Who uses the OOC JPG's ?

Panasonic shooter, and I use them a LOT. The G9 jpeg engine is a huge update over the previous models/versions. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes the more realistic colours of the Panasonic flavour, and I actually started a thread a while back on this exact subject. With examples too. I'll have a look and see if I can dig it up. One of the the main reason too, why I like Silkypix, as it can reproduce the EXACT same colours and contrast etc from raw, as the in camera converter.
Why are you a weird for liking Panasonic colors? I've so many images/videos from Panasonic cameras they are quite good with pleasing colors.
Because we're in the Olymp, ooops, OM, ooops m4/3 forum. Everyone knows that Olymp, ooops, I mean OMD jpeg colours come straight from the hand of Jesus. It's almost disrespectful to like Panasonic colour
i see shooting jpg as going to McDonalds and ordering a salad :-D
Are you just trying to be provocative? What do you get when you process a raw file , usually a jpg ? Welcome to McDonalds
this whole thread is provocative and as usual the jpg shooters coming across as the pushy ones, a raw file has more information so more flexible for editing
i would be cautious about polar stereotyping people into groups, and equally attempting to suggest a self a riotousness based on your perceptions of others.

You may have seen I previously have commented that raw files do indeed have more data , even if you can’t actually see it. It is also true that you can rescue a raw file that is , for example, poorly exposed much more than you can a jpg.

however if you do correctly expose a jpg , it will be indistinguishable from a processed raw file if you have set up your camera to not overly sharpen etc.

Raw is fine if you like to fiddle with files and add your own interpretation with, for example colour enhancement , or balance the exposure on a high contrast image. When you are done and you export , it’s still a jpg, and has no more merit that one cooked in your camera. It may even less consistent if part of a set.

it’s also easy to overlook how skilled some jpg shooters are in matters of the art and craft of photography . As were film photographers using slide film with less latitude than many modern jpgs have . That is photographic accomplishment. On the other hand is is easy to say, I shoot raw, to parody a well known utuber.
well you're the one who has said a youtuber said to be a proper photographer you need to shoot raw, so no stereotyping.....
citing one person is not stereo typing , it’s an example
Correctly exposed jpg, what is that exactly? Is there an industry standard or something that describes that?
same with raw files, hence the software updates for each new camera. However it’s not difficult for those which a sincere interest to find out.
A raw file has more data, we are using a digital format regardless of file type, because of this it has more flexibility for editing meaning the data for the final jpg can show what exactly what you want it to show because you are not limited by the file type and bit depth
using third party software and dragging sliders about is not my idea of photography, if you get things right in camera( assuming you have read the manual and know how to) will give you excellent and consistent results.
film is irrelevant in this conversation
not for you to decide, it’s an example of a means to capture an image and those who understood and knows how to use it, also know that you needed to get it right , are very close to , in camera .
the longest part of raw editing for myself is waiting for the noise reduction software to do its thing, once again fiddling with raw files....oh the stereotyping.... always the same these threads
its a bold effort to not accept responsibility and displace blame on others. I have concluded that you have nothing to offer other than your barely passive aggression, and condescension of others because you are deluded enough to believe your are more enlightened .

the computer says no is hardly witty , another device that does not understand social relations .

I will not reply further because you have rendered the discussion empty by substituting your ego for a good argument.
i would say correct exposure is subjective and based upon the result an individual is trying to achieve with the the final image in mind, to say otherwise is disingenuous at best

you should ask Gnine about fiddling with sliders, his camera jpgs and raws were all edited with Silkypix pro 10

Getting it right in camera once again is subjective, what do you actually mean by that?

the computer says no is a quote from a comedy series called Little Britain

you are using a digital format, by its nature it gets processed at some point
 
For sports, event shooting and photojournalism JPG is key. The Olympus JPG engine is one of the best. Saves me time, and time is money. If someone has time to wait, and wants to pay extra for touch-ups in post, I will certainly oblige. But 95% of my business is immediate turn-around which = JPG.
 
Panny uses Silkypix basically for RAW conversion + editing, and PhotoFunStudio for certain specific features...

Due to its very unconventional UI (vs PS), I never warm up with it. I also find the noise handling of Silkypix does not work well vs other software I know, e.g. DXO... I would not use it unless I have no other option.
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want

2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy

3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only shoot RAW

Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
 
Panasonic shooter, and I use them a LOT. The G9 jpeg engine is a huge update over the previous models/versions. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes the more realistic colours of the Panasonic flavour, and I actually started a thread a while back on this exact subject. With examples too. I'll have a look and see if I can dig it up. One of the the main reason too, why I like Silkypix, as it can reproduce the EXACT same colours and contrast etc from raw, as the in camera converter.
Why are you a weird for liking Panasonic colors? I've so many images/videos from Panasonic cameras they are quite good with pleasing colors.
Because we're in the Olymp, ooops, OM, ooops m4/3 forum. Everyone knows that Olymp, ooops, I mean OMD jpeg colours come straight from the hand of Jesus. It's almost disrespectful to like Panasonic colour
i see shooting jpg as going to McDonalds and ordering a salad :-D
Sometimes, ordering a salad at McDonald is the healthiest option! :-)
 
I've used OOC JPEGs recently a few times when I inadvertently brushed the controls and didn't realize I was shooting JPEGs. Then when I get home and download the files to my raw converter - it's oh sh*t. That was dumbass.

I have a particular taste with images that I always find myself processing JPEGs anyway. Even with access to 5 different brands of cameras, I find that none of them quite produce JPEGs to my taste. So when I tried shooting mostly JPEGs on purpose, I always found myself tweaking the images in post anyway. So I didn't save any time, which is I think the only reason to shoot SOOC. Worse, I didn't have as much tweaking leeway. But each to his own - do whatever makes you happy. That's the best thing about hobbyist photography - you have all the freedom. Best hobby to have.
 
Last edited:
Panasonic shooter, and I use them a LOT. The G9 jpeg engine is a huge update over the previous models/versions. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes the more realistic colours of the Panasonic flavour, and I actually started a thread a while back on this exact subject. With examples too. I'll have a look and see if I can dig it up. One of the the main reason too, why I like Silkypix, as it can reproduce the EXACT same colours and contrast etc from raw, as the in camera converter.
Why are you a weird for liking Panasonic colors? I've so many images/videos from Panasonic cameras they are quite good with pleasing colors.
Because we're in the Olymp, ooops, OM, ooops m4/3 forum. Everyone knows that Olymp, ooops, I mean OMD jpeg colours come straight from the hand of Jesus. It's almost disrespectful to like Panasonic colour
i see shooting jpg as going to McDonalds and ordering a salad :-D
Sometimes, ordering a salad at McDonald is the healthiest option! :-)
avoiding the place is even healthier ;-)
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
I use mostly JPG's, edited as necessary.

I used to flatter myself that I was "smarter" than the programming in the camera. I tried editing RAW's. What a pain. Having done some "how to edit RAW" tutorials, I can appreciate the nuances that are possible. Weighing this against my limited free time, and the nonexistent likelihood of needing to sell my pictures, and the excellent quality of the OOC JPGs, and the easy editing options in Lightroom and Apple Photos, I have settled into a routine where I can get enjoyable quality photos without overburdening myself.

Besides, when I show pictures to people, I don't think I've ever had someone sit down and start analyzing them and go pixel peeping.
 
i see shooting jpg as going to McDonalds and ordering a salad :-D
Sometimes, ordering a salad at McDonald is the healthiest option! :-)
McDonald's has salads?!? The world is even crazier than I thought.

Does it come with a toy?
Actually, the Southwest chicken salad is quite good. No toy, though. That's in the Happy Meal. Some of the toys are quite cute. They had little stuffed kitties once.
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
I only shoot RAW. Why would you do anything else if you want to have full control over your images without a lot of fussing around with camera jpeg settings before every shot.

Andrew
Just what camera settings do you assume JPEG shooters adjust (more than raw shooters) before every shot. I shoot jpegs plus raw, and I use the same settings for both.
 
Last edited:
i see shooting jpg as going to McDonalds and ordering a salad :-D
Sometimes, ordering a salad at McDonald is the healthiest option! :-)
McDonald's has salads?!? The world is even crazier than I thought.

Does it come with a toy?
Actually, the Southwest chicken salad is quite good. No toy, though. That's in the Happy Meal. Some of the toys are quite cute. They had little stuffed kitties once.
We had a span when we would go there to get the kid a toy (marketing triumph) w/o buying anything else. Somehow the spouse figured out how--because she wasn't buying the kid a meal there (by mutual agreement). There was the occasional milkshake.

Child-rearing gets complicated.
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
I only shoot RAW. Why would you do anything else if you want to have full control over your images without a lot of fussing around with camera jpeg settings before every shot.
Some times the in camera jpegs are what you want. After a post Raist3d did I started playing with the jpeg settings. You can create very nice shots using built in profiles.

I primarily use raw, but the oi share app doesn't allow me to import raw photos over wifi from my em10, so jpegs make for convenient sharing.
Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Last edited:
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
I only shoot RAW. Why would you do anything else if you want to have full control over your images without a lot of fussing around with camera jpeg settings before every shot.

Andrew
Just what camera settings do you assume JPEG shooters adjust (more than raw shooters) before every shot. I shoot jpegs plus raw, and I use the same settings for both.
I certainly don’t use the same settings for RAW. With jpegs, you are trying to get an image that looks good, with RAW you are trying to work around the jpeg metering to capture the most information from the scene. In really challenging light, I might use UniWB, for example.

If one set of jpeg settings works for you, that’s fine. I don’t process my images to a single set of settings. If there is a sequence under similar light, I’ll copy the settings from image to image and only do small tweaks on the individual ones. If I shot more bursts, I’d probably do one and batch the rest, which is easy. If I was forced to shoot only jpegs, there would be a lot of work to understand all of the jpeg settings and decide for each set of shots which ones to use. Goes way beyond WB, to saturation, NR etc.

I don’t shoot in P mode or use Scenes either.

Someone suggested that this might be driven by subject matter and my perception is that landscape shooters do a lot of processing. Photoshop is popular with people who used to start from film but you have more latitude starting from RAW.

I tried having a mixed workflow, but it was too much work, not least because of using cameras from different manufacturers.

Andrew
 
Panasonic shooter, and I use them a LOT. The G9 jpeg engine is a huge update over the previous models/versions. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes the more realistic colours of the Panasonic flavour, and I actually started a thread a while back on this exact subject. With examples too. I'll have a look and see if I can dig it up. One of the the main reason too, why I like Silkypix, as it can reproduce the EXACT same colours and contrast etc from raw, as the in camera converter.
I agree. I find it really hard to beat 90% of Panasonic OOC jpegs with alternative raw converters
 
RE: Scenes and Art Filters: Some of the scenes settings are quite good, specifically Landscape and Sunset. Art Filters are sometimes nice, especially Dramatic Tone on a stormy day. It just depends on what you are trying to get. I even used the Mirror art filter to take a picture of my cat washing his back foot, just for fun, but realized it could teach our students a particular point, so I printed it out and put it up at work.
 
I read so much here regarding the various pros and cons of one RAW converter versus another and with great interest.

However I find that probably more than 95% of the time, I am so please with the out of camera Olympus jpg files, that I usually end up using those to edit.

There are exceptions of course, but that's mainly either subject dependant, or dependant on how much I want to push the processing.

Why do I do it?

... Possibly because I am a little lazy at times, but the main reason is that in my opinion for very many subjects, the Olympus out of camera JPG's are so darn good.

An example being, car shows, car and motorbike racing, air shows, and many/most townscapes.

It's really only when I am trying to squeeze out the very last bit of feather detail that I am most concerned about RAW conversion.... Or if I have made a huge exposure error! ...oh and when I take astro.

Does anyone else here frequently use just the OOC JPG's when only a little tweaking is necessary?
My LR-centric raw workflow would be 100% identical with JPEG. Other than a couple MB of storage, what tangible benefit does JPEG offer? I've tried R+J but all it does is add the decision of which to keep.

1. Import raws with preset

2. Edit, usually just a crop and tiny exposure adjustment

3. Export for print, share etc.

How would JPEG change that?
Looking at the other posts:-

1) If you have a client who needs a lot of shots quickly, you can just pick the shots you want
I do. I cull and export to shared drive. JPEG or raw source makes no difference.
2) If you never adjust your images, then RAW adds an extra step - 2(b) if you want a quick edit, then jpeg plus Snapseed is pretty easy
That was my question. I do not see this "extra step". Please explain. How would adding other PP, snapseed, simplify?
3) There seem to be a lot of posts implying some kind of greater ease for processing jpegs over RAWs, plus moral superiority over people who only snapped,
Implication is not proof
Having found that processing RAW is much easier than jpeg and gives more control, I'm with you. My journey started with jpeg only, went through jpeg plus RAW, and ended with RAW only. Much simpler workflow than having both. Having things like in-camera HDR or defishing is great, but it does mess up the workflow. It gets really messy when I want to go back and do my own edits on the underlying RAWs.

Not our job to tell people how to use their kit.

Andrew
I only shoot RAW. Why would you do anything else if you want to have full control over your images without a lot of fussing around with camera jpeg settings before every shot.

Andrew
Just what camera settings do you assume JPEG shooters adjust (more than raw shooters) before every shot. I shoot jpegs plus raw, and I use the same settings for both.
I certainly don’t use the same settings for RAW. With jpegs, you are trying to get an image that looks good, with RAW you are trying to work around the jpeg metering to capture the most information from the scene. In really challenging light, I might use UniWB, for example.

If one set of jpeg settings works for you, that’s fine. I don’t process my images to a single set of settings. If there is a sequence under similar light, I’ll copy the settings from image to image and only do small tweaks on the individual ones. If I shot more bursts, I’d probably do one and batch the rest, which is easy. If I was forced to shoot only jpegs, there would be a lot of work to understand all of the jpeg settings and decide for each set of shots which ones to use. Goes way beyond WB, to saturation, NR etc.

I don’t shoot in P mode or use Scenes either.

Someone suggested that this might be driven by subject matter and my perception is that landscape shooters do a lot of processing. Photoshop is popular with people who used to start from film but you have more latitude starting from RAW.

I tried having a mixed workflow, but it was too much work, not least because of using cameras from different manufacturers.

Andrew
Thanks for the response. Way beyond what I care to delve into, though (I just spent 15 minutes trying to find out what UniWB was and why it was important). Maybe that’s why I enjoy the incamera computational stuff and Scene Modes, and others don’t.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top