Use JPEG and forget RAW?!

[DonParrot]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

The BIGGEST PROBLEM with JPG shooters is that they`re throwing away about 35% of the performance of their cameras fine detail / resolution capture away even at Base ISO .......

I`m a RAW shooter and know perfectly well how to expose properly (you need to with small sensors like M43) - What I refuse to do however is reduce all the money spent on the EM1 with its AA-filterless quality and the 12-40`s detail capturing ability to an output inferior to an IPhone-6 (which is what Oly`s smudgy JPG engine does) .

JPGs are fine for product work and fast proof snaps but kill all advantage high end glass buys you in maximizing output , doesn`t exactly make the best use of the high ISO performance too - and I`m on about both Oly and Pan here .

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good, however, that for many years I haven't bothered with saving raw images; whatever postprocessing I need can be easily applied to JPEGs."

...and he certainly knows more about Oly cameras than you do.
You just display the typical arrigance of Raw shooters who must convince themselves that spending all these hours in the electronic darkroom is worth while although it usually isn't.
If you love post processing to the max and regard it as part of you gobby: fine. Nobody wants to talk you out of it. But claiming that doing so results in better pics is just ridiculous - apart from situations in the most difficult lighting conditions.

Particularly annoying, however, is the fact that nine out of ten of those talked into shooting Raw by people like you make their pics worse instead of better as mastering a Raw converter and software such as Photoshop on the level it takes to get the pics on the quality level of what a properly adjusted JPEG engine delivers OOC is anything but easy.

 

[Fri13]

Calling something continually with wrong term makes it wrong and isn't improper unless person is unwilling to learn.

Are you unwilling to learn?

 

[DonParrot]

There is no problem with JPEG shooters, if they don't want to do any post processing. I have shot LSF JPEGS for years and I am only now starting to try RAW to see what I am missing.

Well, I have been post processing my LSF JPEGs for years, if necessary, and as I haven't been missing anything in these years, neither on a computer screen nor on the 50" TV set nor when printing large I just don't see any reason for changing my habits. After my first year with my E-30 I came to the conclusion that shooting Raw only is necessary when the conditions get difficult - and the difficulty borders have been pushed to another limit, with the current µFT cameras.
So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.
Everybody should do what they like and everybody will be happy. It's so easy.

 

[papillon_65]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

The BIGGEST PROBLEM with JPG shooters is that they`re throwing away about 35% of the performance of their cameras fine detail / resolution capture away even at Base ISO .......

I`m a RAW shooter and know perfectly well how to expose properly (you need to with small sensors like M43) - What I refuse to do however is reduce all the money spent on the EM1 with its AA-filterless quality and the 12-40`s detail capturing ability to an output inferior to an IPhone-6 (which is what Oly`s smudgy JPG engine does) .

JPGs are fine for product work and fast proof snaps but kill all advantage high end glass buys you in maximizing output , doesn`t exactly make the best use of the high ISO performance too - and I`m on about both Oly and Pan here .

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good, however, that for many years I haven't bothered with saving raw images; whatever postprocessing I need can be easily applied to JPEGs."

...and he certainly knows more about Oly cameras than you do.
You just display the typical arrigance of Raw shooters who must convince themselves that spending all these hours in the electronic darkroom is worth while although it usually isn't.
If you love post processing to the max and regard it as part of you gobby: fine. Nobody wants to talk you out of it. But claiming that doing so results in better pics is just ridiculous - apart from situations in the most difficult lighting conditions.

Particularly annoying, however, is the fact that nine out of ten of those talked into shooting Raw by people like you make their pics worse instead of better as mastering a Raw converter and software such as Photoshop on the level it takes to get the pics on the quality level of what a properly adjusted JPEG engine delivers OOC is anything but easy.

 

[Fri13]

Your example is terrible and doesn't work. You can have world most expensive audio setup at home (or in your pocket) and it will NEVER make even fraction of the experience in the concert because it isn't about microphones, recorder, mixer, format etc.

It is the concert hall and that space where it is played and how sound echoes and travels there. That's why you get tickets to concert halls that are legendary by acoustics and not by the orchestra playing just anywhere.

You can get excellent camera but if you don't get things right in the camera, you have no way to get it right on computer.

We can argue how JPEG is bad, but fact just is that world most awesome photos are presented as JPEG, from mediums that doesn't support at all 12/14bit features etc.

There is just small minority doing pixel peeping and whining aloud how things isn't not perfectly captured with best quality, while the difference is just negligent in most cases.

It is like those few movie directors who only use film and they reject all the ideas from using digital processing at any point because quality "the soul" is "lost".

We can go and take excellent technically taken photos in lab. Or go and take a JPEG that is little blurry even or out of focus from very memorizing moment and value the JPEG far more than the high quality technically taken photo.

Even musicians listen their music from mp3 with "crappy plugs" in their ears played in iPhone.

 

[DonParrot]

Calling something continually with wrong term makes it wrong and isn't improper unless person is unwilling to learn.

Are you unwilling to learn?

Using a term for something that is accepted all over the world isn't wrong. It's an accepted term and that's all what counts.

In Germany we call mobile phones 'Handy'. Completely stupid if you know the real meaning of the word but who cares? Everybody knows what you are talking about if you say 'Handy'.

And it's exactly the same with JPEG engine. Everybody understands what you are talking about and who cares if the term doesn't descibe correctly what is meant.
Language is about communication. If somebody is talking and his listeners are understanding him everything is fine. The rest is nitpicking.

 

[DonParrot]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

The BIGGEST PROBLEM with JPG shooters is that they`re throwing away about 35% of the performance of their cameras fine detail / resolution capture away even at Base ISO .......

I`m a RAW shooter and know perfectly well how to expose properly (you need to with small sensors like M43) - What I refuse to do however is reduce all the money spent on the EM1 with its AA-filterless quality and the 12-40`s detail capturing ability to an output inferior to an IPhone-6 (which is what Oly`s smudgy JPG engine does) .

JPGs are fine for product work and fast proof snaps but kill all advantage high end glass buys you in maximizing output , doesn`t exactly make the best use of the high ISO performance too - and I`m on about both Oly and Pan here .

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good, however, that for many years I haven't bothered with saving raw images; whatever postprocessing I need can be easily applied to JPEGs."

...and he certainly knows more about Oly cameras than you do.
You just display the typical arrigance of Raw shooters who must convince themselves that spending all these hours in the electronic darkroom is worth while although it usually isn't.
If you love post processing to the max and regard it as part of you gobby: fine. Nobody wants to talk you out of it. But claiming that doing so results in better pics is just ridiculous - apart from situations in the most difficult lighting conditions.

Particularly annoying, however, is the fact that nine out of ten of those talked into shooting Raw by people like you make their pics worse instead of better as mastering a Raw converter and software such as Photoshop on the level it takes to get the pics on the quality level of what a properly adjusted JPEG engine delivers OOC is anything but easy.

 

[papillon_65]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Everybody should do what they like and everybody will be happy. It's so easy.

 

[Bob Janes]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

Thank you for this insight, although I may lie awake at night worrying about not being able to shoot the perfect JPG..

Still, I guess if that is my biggest problem, I should count my blessings...

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

I do have a particular style of processing that I like (control of saturation, contrast, sharpening etc), I could set these up in the camera, but I find it more convenient to process back on the PC, where I can actually change my mind about what suits the scene and the light and try different approaches to the same shot. The differences are often quite subtle, but they are there.

I don't knock anyone who wants to shoot JPG; sometimes I challenge myself by going out with just a film camera and limiting myself to 36 shots or going out with a single prime lens. The restriction can be useful, but it would be daft to cement a single prime onto the front of my camera permanently because of a belief that anyone who uses different focal lengths is somehow deficient in their photography because they can't shoot with a single prime.

I don't understand the mentality that seems to want to outlaw RAW as some kind of cheat perpetrated by photographers who are not good enough to get it right first time in camera. I simply don't see the point in handicapping myself by not shooting RAW - I don't have space problems on memory cards or PC, I don't need to shoot long bursts of over 12 shots (but if I did I would switch to JPG) and my PC is quite capable of running high quality RAW converters like LR and DXO OP: for me there is no profit from shooting JPG only.

 

[Rudi]

You never get "the perfect shot" if don´t have the eye to see it, regardless what processing follows the capture of the monment.


Rudi.

 

[Fri13]

So you are person who believes that uneducated majority dictates how technology works, while educated minority is the ones being wrong?

Do you know what cameras does to produce the JPEG file? Do you know what the JPEG really is? Do you know how the computers (any computer, even the digital cameras) gets the image presented us on screens? Do you know how printers operates the JPEG to get it printed on material?
Do you know how a WWW-browser manipulates the JPEG so you look at it on computer? Do you know how your computer network stack can manipulate the JPEG to transfer the bits? Do you know how the patented JPEG algorithms can be used to generate the file/data and how those can be altered?

I don't think so that majority even knows those very basic things I mentioned.

And yet they want to be the ones that claim knowing how the stuff works and be the people who can "label" technical things by trying to mystify everything under the "JPEG engine" because they can't gasp what the technology really is used for and made for.

 

[Bob Janes]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Everybody should do what they like and everybody will be happy. It's so easy.

 

[DonParrot]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Well, you basically may and will be right. But you can believe me that I've seen a lot of landscape pics with the dynamic range pushed to the limits where I thought: "Oh why did he/sher do that? It looks terrible!"
That's another disadvantage of Raw: when you shoot JPEGs, even those without 'The Eye' or those colour blind or those uneducated in PP or those who just haven't got the feeling for PPing their pics sensitively will be able to produce great results, when the JPEG engine has been adjusted appropriately. The results these peoplöe will produce by post processing, however, more often than not are - well, how should I put it? - underwhelming.

 

[nzmacro]

So you are person who believes that uneducated majority dictates how technology works, while educated minority is the ones being wrong?

Do you know what cameras does to produce the JPEG file? Do you know what the JPEG really is? Do you know how the computers (any computer, even the digital cameras) gets the image presented us on screens? Do you know how printers operates the JPEG to get it printed on material?
Do you know how a WWW-browser manipulates the JPEG so you look at it on computer? Do you know how your computer network stack can manipulate the JPEG to transfer the bits? Do you know how the patented JPEG algorithms can be used to generate the file/data and how those can be altered?

I don't think so that majority even knows those very basic things I mentioned.

And yet they want to be the ones that claim knowing how the stuff works and be the people who can "label" technical things by trying to mystify everything under the "JPEG engine" because they can't gasp what the technology really is used for and made for.

Not one person who views or wants any of my shots asks if it was RAW or jpeg to start with. All that mumbo jumbo you just spouted off doesn't even come into it ;-) They either want the shot or they don't. Very simple process huh

Danny.

 

[papillon_65]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Everybody should do what they like and everybody will be happy. It's so easy.

 

[papillon_65]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Well, you basically may and will be right. But you can believe me that I've seen a lot of landscape pics with the dynamic range pushed to the limits where I thought: "Oh why did he/sher do that? It looks terrible!"

That is very true.

That's another disadvantage of Raw: when you shoot JPEGs, even those without 'The Eye' or those colour blind or those uneducated in PP or those who just haven't got the feeling for PPing their pics sensitively will be able to produce great results, when the JPEG engine has been adjusted appropriately. The results these peoplöe will produce by post processing, however, more often than not are - well, how should I put it? - underwhelming.

PP'ing correctly is as much a skill as getting the right lighting and can make or break a shot, no doubt about it. There is always a temptation to go for the high dynamic range look when high contrast would be better and it does seem to be in vogue that unless you have 14+ stops of dynamic range to play with then you can't get decent landscape shots. I often shoot both and on some cameras the jpegs are so good that there isn't much of a need to post process at all if you get the exposure right (unless you want a bit more resolution). Personally I prefer to sit on the fence over the whole jpeg vs raw thing both have their uses. For the type of shots you do I totally understand your preference for jpegs and when I have to take a lot of shots I'll shoot both knowing that it'll save me some time afterwards, because the jpegs are often bang on anyway. The good news is that we have the option to shoot both at the same time and get the best of both worlds.

 

[DonParrot]

So you are person who believes that uneducated majority dictates how technology works, while educated minority is the ones being wrong?

This has nothing to do with how technolgy works. It just a name. The Volkswagen Beetle hadn't six legs and nonethless, everybody has been calling it the Beettle in the past 70 years.

In Germany, we have been calling a screw driver for decades 'Schraubenzieher' (means screw puller). Now, in the past 15 years, the professional groups using screw drivers suddenly started telling us that 'Schraubenzieher' is wrong, we should say 'Schraubendreher' which is closer to screwdriver, as 'Schraubenzieher is wrong. This is a development you see everywhere. Every profession group starts to use their own terms for something to then tell the rest of the world that they are stupid as they are using other, allegedly wrong terms for the same subject. No matter if these terms have been used for years or centuries.
But believe me, they all can leave me alone with their nonsense.

Do you know what cameras does to produce the JPEG file? Do you know what the JPEG really is? Do you know how the computers (any computer, even the digital cameras) gets the image presented us on screens? Do you know how printers operates the JPEG to get it printed on material.

Am I interested in knowing it? No, I'm not.
Do you know how the fuel injection of your car works, what ABS and ESP do to make you travel safely. Do you know how a combustion engine works at all? Are you using it anyway and uses the terms others came up with although you don't know if they are right or wrong. So what are you trying to tell me?

Do you know how a WWW-browser manipulates the JPEG so you look at it on computer? Do you know how your computer network stack can manipulate the JPEG to transfer the bits? Do you know how the patented JPEG algorithms can be used to generate the file/data and how those can be altered?

Am I interested in knowing it? No, I'm not.

There are so many devices you are using in your life without the slightest understanding of their technology and nonetheless, you are using the terms others came up with. Just leave me alone with right or wrong when it comes to a name. It just doesn't matter.

I don't think so that majority even knows those very basic things I mentioned.

And yet they want to be the ones that claim knowing how the stuff works and be the people who can "label" technical things by trying to mystify everything under the "JPEG engine" because they can't gasp what the technology really is used for and made for.

As I said. It doesn't matter. Anybody understand what they are talking about when using the term JPEG egine and that's the only thing that counts.
May the experts look down on us and tell each other how stupid we are - I don't give a sh*t.

 

[DonParrot]

So, those who shoot Raw should do so and enjoy it - but the proof for the fact that their pics are better hasn't been provided in the past and won't be provided in the future - as it just isn't the case.

To be honest, as someone who regularly shoots landscapes it's not very difficult to prove the benefits of raw over jpegs. "Better" is a subjective thing but you'll struggle to find any landscape photographer worth his salt who shoots jpegs only. If you want to push the envelope in terms of dynamic range you clearly won't want to be shooting jpegs. The problem here is people are taking entrenched positions in "raw vs jpeg" when neither position is unassailable.

Well, you basically may and will be right. But you can believe me that I've seen a lot of landscape pics with the dynamic range pushed to the limits where I thought: "Oh why did he/sher do that? It looks terrible!"

That is very true.

That's another disadvantage of Raw: when you shoot JPEGs, even those without 'The Eye' or those colour blind or those uneducated in PP or those who just haven't got the feeling for PPing their pics sensitively will be able to produce great results, when the JPEG engine has been adjusted appropriately. The results these peoplöe will produce by post processing, however, more often than not are - well, how should I put it? - underwhelming.

PP'ing correctly is as much a skill as getting the right lighting and can make or break a shot, no doubt about it. There is always a temptation to go for the high dynamic range look when high contrast would be better and it does seem to be in vogue that unless you have 14+ stops of dynamic range to play with then you can't get decent landscape shots. I often shoot both and on some cameras the jpegs are so good that there isn't much of a need to post process at all if you get the exposure right (unless you want a bit more resolution). Personally I prefer to sit on the fence over the whole jpeg vs raw thing both have their uses. For the type of shots you do I totally understand your preference for jpegs and when I have to take a lot of shots I'll shoot both knowing that it'll save me some time afterwards, because the jpegs are often bang on anyway.

The good news is that we have the option to shoot both at the same time and get the best of both worlds.

Most definitey.

 

[Adam-T]

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

Congratulations on being ignorant as to why there`s an issue .. you see thesedays (and especially with Olympus even with the Noise filter as low as possible) , JPG engines even at low ISOs are loaded with unnecessary HIDDEN noise reduction which kills all the fine detail and makes the images look plasticky anything much bigger than web size

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good,

I`m glad you`re satisfied with what it spits out - I for one want to get the best from this expensive kit rather than merely with the NR loaded compromised JPGs . the difference is like getting film processed in a proper hi end lab (or developing them yourself) as opposed to what a machine spits out in boots - whatever you`re happy with I guess .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[papillon_65]

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

Congratulations on being ignorant as to why there`s an issue .. you see thesedays , JPG engines even at low ISOs are loaded with unnecessary noise reduction which kills all the fine detail

Adam, you're normally a reasonable chap, lets try and keep it that way. You may not be happy with some jpeg rendering but I have to say that the jpegs from both the E-M1 and the GM1 are very decent in my experience. Not all jpegs are equal, now the X-trans jpegs are truly horrible in my experience and opinion but Olympus and the newer Panasonic jpeg engines are very capable, you can print to very large sizes no problem, that is clearly evident.

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good,

I`m glad you`re satisfied with what it spits out - I for one want to get the best from this expensive kit rather than merely with the ready-cooked happy snappy JPGs . the difference is like getting film processed in a proper hi end lab (or developing them yourself) as opposed to what a machine spits out in boots - whatever you`re happy with I guess .

You obviously need to consider the audience, display type and viewing distance, jpegs are fine for the vast majority of uses for many people. It's only when you pixel peep that you'll often notice a difference. I'm all for both types when it suits but lets not denigrate the discussion into hyperbole and patronising each other. It's a useful discussion, lets try and keep it reasonable and balanced.