I am the only one to find jpeg junk?

[vegetaleb]

I have the X-T10 since summer and I absolutely love it, Raf photos editing is a pure pleasure with Capture 1 (Windows 10) the results fantastic compared to my ex-D90, but every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

There is a huge universe between the jpeg out of the camera and the Raf, I think X-Trans cameras are made for Raf only if we want professional results and not instagram quality.

 

[Touraine]

I am the only one to find jpeg junk?

Quite possibly !!!

Can you upload a picture to demonstrate what a junk OOFTC jpeg looks like ?

It would help in the debate.

 

[Heinz]

[No message]

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Am I the only one here to think that maybe you're exaggerating just a whisker? I'd agree that raw development can extract more from a file than jpeg and allow additional image manipulation. But "junk" & "Instagram quality"? Methinks thou doth complain too much.......

Many a good print has been made from a jpeg. Fuji's jpegs are regularly praised by reviewers in sites like this and elsewhere. And every time I see someone post files comparing multiple raw apps and camera jpegs, the differences are there, but they're incremental. Exactly what size are you printing to see your images rendered as junk anyway?

Cheers, Rod

 

[baobob]

Thx Rod for this contribution which IMHO summarizes perfectly the debate between JPEGs and what you can get more from RAW with the Xtrans files

In the past I have been Canonist for many years, then shortly Nikonist while I entred in Fujism at the very beginning of the X adventure and now full converted to Fujism

I have never seen with canon or Nikon JPEGs that are so close to the best RAW development.

And the film simulations provided by Fuji are excellent and will meet due to the wide range of rendition probably everybody's desires.

best

Bob

 

[tokyoblues]

every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

Yes, I agree with you and found the same. Poor jpeg performance in many shooting situations is what led me to dump my Fuji X-T10 on a known auction site and go back to Nikon and Olympus.

Poor detail, poor dynamic range. I get much better results from a humble Nikon Coolpix A (which, in fairness, contains a D7000 DX sensor) than I did using my XT-10.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the beauty of the X-system: vintage looking cameras, nice well built prime lenses, relatively compact gear. However I really couldn't get on with the X-trans II sensor's shortcomings and the in-camera jpeg processing shortcomings.

Google for "X trans painterly effect" and "X trans waxy skin" for added info on this.

 

[vegetaleb]

Well perhaps I have been pampered too long by the delicious results of Raf, that's why I am deceived by jpeg

 

[Touraine]

I just checked the website you linked and 'hits' have gone up by six in 1 hour. Two were me. LOL

You need a more controversial thread.

 

[Sutto]

Yes I totally agree - well not to the point of one poster who abandoned Fuji - but I've never got what all the fuss has been about X JPEGS. Every time I have tried them I've been far from impressed. However, it doesn't concern me because no matter what system I've had I've always been a RAW shooter. I never use JPEGS on my 2 X-T2's, or my X100S. However, each to their own and I certainly have praise for and don't condemn anybody who can get them to work and save the hours spent on PP.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

 

[vegetaleb]

Yep I am not comparing Fuji jpeg with other brands, but fuji X jpeg and fuji X Raf, dunno why some people thought I was attacking Fuji X cameras.

In fact I am absolutely in love with X-T10 and Fuji quality lenses, the thing is that if you want to really get the max of them you have to shoot in Raf, jpeg out of the camera are nowhere near to what you can get with Raf. I can understand that events photographers who take 500+ photos per event want to take them in jpeg because it's time consuming to edit every single photo, for that the Fuji X cameras are superior to others and with the right accessories like pro flashes they can get very nice results in jpeg.

 

[chile7236]

i think jpeg rendering is an acquired taste...and depending on the type of photos you take, certain film emulations just don't look well.

 

[eric333]

Are you only talking about OOC jpegs or the jpeg format in general.

 

[JS Burnie]

"Junk" is way too extreme. Depend on what you want the image for. Jpegs are easy to view and print. At a moderate print size you would probably not be unhappy with the quality. I like processing raw to get max detail and colour, contrast to my taste. You could extend you argument and say that all camera phones are junk, or APS-C is junk, or FF is junk vs. medium format, etc. One man's meat is another man's poison...

 

[nixda]

I have the X-T10 since summer and I absolutely love it, Raf photos editing is a pure pleasure with Capture 1 (Windows 10) the results fantastic compared to my ex-D90, but every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

There is a huge universe between the jpeg out of the camera and the Raf, I think X-Trans cameras are made for Raf only if we want professional results and not instagram quality.

Your "criticism" is way over the top. And you're stating the obvious, to some extent.

There is a huge difference in the information content of raw data compared to a final image in JPEG format. You yourself may know the exact intent, how your image should look like in the end and how large it will be printed, but the camera doesn't know, and most of the time, users don't know upfront either what they are going to do with an image in the end. So how can you expect the camera to know exactly which information from the raw data to carry through to the final JPEG, which portion of the captured dynamic range to compress just right, how to use the proper amount of noise reduction and sharpening, etc?

The camera only provides a handful of processing parameters, each with a handful of possible values to choose from. Do you expect to get the same kind of control over the processing as from a full-fledged external processor?

Your are expecting too much from the in-camera JPEG engine, then you get disappointed and start a thread like this arguing against the engine, when you should really adjust your expectations. IMHO, anyway.

 

[oscarvdvelde]

I have the X-T10 since summer and I absolutely love it, Raf photos editing is a pure pleasure with Capture 1 (Windows 10) the results fantastic compared to my ex-D90, but every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

There is a huge universe between the jpeg out of the camera and the Raf, I think X-Trans cameras are made for Raf only if we want professional results and not instagram quality.

Your "criticism" is way over the top. And you're stating the obvious, to some extent.

There is a huge difference in the information content of raw data compared to a final image in JPEG format. You yourself may know the exact intent, how your image should look like in the end and how large it will be printed, but the camera doesn't know, and most of the time, users don't know upfront either what they are going to do with an image in the end. So how can you expect the camera to know exactly which information from the raw data to carry through to the final JPEG, which portion of the captured dynamic range to compress just right, how to use the proper amount of noise reduction and sharpening, etc?

The camera only provides a handful of processing parameters, each with a handful of possible values to choose from. Do you expect to get the same kind of control over the processing as from a full-fledged external processor?

Your are expecting too much from the in-camera JPEG engine, then you get disappointed and start a thread like this arguing against the engine, when you should really adjust your expectations. IMHO, anyway.

I also was not impressed about the detail level in JPEG. It looks hazy and overly smooth where you expect fine texture, and increasing the sharpening instead produces halos. It is very far from what RawTherapee on an Intel i5/i7 machine can produce from the RAF files in 2.5 seconds. It has nothing to do with X-Trans. It is the same with Canon EOS 5D/6D series (just look at official sample pictures - I once did a test and found that there is only 10 MP worth of fine detail in 21 MP OOC JPEGs). It seems that cameras only process half the potential resolution in order to decrease the time between shots. Now it is >10 years later and I suspect that cameras could do much better, but give priority to increasing shooting speed.

 

[PT]

I always shoot jpg fine + Raw, the OOC jpg's can be excellent if the camera is correctly set but often it isn't at the optimum settings, this is where Raw comes in with all it's PP options to correct any such errors. The one I find most used is the ability to pull details out of the highlights and the shadows that are lost in the jpg if the settings are not spot on for that shot. I compare my processed Raw files to the OOC jpg fine and most are better from RAW but some are not, to say that the jpg's are rubbish is a bit harsh.

 

[Elemanzer]

I don't find that OOC JPEGs work for my uses (landscapes, mostly at 12x18), either. But I wouldn't call them junk.

Take the example patches below (at full size). The Iridient file has better detail retention even with very modest sharpening: that's because, in the Fuji JPEGs, suppression of colour aliasing and/or noise leads to colour blotching in the moss, while a high sharpening radius leads to "blobby" detail at Sharp +4. Fine detail, and especially colour detail, never gets resolved at any camera setting. But the settings I used with the Iridient file aren't flatly and universally better. A small USM radius is only preferable for scenes with very high-frequency detail, disabling colour artefact suppression means (obviously) that artefacts will be visible on occasion, and high ISOs aren't satisfactory with NR completely off.

Now, I may prefer Iridient's particular set of compromises, but Fuji's target audience mostly takes "people pictures", for which the Iridient settings would be significantly worse. While Fuji could add in-camera options to match the settings I used in Iridient, they couldn't do so without cluttering the UI. Given their target audience, the compromise they've made is reasonable: if you really need edge-case settings, as you and I do, RAW is the option you have.

 

[KennyXYZ]

I have the X-T10 since summer and I absolutely love it, Raf photos editing is a pure pleasure with Capture 1 (Windows 10) the results fantastic compared to my ex-D90, but every-time I give a chance for jpeg and whatever the settings I use, the results are not much better than let's say a smartphone like the HTC 10, it's either over-sharpened or it lacks sharpening, or details are killed by the jpeg compression...

There is a huge universe between the jpeg out of the camera and the Raf, I think X-Trans cameras are made for Raf only if we want professional results and not instagram quality.

--
Visit fujiandstuff for tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/

I agree with you. I know great out of camera Jpegs can be done. I've seen them. They look like a pro shot them. I tried the settings most recommended by Jpeg shooters and found them lacking when I tried it. I know it's possible to get pro-like quality shooting Jpeg but I figure why take chances. Shoot RAW and figure it out later.

 

[DominicVII]

JPEG is not junk. Photographers from AFP and Reuters virtually all shoot JPEGs.

Fuji and Pentax have such great JPEG engines that RAW becomes superfluous and utter waste of time.

And to suggest that "universes" separate Fuji's JPEGs and RAWs is no more than risible hyperbole.

 

[walie007]

Guaranteed every thread that starts with a "Am I the only one..." is one seeking attention. Not surprised with OPs post history.