Fuji JPEG editing do or don't?

[Ysarex]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

I don't think it was implied that the OOC JPEG was a better starting point only that it may be an acceptable route to take that required less effort. Given the option to create and process an RAF file I will never fail to produce a superior final image compared to the camera's JPEG.

 

[LBThang]

My bad wording... I should have written 'more convenient'

 

[Todd Jones]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

I don't think it was implied

Yes it was as far as speed in processing images to the point that I'm happy with the results.

that the OOC JPEG was a better starting point only that it may be an acceptable route to take that required less effort. Given the option to create and process an RAF file I will never fail to produce a superior final image compared to the camera's JPEG.

Agree

 

[Todd Jones]

This already came up - the title is a little misleading, so I also thought it was about editing JPGs. OP is asking about adjusting OOC jpegs in LR, then outputting the result. No actual repeated editing of the JPG is taking place. I see no harm in doing that, and that is what I am doing in Adobe Bridge & PS, given that Fuji's OOC JPGs are already very close to what I want.

Yes I'm sorry for misleading anyone. I'm not processing, saving then re-processing the same image.

 

[Sal Baker]

This already came up - the title is a little misleading, so I also thought it was about editing JPGs. OP is asking about adjusting OOC jpegs in LR, then outputting the result.

And that's exactly where many people would save the original again as another jpeg for viewing on the web etc.

Sal

No actual repeated editing of the JPG is taking place. I see no harm in doing that, and that is what I am doing in Adobe Bridge & PS, given that Fuji's OOC JPGs are already very close to what I want.

 

[atoniolin]

Jpeg has already been edited by Fujifilm.

Ha! It's as if Fuji already knew what effect we wanted, and had the presets ready. Had a good chuckle at this one.

 

[curiouspeter]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

Then the best approach is to immediately save a 16-bit TIFF from the JPEG and work from there.

 

[BaeckerX1]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

 

[yardcoyote]

I edit my jpegs. My goal is to get them 90% right in camera-- then I bring them the rest of the way in FastStone.

 

[Ysarex]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

Then the best approach is to immediately save a 16-bit TIFF from the JPEG and work from there.

I don't think so. I'm assuming this implies editing with a pixel-level editor like PS. If you do that then you're likely to apply multiple edits at the pixel level even if you work on the TIFF in layers. The better option is to edit parametrically if possible using an editor like LR or C1 in which case there's no advantage to a prior TIFF conversion. I've found that the single-edit-event output action of a parametric editor tends to cause less mangling in the compression grid than the multiple-edit-steps that occur using a pixel-level editor.

NOTE: I haven't personally tried this but it's the same idea in a commercial product: SilkyPix --makes sense.

 

[jonikon]

I do both, but I always start with the JPEG to see if I can get what I want with it first. For JPEGs I find the old Picassa 3 software works better than LR because it retains the original JPEG you can make multiple different changes without having to save iterations of the file and the adjustments were designed for JPEGs. I especially like how Picassa 3 sharpens with the one touch default sharpening tool which gives excellent results without noticeable artifacts.


Best regards,
Jon

 

[ikaika777]

Just in case some people are confused:

”JPEGs Lose Quality Every Time They're Opened and/or Saved: False

Simply opening or displaying a JPEG image doesn't harm it in any way. Saving an image repeatedly during the same editing session without ever closing the image will not accumulate a loss in quality. Copying and renaming a JPEG will not introduce any loss, but some image editors do recompress JPEGs when the "Save as" command is used. Duplicate and rename JPEGs in a file manager rather than using "Save as JPEG" in an editing program to avoid more loss.

JPEGs Lose Quality Every Time They're Opened, Edited and Saved: True

When a JPEG image is opened, edited and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It's very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use an image formatthat is not lossy, such as TIFF, BMP or PNG, for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing sessionwon't introduce additional damage. It only happens when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.”

Loading…

www.lifewire.com

 

[mahidoes]

It's your choice.

I shoot Raw only if I'm shooting Travel, landscape. When I shoot portrait sessions, events which involved either controlled if not carefully decided lighting I shoot jpg (required size)+raw.

If I'm shooting jpg+raw I always deliver jpg as it come. No editing involved. Raw is for safe keeping. If I need any editing I start from raw. But I rarely do any editing on jpg other than adding some vignette most of the time.

--
My Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 

[tdwesbo]

Worth noting that the image only degrades if you export/create or do some other function that kicks off the jpg compression again. Many editors allow non-destructive editing and don’t degrade the image until/unless you export to a new file. The Apple photos app (and similar editors like Snapseed) are examples. You can always revert edits at any point, even several sessions later.

 

[Todd Jones]

Just in case some people are confused:

”JPEGs Lose Quality Every Time They're Opened and/or Saved: False

Simply opening or displaying a JPEG image doesn't harm it in any way. Saving an image repeatedly during the same editing session without ever closing the image will not accumulate a loss in quality. Copying and renaming a JPEG will not introduce any loss, but some image editors do recompress JPEGs when the "Save as" command is used. Duplicate and rename JPEGs in a file manager rather than using "Save as JPEG" in an editing program to avoid more loss.

JPEGs Lose Quality Every Time They're Opened, Edited and Saved: True

When a JPEG image is opened, edited and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It's very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use an image formatthat is not lossy, such as TIFF, BMP or PNG, for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing sessionwon't introduce additional damage. It only happens when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.”

https://www.lifewire.com/jpeg-myths-and-facts-1701548

 

[Ed USA]

Just apply fuji sim in LR to your raw file then you are editing a RAW file with fuji sim already there so you are close to what you want easy peasy

 

[Greg7579]

You can edit both of course but the tone mapping is far more powerful and effective with RAW. The latitude of RAW vs JPEG is huge. Edited RAW beats both post-edited and out of camera JPEG 100% of the time. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[lewiedude2]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

I don't think it was implied that the OOC JPEG was a better starting point only that it may be an acceptable route to take that required less effort. Given the option to create and process an RAF file I will never fail to produce a superior final image compared to the camera's JPEG.

I fully agree with your statement. Time is precious though.

 

[dmaclau]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

This is a great question and it mirrors my experiences over the last 18 months or so.

Change in cameras (Nikon FF to X-Pro2), change in post processing (DxO not support Fuji RAW), change in subject matter and a change in Asset Management (whining Aperture ex-user). Taken together these caused me to look long and hard at my workflow. Overall I'm happy I did.

After many years of film, actually getting it right in camera is an obsession. I almost never shoot with an expectation of "fixing" it later. What I've found is:

1) Fuji JPG's are frighteningly good, great for 90+% of my needs;

2) After culling I use Athentech's Perfectly Clear on my keepers. Batch processing, very simple to use;

3) With careful processing of RAW files in Iridient and other software I'm able to approach the quality of the JPG's...usually...but that's about it. Working the JPG's gives me more satisfactory output.

After an evening's shoot I may return with 700+ images. Processing that many RAW files was taking me 2 days. Now I review and rate the JPG's. Then I send the keepers to Perfectly Clear and go have something to eat. Later I review the results and do any cropping or minor touch up I desire. Entire process including dinner...2 1/2 to 3 hours.

Thank you Fuji.

 

[Ysarex]

Worth noting that the image only degrades if you export/create or do some other function that kicks off the jpg compression again.

This is not technically correct. Re-applying JPEG compression is one source of image degradation, but another serious source of image damage occurs when any type of color/tone edit interacts (as it must) with the already present JPEG compression grid that's in place from the first or any prior JPEG compression.

Many editors allow non-destructive editing and don’t degrade the image until/unless you export to a new file. The Apple photos app (and similar editors like Snapseed) are examples. You can always revert edits at any point, even several sessions later.