JPEG only work flow...

[jhunna]

Really starting to think that this is all I need to use. If I get WB and exposure correct while shooting, all I need to do is tiny bit of cropping and straightening. So here are some thoughts around a jpeg only work flow.

1. Get the best glass you can afford. After debating whether good glass is worth it or not, it really comes down to post processing. If I do everything in camera, then it is better to get the best glass. Lower end glass almost requires RAW, to allow for fixing the short comings of the shot.

2. Be able to set WB and EXPOSURE quickly.

• For WB, I set a button up to lock white balance after locking in on the primary light source in the scene. Sony is good at capturing white balance even if you don't have a grey card, but use a grey card or white spot that is covered with the light source if possible.
• For Exposure, I set a button up to lock on a spot exposure, while using mixed exposure for the general exposure for good balance. I don't lock the spot exposure on the subject every time, sometimes you can tell the story by exposing for some other subject in the composition.

3. Learn how to tweak your Creative Settings and Picture profiles AND white balance to get the LOOK you want. The newer Sony's give you a lot of options to adjust contrast/sharpness/clarity/highlights and shadows, but one of the coolest ways to get a "look" is to move the WB to the blues to get a cooler tone, and to the reds to give a warmer tone. This doesn't affect your ability to capture wb, but it will leave a lasting impression on the locked in WB.

4. Clear image zoom turns your primes into zooms, but ONLY if you are using jpeg (and video). I think this is one of the most underused features, but I love it and use it quite a bit.

5. Another way to zoom use apsc mode on the a7cr/A7Rv cameras. Whether you are in FF or in apsc mode you can get 26MP jpeg even when switching between the two modes. This is pretty clever by Sony, and lets you keep the same resolution, while giving you yet another "focal length" to use. Combined with Clear Image Zoom you can turn a 24GM lens into a > 36mm > 54mm all at f1.4.

6. Future speak, it would be nice to have LUTS to add to the jpegs in camera. LUTS that you could configure in Imaging Edge Desktop then load to your camera.

That's enough for now, and that's how I shoot my jpegs while I am shooting my RAWS (CIT being the notable exception). I almost NEVER use the RAW files unless I have a picture that is so good, but needs a bit of tweaking before sending it of to print. I just need to get comfortable enough to let go of my RAW safety net.

 

[Bob A L]

I agree. And I shoot nothing but JPEG in camera processing. But it is not popular around dpr. Most here are avid RAW shooters with raws processed by the photographer on computer. I have no problem with skilled operators working this way if that is what they enjoy doing. But I strongly encourage newcomers to use JPEG only and learn to make their cameras produce what they like to see. I have yet to find any reason to shoot anything buy jpeg for my uses.

 

[AceDynamo]

INTERNET: You have so much flexibility and latitude with RAW files and almost none with JPEG.

MY REALITY: Tweaking RAW files is time consuming with little visible benefit in most cases. Adjusting JPEGs works great.

To be fair, I shoot sports, which results in a high volume of images so having the JPEG workflow is beneficial.

 

[AceDynamo]

As the OP pointed out, using the camera's Creative Look can improve the JPEG results. I have found the ability to try various Creative Looks on RAW files using the Sony Imaging Edge desktop software; however, I am not sure how to simulate the fine tuning of attributes like contrast, shadows, etc. Does anyone know how to do this?

Making the adjustments in camera to see the results on a PC is daunting because of the number of attributes that can be adjusted and the possible values of each one. I have adjusted values while looking through the viewfinder but don't think I can tell exactly what looks better/worse.

Any information or suggestions for fine tuning the Creative Looks will be appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

JPEG only work flow...

Really starting to think that this is all I need to use. If I get WB and exposure correct while shooting, all I need to do is tiny bit of cropping and straightening.

Certainly each of us should use the workflow that works best for us, given our individual needs and preferences; and for those of us not shooting professionally, the one we simply like best. What works well for one photographer's needs and wants may be overkill or inadequate for another photographer. At times I've been forced into a JPEG-only workflow because the camera I was using did not provide the option to record raw files.[FN 1] For some situations it can work reasonably well. But I've found JPEG-only hopeless where:

(1) I want to recover some highlight detail and/or lift shadows a lot--think a backlit part of the image where there was no ability to use fill flash--and the JPEG bit depth and gamma have obliterated the highlight and/or shadow detail from of the image file; and/or

(2) I want to make local edits and the JPEG compression has done too much to obliterate the real image detail.

Yes, with some cameras I can engage maximum 'dynamic range optimizer' or similar to pack some extra tonal range into the JPEG, but that coarsens tonality and increases the risk of banding, and still provides far less malleability than a raw file.

And of course, if you decide a day or a year or a decade later that e.g. aesthetic considerations make you want a white balance substantially different from what you chose when you look the photo, imposing that works far better from a raw file than from a JPEG.

[FN 1] At this point, all of my own cameras can record raw files except my underwater / 'tough' cameras.

[FN 2] IMO far short of optimally, but I use a lot of controls when converting raw files

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I switched systems (Fuji to Sony) and computers at the same time and have been using jpegs pending buying new editing SW. I've never actually found a package that is quite what I want. I'd prefer not to use a subscription service and Adobe is also Cloud-based, which I don't want either. DXO seems to be fine except that it doesn't accept Sony's M & S lossless compressed RAW formats on the A7CR. So, I've just kept using jpegs..... but it's less than perfect.

I agree with you about set-up in camera, but that comes naturally to me since I'm an old transparency film man. There was very little latitude - less than print film. You had to get everything right in-camera. Good for lower contrast images, less good for higher contrast. I think the thing that RAW does offer that I would use is more highlight and shadow recovery.

Here's a couple of examples - one OK, two where I don't seem to be able to recover any more of the highlights (at least via Apple Photos). I'd have done better with RAW. Despite the odd image with these contrast issues, I'm tempted to keep using jpeg most of the time. It would involve more work if I always shot RAW. I can switch to RAW when the situation needs it.

Cheers, Rod

Jpeg original. Low contrast. OK. (I've never really thought about it before, but Koalas seem to be about 18% grey )

Jpeg original. HIgh contrast. Note the blown whites, recovered as a far as possible in Apple Photos. It could have been worse - the image is still just usable.

Jpeg original. Breaking waves are always tough for contrast - see the foam and spray highlights. There are also shadows in the cliff that could be pulled up.

 

[A74Me]

latest cameras are that good at in camera jpeg processing. 2 years ago i posted a raw to see if anyone could edit the raw better than the incamera jpeg. everyone lost that chalenge. i do shoot raw in the studio because i have to edit anyway and critical fluro colours need the raw file. but for my pro event shoots i just use jpeg only. and record raw as well just if my exposure is way off.

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

I've been using Sony mirrorless since around 2011 and I have to say, the latest bodies with the AI processor have by far the nicest JPEGs of any of them, and some of my favourite of any cameras. The a6700 and A7RV with its white balance sensor, at least.

It's only since getting these that I shoot JPEG quite a bit. You can still get away with small tweaks to colours if needed, especially with 61mp and downscaling for social media anyways. Always RAW for client work but that's partially for editing, and partially for having the 'digital negatives' that seem to imply property rights to the photos.

I'd have to double-check but I'm pretty sure the JPEGs in the A7RV are always 61mp for normal shooting and 26mp in Super35mm APSC crop mode, unlike RAW where you can select the RAW to be 26mp for both cases. Very handy.

 

[jhunna]

I've been using Sony mirrorless since around 2011 and I have to say, the latest bodies with the AI processor have by far the nicest JPEGs of any of them, and some of my favourite of any cameras. The a6700 and A7RV with its white balance sensor, at least.

It's only since getting these that I shoot JPEG quite a bit. You can still get away with small tweaks to colours if needed, especially with 61mp and downscaling for social media anyways. Always RAW for client work but that's partially for editing, and partially for having the 'digital negatives' that seem to imply property rights to the photos.

I'd have to double-check but I'm pretty sure the JPEGs in the A7RV are always 61mp for normal shooting and 26mp in Super35mm APSC crop mode, unlike RAW where you can select the RAW to be 26mp for both cases. Very handy.

Double check but I set jpegs to medium 26MP in FF mode and leave jpegs set to the default in apsc mode which is 26MP.

 

[UncleVanya]

INTERNET: You have so much flexibility and latitude with RAW files and almost none with JPEG.

This is true. But being true doesn't mean jpg can't be a useful way to shoot. You accept a trade off in both cases.

MY REALITY: Tweaking RAW files is time consuming with little visible benefit in most cases. Adjusting JPEGs works great.

Some people come up with batch methods to adjust raw files and produce jpgs that are close enough - and only tweak when needed.

To be fair, I shoot sports, which results in a high volume of images so having the JPEG workflow is beneficial.

Here I see many pros recommend jpgs exclusively due to just that fact.

My workflow is to shoot in JPG+RAW; then if the JPG is insufficiently expressing my intent and I can't edit it to do what I want without damaging artifacts I will revert to the raw file.

 

[AlephNull]

I've been using Sony mirrorless since around 2011 and I have to say, the latest bodies with the AI processor have by far the nicest JPEGs of any of them, and some of my favourite of any cameras. The a6700 and A7RV with its white balance sensor, at least.

It's only since getting these that I shoot JPEG quite a bit. You can still get away with small tweaks to colours if needed, especially with 61mp and downscaling for social media anyways. Always RAW for client work but that's partially for editing, and partially for having the 'digital negatives' that seem to imply property rights to the photos.

I'd have to double-check but I'm pretty sure the JPEGs in the A7RV are always 61mp for normal shooting and 26mp in Super35mm APSC crop mode, unlike RAW where you can select the RAW to be 26mp for both cases. Very handy.

Double check but I set jpegs to medium 26MP in FF mode and leave jpegs set to the default in apsc mode which is 26MP.

Thirsty Fox is mistaken.

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2230/v1/en/contents/TP0003057051.html

You have a choice of aspect ratio and image size for JPEG.

In FF, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio:

L = 60 megapixels

M = 26 megapixels

S = 15 megapixels

(exactly the same sizes as you get for lossless compressed RAW - RAW-L, RAW-M, and RAW-S).

In APS-C, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio you get the M and S sizes (no L for obvious reasons).

@jhunna - have you considered HEIF? Not as widely supported, but you get 10-bit support and greater dynamic range, yet the files are smaller. I don't know if you get LUTs already, but I think you'll get LUTs sooner on HEIF than on JPEG!

Personally, I would never want to use Clear Image Zoom, but I shoot RAW exclusively, so I'm not asked to choose. I'm an amateur with no work deadlines to deliver images, and I enjoy post-processing almost as much as taking the images in the first place.

 

[UncleVanya]

I've been using Sony mirrorless since around 2011 and I have to say, the latest bodies with the AI processor have by far the nicest JPEGs of any of them, and some of my favourite of any cameras. The a6700 and A7RV with its white balance sensor, at least.

It's only since getting these that I shoot JPEG quite a bit. You can still get away with small tweaks to colours if needed, especially with 61mp and downscaling for social media anyways. Always RAW for client work but that's partially for editing, and partially for having the 'digital negatives' that seem to imply property rights to the photos.

I'd have to double-check but I'm pretty sure the JPEGs in the A7RV are always 61mp for normal shooting and 26mp in Super35mm APSC crop mode, unlike RAW where you can select the RAW to be 26mp for both cases. Very handy.

Double check but I set jpegs to medium 26MP in FF mode and leave jpegs set to the default in apsc mode which is 26MP.

Thirsty Fox is mistaken.

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2230/v1/en/contents/TP0003057051.html

You have a choice of aspect ratio and image size for JPEG.

In FF, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio:

L = 60 megapixels

M = 26 megapixels

S = 15 megapixels

(exactly the same sizes as you get for lossless compressed RAW - RAW-L, RAW-M, and RAW-S).

In APS-C, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio you get the M and S sizes (no L for obvious reasons).

@jhunna - have you considered HEIF? Not as widely supported, but you get 10-bit support and greater dynamic range, yet the files are smaller. I don't know if you get LUTs already, but I think you'll get LUTs sooner on HEIF than on JPEG!

HEIF support is interesting. I should play with that.

Personally, I would never want to use Clear Image Zoom, but I shoot RAW exclusively, so I'm not asked to choose. I'm an amateur with no work deadlines to deliver images, and I enjoy post-processing almost as much as taking the images in the first place.

I've used it and it is far better than simply cropping. I initially used it on the RX100 and then on the a7Riii - I was surprised how good it was. There used to be people who advocated using it but the enormous shift to RAW only shooters has dimmed the amount of avocation I think. It's unclear how much additional effort Sony has made on it since introducing it - I can imagine with the work Topaz has done with upscaling limited resolution files that there is additional work that could be done by Sony. My understanding (limited) is that the upscaling uses data from the entire image in determining some aspects of the "crop". Perhaps that's mumbojumbo from Sony but the interpolation does seem better than a simple crop.

 

[dazzerfong]

INTERNET: You have so much flexibility and latitude with RAW files and almost none with JPEG.

MY REALITY: Tweaking RAW files is time consuming with little visible benefit in most cases. Adjusting JPEGs works great.

To be fair, I shoot sports, which results in a high volume of images so having the JPEG workflow is beneficial.

There's ways to batch. A lot of the times I apply my own colour grading reset straight from import, and the only thing I adjust is exposure. 5 seconds later I'm done.

The downsides really are storage and workflow speed. Nothing involving raw will ever match JPEGs for those two attributes, and if those are your competing priorities then JPEG is by far the better choice.

Me, I like recovering highlights and shadows for a more HDR look so unless I'm very careful with the JPEG curves it's much easier to be precise with raws.

 

[wheresrunnicles]

I thought about going down this route a few years ago. I think it’s most tempting on systems that have really good / interesting profiles, like Fuji. At the time I was considering it I was shooting a lot on my GR III which has some great B&W modes as well as positive film. I don’t find Sony’s profiles very interesting nor their white balance reliably to my taste (probably still struggling to adapt after a decade plus of Olympus).

However, I have got most of the way there by streamlining my editing flow. I apply some things automatically on import (I probably could do a bit more here). I then have half a dozen presets I use as a starting point. From there most photos are a few quick tweaks to exposure and maybe WB and I’m mostly done. But I’d much rather have the full flexibility and there are times when shooting jpg that I’ve missed that.

 

[jhunna]

I've been using Sony mirrorless since around 2011 and I have to say, the latest bodies with the AI processor have by far the nicest JPEGs of any of them, and some of my favourite of any cameras. The a6700 and A7RV with its white balance sensor, at least.

It's only since getting these that I shoot JPEG quite a bit. You can still get away with small tweaks to colours if needed, especially with 61mp and downscaling for social media anyways. Always RAW for client work but that's partially for editing, and partially for having the 'digital negatives' that seem to imply property rights to the photos.

I'd have to double-check but I'm pretty sure the JPEGs in the A7RV are always 61mp for normal shooting and 26mp in Super35mm APSC crop mode, unlike RAW where you can select the RAW to be 26mp for both cases. Very handy.

Double check but I set jpegs to medium 26MP in FF mode and leave jpegs set to the default in apsc mode which is 26MP.

Thirsty Fox is mistaken.

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2230/v1/en/contents/TP0003057051.html

You have a choice of aspect ratio and image size for JPEG.

In FF, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio:

L = 60 megapixels

M = 26 megapixels

S = 15 megapixels

(exactly the same sizes as you get for lossless compressed RAW - RAW-L, RAW-M, and RAW-S).

In APS-C, assuming 3:2 aspect ratio you get the M and S sizes (no L for obvious reasons).

@jhunna - have you considered HEIF? Not as widely supported, but you get 10-bit support and greater dynamic range, yet the files are smaller. I don't know if you get LUTs already, but I think you'll get LUTs sooner on HEIF than on JPEG!

I tried, but while I have support in Windows I don't have it in Android. And my main reason for using jpg is to share quickly. That said I love heif, you can see the better quality over jpegs. I use luts for my slog video, and I can do everything on my Android phone. If I used Apple, I would move to an Heif work flow.

Personally, I would never want to use Clear Image Zoom, but I shoot RAW exclusively, so I'm not asked to choose. I'm an amateur with no work deadlines to deliver images, and I enjoy post-processing almost as much as taking the images in the first place.

I am finding when I shoot family events I like to edit and so I use RAW so I can make a nice print. But for sports, and events, jpegs have been good enough to share online.

 

[DirkPeh]

I'm too cowardly to only take JPEGs. I always shoot jpg and RAW, just in case. This allows me to mostly ignore the RAWs, but when I took an important photo and the exposure isn’t right, I can spend the time needed to process the RAW with far better results than possible with a jpg. SD cards and storage are cheap.

Why is it so important for some photographers to only photograph jpgs?

I understand sports photographers who do this because they produce a ton of images and the possibility to spoil pictures with wrong settings is unlikely. But to compare it to the analog times, it’s a bit like asking the lab to throw the negatives away after printing the pictures. Why, when you can just leave the negatives in the side pocket of the photo bag just in case you need them one day.

 

[jhunna]

I'm too cowardly to only take JPEGs. I always shoot jpg and RAW, just in case. This allows me to mostly ignore the RAWs, but when I took an important photo and the exposure isn’t right, I can spend the time needed to process the RAW with far better results than possible with a jpg. SD cards and storage are cheap.

This is actually what I do. But I am finding I almost never want to adjust Raws in certain situations. I just need to work up to the courage to shoot in jpegs only. .

Why is it so important for some photographers to only photograph jpgs?

Because they need the speed of jpegs, and can get what they want in jpegs. Also some photographers only shoot artistically and enjoy the experience of composing in camera. I've if I am street shooting I am always ok with falling back to black and white so don't need the leeway of raw in that situation.

 

[MyReality]

I am serious. You have too many variables to make it workable. I shoot Jpeg only and use RAW as backup. Photo content will almost always rule over any original source or PP. See my photos on 1x.com.

 

[pollup]

I'm really thinking if an HEIF workflow would not be the ideal solution, to still keep the speed and give some room for editing just in case.

It's 10bit, right? Way better (4x better) than 8bit from JPEG but of course still not to the level of RAW, but it would be like a JPEG workflow on steroids.

Of course the main issue is the lack of HEIF support, but if the editors are open source, it's easy to add support (I can add it myself if you want!). I already created my own file viewer with HEIC support (iPhone) and I'm curious if I can support the Sony HEIF files too.

And honestly, companies need to start adding AVIF support in addition (or instead of) HEIF. It's royalty free, and it's a superior format.

 

[DirkPeh]

I'm really thinking if an HEIF workflow would not be the ideal solution, to still keep the speed and give some room for editing just in case.

It's 10bit, right? Way better (4x better) than 8bit from JPEG but of course still not to the level of RAW, but it would be like a JPEG workflow on steroids.

Of course the main issue is the lack of HEIF support, but if the editors are open source, it's easy to add support (I can add it myself if you want!). I already created my own file viewer with HEIC support (iPhone) and I'm curious if I can support the Sony HEIF files too.

And honestly, companies need to start adding AVIF support in addition (or instead of) HEIF. It's royalty free, and it's a superior format.

I stopped using HEIF, because I use Dropbox to save and watch my pictures if I am on my smartphone or iPad, I use the iPad a lot. No HEIF support. It’s a loose-loose with innovations: people don’t use it, because it’s not supported in their software, and the software developers don’t integrate it, because it isn’t broadly used. Damn.