Controlling in Camera JPEG Creation in Z6, Z7

[LuxLuthor]

Hello,

Just a informational note.

I wanted to report back that with the latest Nikon cameras like the Z6, Z7, D 850 you have excellent control over how the camera creates JPEG images. In the references below you can find how to avoid many of the problems with in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image [1]. Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2].

Nikon has put a lot of work into giving you the ability to control how in camera JPEG's are created. I don't think other manufacturers have yet given you this much control over in-camera JPEG creation. Use it! This could be very useful in several ways. Say one is traveling and wants to upload the best images into the cloud for backup, just in case. One could capture raw and these well encoded JPEGs, and then just upload the JPEGs, saving much time; or perhaps, even dispense with the raw.

The essential thing is controlling how the in-camera JPEGs get created.

References

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354397

[2] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4355310

[3] http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

 

[beatboxa]

Hello,

Just a informational note.

I wanted to report back that with the latest Nikon cameras like the Z6, Z7, D 850 you have excellent control over how the camera creates JPEG images. In the references below you can find how to avoid many of the problems with in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image [1]. Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2].

Nikon has put a lot of work into giving you the ability to control how in camera JPEG's are created. I don't think other manufacturers have yet given you this much control over in-camera JPEG creation. Use it! This could be very useful in several ways. Say one is traveling and wants to upload the best images into the cloud for backup, just in case. One could capture raw and these well encoded JPEGs, and then just upload the JPEGs, saving much time; or perhaps, even dispense with the raw.

The essential thing is controlling how the in-camera JPEGs get created.

References

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354397

[2] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4355310

[3] http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Sorry, but your threads here are not news, and don't really offer anything in terms of substance. Those links are self-references.

It seems more like you've just discovered the concept of raw files that many of us have known about for years; and that you are still actively learning that raw files have enough information to produce jpegs (though not the reverse).

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

 

[Fat Finger]

Hello,

Just a informational note.

I wanted to report back that with the latest Nikon cameras like the Z6, Z7, D 850 you have excellent control over how the camera creates JPEG images. In the references below you can find how to avoid many of the problems with in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image [1]. Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2].

Nikon has put a lot of work into giving you the ability to control how in camera JPEG's are created. I don't think other manufacturers have yet given you this much control over in-camera JPEG creation. Use it! This could be very useful in several ways. Say one is traveling and wants to upload the best images into the cloud for backup, just in case. One could capture raw and these well encoded JPEGs, and then just upload the JPEGs, saving much time; or perhaps, even dispense with the raw.

The essential thing is controlling how the in-camera JPEGs get created.

References

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354397

[2] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4355310

[3] http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Sorry, but your threads here are not news, and don't really offer anything in terms of substance. Those links are self-references.

It seems more like you've just discovered the concept of raw files that many of us have known about for years; and that you are still actively learning that raw files have enough information to produce jpegs (though not the reverse).

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

@beatboxa

Why the snarky response?

if his/ her posts don’t benefit you, why not just move on?

Not every reader of these forums is as advanced as you and this forum is not just tailored for your benefit.

 

[beatboxa]

Hello,

Just a informational note.

I wanted to report back that with the latest Nikon cameras like the Z6, Z7, D 850 you have excellent control over how the camera creates JPEG images. In the references below you can find how to avoid many of the problems with in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image [1]. Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2].

Nikon has put a lot of work into giving you the ability to control how in camera JPEG's are created. I don't think other manufacturers have yet given you this much control over in-camera JPEG creation. Use it! This could be very useful in several ways. Say one is traveling and wants to upload the best images into the cloud for backup, just in case. One could capture raw and these well encoded JPEGs, and then just upload the JPEGs, saving much time; or perhaps, even dispense with the raw.

The essential thing is controlling how the in-camera JPEGs get created.

References

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354397

[2] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4355310

[3] http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Sorry, but your threads here are not news, and don't really offer anything in terms of substance. Those links are self-references.

It seems more like you've just discovered the concept of raw files that many of us have known about for years; and that you are still actively learning that raw files have enough information to produce jpegs (though not the reverse).

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

@beatboxa

Why the snarky response?

if his/ her posts don’t benefit you, why not just move on?

Not every reader of these forums is as advanced as you and this forum is not just tailored for your benefit.

You're claiming that not every user here, who spends several thousand on a full-frame mirrorless camera, knows the difference between raw & JPEG?

This is the OP's third thread on the same topic, this time, just linking the other threads.

Why not pay attention to the messages from the highest voted responses to your other threads?

 

[LuxLuthor]

Hello,

Just a informational note.

I wanted to report back that with the latest Nikon cameras like the Z6, Z7, D 850 you have excellent control over how the camera creates JPEG images. In the references below you can find how to avoid many of the problems with in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image [1]. Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2].

Nikon has put a lot of work into giving you the ability to control how in camera JPEG's are created. I don't think other manufacturers have yet given you this much control over in-camera JPEG creation. Use it! This could be very useful in several ways. Say one is traveling and wants to upload the best images into the cloud for backup, just in case. One could capture raw and these well encoded JPEGs, and then just upload the JPEGs, saving much time; or perhaps, even dispense with the raw.

The essential thing is controlling how the in-camera JPEGs get created.

References

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4354397

[2] https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4355310

[3] http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

Sorry, but your threads here are not news, and don't really offer anything in terms of substance. Those links are self-references.

It seems more like you've just discovered the concept of raw files that many of us have known about for years; and that you are still actively learning that raw files have enough information to produce jpegs (though not the reverse).

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

Sorry if you don't understand what this is about.

It is about how to control jpeg creation to maintain high amounts of visual information using the options that-- for some strange reason-- Nikon engineers put into the latest cameras.

A new fact is that: "Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2]." That is new info.

These threads took place in a non-Nikon user form, so this informational note is reporting this back to Nikon users, because Nikon has the some of the best options to control in-camera jpeg creation. It may be of little use to you beatboxa, but it may be useful to other Nikon users. I am thinking that beatboxa does not use in-camera jpeg creation, so there is nothing for beatboxa in this thread.

From reference [3]

• When RAW conversion is performed within the camera, i.e., when you save JPEG (or other standard) files instead of RAW files, you have little control over the process. The Canon EOS-10D has a contrast setting that gives a small amount of control, but it's awkward to access and it makes little difference.
• If you save files as RAW (the sensor's native format) and convert them later on a computer, you have enormous control over tones when you convert.

But with the newer Nikons you have "enormous control over tones when you convert" with in-camera jpeg creation.

 

[beatboxa]

Sorry, but your threads here are not news, and don't really offer anything in terms of substance. Those links are self-references.

It seems more like you've just discovered the concept of raw files that many of us have known about for years; and that you are still actively learning that raw files have enough information to produce jpegs (though not the reverse).

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

Sorry if you don't understand what this is about.

It is about how to control jpeg creation to maintain high amounts of visual information using the options that-- for some strange reason-- Nikon engineers put into the latest cameras.

A new fact is that: "Nobody could distinguish this edited Z6 in camera created master JPEG from the raw to 16 bit tiff to JPEG image [2]." That is new info.

These threads took place in a non-Nikon user form, so this informational note is reporting this back to Nikon users, because Nikon has the some of the best options to control in-camera jpeg creation. It may be of little use to you beatboxa, but it may be useful to other Nikon users. I am thinking that beatboxa does not use in-camera jpeg creation, so there is nothing for beatboxa in this thread.

From reference [3]

• When RAW conversion is performed within the camera, i.e., when you save JPEG (or other standard) files instead of RAW files, you have little control over the process. The Canon EOS-10D has a contrast setting that gives a small amount of control, but it's awkward to access and it makes little difference.
• If you save files as RAW (the sensor's native format) and convert them later on a computer, you have enormous control over tones when you convert.

But with the newer Nikons you have "enormous control over tones when you convert" with in-camera jpeg creation.

You must have missed this post:

• https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62143159

Understand the analogy there, or should I break it down for you?

And you are clearly mistaken if you think I don't understand the concepts here. See here:

• https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62059118
• https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62124401

So if you want to be all snarky in your reply, I can point out a lot of completely wrong things you're spreading there, including these "from reference" bullet points.

Nikon has had custom Picture Controls for at least a decade now, which allows even custom tone curves, not just these elementary settings you're referring to

See this old website:

• https://nikonpc.com/

Or this manual, from almost 10 years ago:

• https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/picturecontrol/catalog/PicCon.pdf

Which describes in detail how to change tone curves, hue, saturation, etc. And how they can be used on the Nikon D2X, which launched in 2004 (15 years ago).

So again, it's clear you're just learning this stuff--but in exploring it and writing as if you have a deeper understanding than you do, you're spreading a lot of false information.

 

[tlittlefield]

So you are re-creating the scene to what you WANT it to be, NOT what the camera saw

 

[beatboxa]

So you are re-creating the scene to what you WANT it to be, NOT what the camera saw

No, not at all. Your statement is completely wrong.

You know what the camera sees? In the first thread posted by the OP, I put an example of this. Take a sunset over the ocean. This is a linearly rendered raw file. This is what the camera actually sees.



And you can even zoom in to see each individual pixel that the camera sees:



How that gets converted to JPEG is completely different. Every camera company has their own color science, and it is always inaccurate. They demosaic the pixels to counterbalance the bayer filter over the camera sensor. They scale various channels differently. They boost contrast, "enhance" certain tones (like skin tones), etc.

And so what I described in my first link is calibrating this to known colors and points. Here it is again:

• https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62059118

You don't seem to understand it, so let me explain in simpler terms for you. What I did was:

First, I created a JPEG, with known colors, and known greyscale tones.

For example, the value for the red circle is Red: 255; Green: 0; Blue: 0.
The yellow circle is R:255, G:255, B:0.
The greyscale spirals near the middle go from 0 (pure white) to 255 (pure black), and I know point-by-point the values in the spiral. Here is the JPEG. You can verify the values.



I took a photograph of this JPEG on a calibrated, accurate display. The camera was wrong. Very wrong. Here is what the camera JPEG (not raw) engine produced.

Note the colors are off. And even the grey spirals are very off as well. See how they suddenly transition from black to white?



And then I calibrated the picture control to as close as I could get it with what the camera allows. Here are the results. Again, pay attention to the grey spirals, the colors, etc.



But this isn't perfect. So if I want, I can use a raw converter to get the actual calibration. As follows:



This is all the tools you need, so I would challenge you to measure the values in this screenshot. You'll find they are close to perfect. For example, the yellow here shows the actual measurements on the left. Now compare to the camera JPEGs.

In other words, I'm setting it to what the scene actually looked like. Because I controlled the scene.

So yes, your statement is completely wrong and displays your deep lack of knowledge of "what the camera sees" vs. what is rendered in a JPEG.

 

[MichaelHK]

Is there a quick summary on the settings instead of following 10 threads and people arguing? I normally shoot RAW but it never hurts to learn something new.

I use the snapbridge jpegs to send to friends too..

 

[tlittlefield]

My point was that manipulating a file of any kind RAW or JPG is to give it a look that you want it to be. Not that it is correct but it is how YOU want it to be.

Not everyone on this forum is a professional and sells their images for money. If you do all the power to you. A majority of us (I am guessing here) do it to record family events, what they did on vacation, kids growing up etc.

High end digital camera's have gotten a lot more internal processing power in the last 5 years or so. In my opinion people that use RAW file software have used it for a very long time and don't want to change.

I was a film guy for many years usually carrying both an F5 and N90S wherever I went. Just did it for my pleasure never sold one image. Shot Provia most of the time and sure got some bad shots but many great ones as well. So I know how to take a good picture correctly.

The JPG's out of the Z6 are fantastic in every respect. I would argue in most cases shooting RAW is not necessary once you have your JPG parameters dialed in.

And no they DO NOT need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis. Once you happy with the settings they should remain the same. Only adjusting aperture, shutter speed and focal length based on the scene/subject.

 

[j_photo]

So you are re-creating the scene to what you WANT it to be, NOT what the camera saw

This is a fallacy.

The choice is whether you let Nikon engineers create the scene using in-camera presets, or you create the scene working from the raw file. There is no "what the camera saw" image. Every image that comes out of the camera has been processed and interpreted by someone.

I have nothing against jpegs out of camera. But they are not truer than raw files processed by the photographer.

 

[beatboxa]

My point was that manipulating a file of any kind RAW or JPG is to give it a look that you want it to be. Not that it is correct but it is how YOU want it to be.

Not everyone on this forum is a professional and sells their images for money. If you do all the power to you. A majority of us (I am guessing here) do it to record family events, what they did on vacation, kids growing up etc.

High end digital camera's have gotten a lot more internal processing power in the last 5 years or so. In my opinion people that use RAW file software have used it for a very long time and don't want to change.

I was a film guy for many years usually carrying both an F5 and N90S wherever I went. Just did it for my pleasure never sold one image. Shot Provia most of the time and sure got some bad shots but many great ones as well. So I know how to take a good picture correctly.

The JPG's out of the Z6 are fantastic in every respect. I would argue in most cases shooting RAW is not necessary once you have your JPG parameters dialed in.

And no they DO NOT need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis. Once you happy with the settings they should remain the same. Only adjusting aperture, shutter speed and focal length based on the scene/subject.

That wasn't your point, because you specifically compared it to what the camera sees. This is categorically false. And I never once claimed they need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis.

Just like your cameras, you're misinterpreting what you want to read, not what was written.

 

[beatboxa]

So you are re-creating the scene to what you WANT it to be, NOT what the camera saw

This is a fallacy.

The choice is whether you let Nikon engineers create the scene using in-camera presets, or you create the scene working from the raw file. There is no "what the camera saw" image. Every image that comes out of the camera has been processed and interpreted by someone.

I have nothing against jpegs out of camera. But they are not truer than raw files processed by the photographer.

Absolutely correct.

 

[beatboxa]

Is there a quick summary on the settings instead of following 10 threads and people arguing? I normally shoot RAW but it never hurts to learn something new.

I use the snapbridge jpegs to send to friends too..

Sure:

1. Use raw if you want the most control over how to manipulate the tones & colors in the image.
2. Use JPEG if you want the quick & easy.

In-between the two above, you can use picture controls, in-camera raw converter, or external software raw converters to control how the JPEG is rendered from the raw image (including how snapbridge jpegs will look). My last post was one specific example of how to make a picture control.

That's it.

It's not complicated, and it's not news, though the OP and a few others are making it out to be. But in doing so, they're passing a bunch of erroneous information.

 

[gabriel foto]

....in camera created JPEGs to come up with a master JPEG which can then be edited, tweaked, for a final output image...

This subject always seems to bring out some strong feelings. There is fight between right and wrong, and Jpeg in some photographers' eyes is just wrong.

Or it may be an acceptable shortcut for those who don't know better, but with its inherent and very clear limitations. Right?

After having used a number of first- and second generation cameras (from D40 to D7000 and D700), I bought a D600 in 2012. What struck me with this new body and sensor technology was the quality of its jpegs. And I am not referring to the jpegs out-of-the-camera (which were amazing in many respects), but how these could be tweaked.

What I found was that

A) these jpegs could be adjusted in a similar manner as you would normally do raws. Not by 4 or 5 stops shadow lifting, sure, but by 2, or sometimes more.

B) jpegs from the previous bodies could not be handled in this way. Neither could cameras from Canon and some others.

C) The amount of tweaking in general, and shadow lifting in particular, depends on a number of factors
- How dark the shadows are to begin with
- The ISO
- The amount of ADL used when taking the picture
- The software used for tweaking
- How gentle your touch is, because you will have to be careful to avoid too obvious posterisation

Now, the Nikon Z 6 seems to have some of the best jpegs, not only in terms of initial settings and results out-of-camera, but also their malleability (the extent to which they can be tweaked). One example, from DPReview's gallery:


this is Dan Bracaglia's original jpeg sooc image

Same jpeg, tweaked using NikonView NX2:


same jpeg image, with some shadow lifting, lowering blacks a little - 30 seconds adjustment

Finally, the adjusted raw, as shown in the gallery;


Also from the gallery, this is Dan Bracagia's original raw, edited in ACR

Sorry for fiddling with your jpeg, Dan. I don't want to promote any of these images as better than any other, even though I have a prefernce for the tweaked jpeg over the original (it is nice to see some little detail of the aircraft and the inside of the hangar). To my eyes, the ACR edited raw has perhaps a little too much of an HDR effect - not meant as a criticism, but I often see this in edited raws: The levelling of dark and bright often means some of the drama is lost. But, as I said, all this is beside the point.

The point is, there is more in jpegs than meets the eye. An underexposed image can often be saved.

And also an overexposed. Now, if you check the clouds in the first two images, I recovered some brights there just to show what can be done. Basically, all aspects of a SOOC jpeg image can be tweaked, to a lesser or greater extent.

Now, I understand that this post will be heavily criticised. What I am doing is not right. I know.

Problem is, this is what I have been doing ever since I bought my D600, for 6½ years now, and I am still happy. Back then, in 2012, I was so awed by its capabilities that I even started a blog about it. Some of what I wrote then may not apply, regarding lens choices etc, but I mainly wanted to direct you to the posts about jpeg adjustments: D600 jpeg tweaking (halfway down the page)

I would not buy a body with more limited ability to adjust jpegs than the present day Nikon FX cameras, and the jpegs from the Z 6 seem cleaner and even more tolerant to tweaking than the D600. I find this impresive.

This aspect of using jpeg, and tweaking them, is not widely known or often discussed and I feel this thread is very relevant indeed, despite differing opinions.

If anybody is interested, I have prepared two more examples

Gabriel

 

[tlittlefield]

My point was that manipulating a file of any kind RAW or JPG is to give it a look that you want it to be. Not that it is correct but it is how YOU want it to be.

Not everyone on this forum is a professional and sells their images for money. If you do all the power to you. A majority of us (I am guessing here) do it to record family events, what they did on vacation, kids growing up etc.

High end digital camera's have gotten a lot more internal processing power in the last 5 years or so. In my opinion people that use RAW file software have used it for a very long time and don't want to change.

I was a film guy for many years usually carrying both an F5 and N90S wherever I went. Just did it for my pleasure never sold one image. Shot Provia most of the time and sure got some bad shots but many great ones as well. So I know how to take a good picture correctly.

The JPG's out of the Z6 are fantastic in every respect. I would argue in most cases shooting RAW is not necessary once you have your JPG parameters dialed in.

And no they DO NOT need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis. Once you happy with the settings they should remain the same. Only adjusting aperture, shutter speed and focal length based on the scene/subject.

That wasn't your point, because you specifically compared it to what the camera sees. This is categorically false. And I never once claimed they need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis.

Just like your cameras, you're misinterpreting what you want to read, not what was written.

"Just like your cameras" aren't we all using the same tools to get the desired end product?

And when I stated "what the camera sees" should have been more specific and said "what you see thru the viewfinder".

 

[beatboxa]

My point was that manipulating a file of any kind RAW or JPG is to give it a look that you want it to be. Not that it is correct but it is how YOU want it to be.

Not everyone on this forum is a professional and sells their images for money. If you do all the power to you. A majority of us (I am guessing here) do it to record family events, what they did on vacation, kids growing up etc.

High end digital camera's have gotten a lot more internal processing power in the last 5 years or so. In my opinion people that use RAW file software have used it for a very long time and don't want to change.

I was a film guy for many years usually carrying both an F5 and N90S wherever I went. Just did it for my pleasure never sold one image. Shot Provia most of the time and sure got some bad shots but many great ones as well. So I know how to take a good picture correctly.

The JPG's out of the Z6 are fantastic in every respect. I would argue in most cases shooting RAW is not necessary once you have your JPG parameters dialed in.

And no they DO NOT need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis. Once you happy with the settings they should remain the same. Only adjusting aperture, shutter speed and focal length based on the scene/subject.

That wasn't your point, because you specifically compared it to what the camera sees. This is categorically false. And I never once claimed they need to be adjusted on a shot by shot basis.

Just like your cameras, you're misinterpreting what you want to read, not what was written.

"Just like your cameras" aren't we all using the same tools to get the desired end product?

And when I stated "what the camera sees" should have been more specific and said "what you see thru the viewfinder".

You're still wrong. This is the Z forum. If you understood my links, you'll see that what you see through the viewfinder is the post-picture control view.

 

[NCB]

Think the OP is making a perfectly valid point. I've been relying on tweaking jpeg parameters in camera ever since I had usable controls to tweak when I bought a D3100 around 8 years ago; I find it an effective way of working. But with the Z6 Nikon has given us a whole new level of controls to tweak I'm only just starting to play with them.

Nigel

 

[beatboxa]

Think the OP is making a perfectly valid point. I've been relying on tweaking jpeg parameters in camera ever since I had usable controls to tweak when I bought a D3100 around 8 years ago; I find it an effective way of working. But with the Z6 Nikon has given us a whole new level of controls to tweak I'm only just starting to play with them.

Nigel

The D3100 and other entry-level cameras don't allow importing picture controls. But every Nikon even close to this Z range has always allowed them, for well over a decade. Today, I think every camera from the D5### series and up, so essentially just not the D3### cameras.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Here's what I found the best recipe for great JPEGS:

-NR: Low

-All corrections: ON

-ALO: High (squeezes higher DR into 8bit)

PP: Standard. If you go Neutral, you lose the Nikon Signature PUNCH and that wow effect.

-Sharpening is to taste, I like my photos super sharpened at +7!

-Contrast Minus 1

-Saturation Plus 1

-Hue Minus 2 (neutralizes any greenish skin tones)

Vivid is stupidly over saturated, Neutral just loses the Nikon look advantage I see, Landscape goes wonky with anything other than green and blue. Standard is the ticket to great SOOC images on Nikon Cameras.

I hope this helps anyone.

Oh for video just switch to Flat ar default settings (lowering contrast even further just reveals more unusable noise floor so don't bother). Make sure sharpening is at ZERO for video.