner said:
Matter of taste. Using the Velvia film simulation may get what you want, I am using the less colourful option, can't recall which as I was a Kodak chap (Astia I think) but the Fuji default (Velvia) is too colourful for me. The B&W ones are all conversions in Affinity. These may be RAW conversions as if you plan to do a lot of processing you may as well load the RAF file. Some Fujis will bracket film simulation IIRC, so you can experiment easily.

In the final analysis you'll need to experiment and tolerate some compromises or stick with RAW and a lot of work.
Click to expand...
 
ialarmedalien said:
Sal Baker said:
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.
Click to expand...
To clarify, it's 8 bits (256 shades/tones) per colour channel (which, with three channels, gives 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 colours), not 8 bits/256 colours total.

More info about JPG vs RAW bit depth.
Click to expand...
It’s the tones between colors.,.


Sal
 
As far as I know, GIMP is the only JPEG editor that allows you to save at the original quality and chroma settings, resulting in minimal damage to edges and continuous-tone blocks.

GIMP is rather complicated, like Photoshop. FastStone is probably the easiest to learn editor on Windows. Irfanview is great but editing is not its strong suit. [P.S, I doubt Apple photos is non-destructive.]

If you reduce size of the original JPEG for web posting, destruction is irrelevant anyway.
Fujijitsu said:
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?
Click to expand...
Moreover Google is not your friend. They are spying on you most of the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
JPEG or RAW, when/where/why
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
1K
ishwanu
I
RichDitch
B29 - fill flash and/or post process comparison
Replies
11
Views
31
DavidZihon
DavidZihon
L
How do you sort, process, and organize your photos?
2
Replies
31
Views
406
iau
I
S
DxO PhotoLab for Canon
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Sittatunga
S
vrvly
How to improve your phone photos (no text limit XD)
Replies
7
Views
199
vrvly
vrvly

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