JPEG settings

[Thomerik]

My Z5II arrives tomorrow, and I wanted to get into JPEG shooting with Nikon (not exclusively, just RAW+JPEG). I will have to setup all the settings when it arrives, and just wanted to see if anyone has any recommendations in terms of what profile to use? Maybe someone has found a good JPEG preset for Nikon Z? I have never shot JPEGs with Nikon. I simply prefer a natural look for all the times where I don't really need to process that much (low dynamic range scenes when I'm just walking around for instance). What profile do you prefer? I'd probably prefer a more natural and subtle look, but if there's some cool black and white profile, I'd probably have fun trying that out aswell.

 

[MyReality]

Why do so many photographers want to use presets? Do they think it will save them time?

No, they know it can save them time. I haven't had to purchase any, but I've been tempted to more than once. There are times when I edit one image and apply those settings to the series/burst. These are exactly the same as presets. You want to have some consistency between your photos in series.

The more presets you use the greater the chance of error in using the wrong preset. Presets are not perfect. Chances are very high that you will still have to edit in post.

The key to saving time is capturing the image properly. Then, it would be rare for a preset to ruin an image. Culling your images to focus on the better one's will save more time as well.

This might give you more preset keepers, but it is a question of chance. If you have the right scene with the right exposure, your chances might be high. But that is already 2 variables.

Ruthlessly culling images would save a lot of time and makes presets more efficiently if you save those that have the closed look to you preset. But that takes a lot of memory and skill. Using presets on a mismatched photo can induce noise.

I have my presets organized in strength/impact. The first folder (stage) is for camera profiles, the second is for manual lens (adapted) corrections, and the third is creative. That generally just leaves me with a few histogram adjustments. Everyone has a different level of skill and experience with their editor.

You would need a lot of presets for all the combinations of scene types and exposures. Using the histogram changes the exposure which can induce noise.

I know photographers who edit every image in Photoshop one at a time, and with great efficiency. It doesn't matter how you get where you need to go, but I do think presets and actions would benefit most users.

They might benefit pros in a production shop who use a room full of editors to send out for publication. I am an amateur and there is no pressure on me. I only PP those photos that I have a high chance of using soon or I PP as needed. It worked fine for me when I was selling prints.

I believe in an even simpler version of the KISS principal than the post above you. I use the finest version of Jpeg and the Standard profile option. This gives me the greatest flexible outside of RAW to create the look I want in post. Why be controlled with one type of cookie cutter and maybe have to backtrack?

I use my presets as a fast-forward. I really don't care for Adobe's built-in settings or profiles. There are times when cookie cutters make sense. You don't want children fighting over the last cookie because one is larger than the other.

I don't like cookies with the wrong kind of frosting on them.

When it comes to lightroom presets I did make some of my own actually. They are pretty subtle, just some small changes to a few settings that would be the minimum of what I would apply to just about every landscape image. It helps me visualize what I need to do quicker, as it changes several settings all at once, and just about allways gets me closer to my goal. In the few times where it doesn't I will probably acknowledge that anyways.

Do you have different ones for various daylight and low light scenario where the light intensity and direction varies? Seems complex to me.

I think it would be hard to have presets that would be much good for the photos below. Two were edited manually by me.


Unedited


Backlit and edited.


Edited

May I ask. What color profiles did you use for these?

The top one is scanned film. The profile was Fuji 100F. The scan is neutral. I never ask for any scan enhancements other then dust and scratch correction.

The second one was taken with a Canon 80D, Auto AWB, the default STANDARD picture style.

In the last one I used an Olympus 8080CW. Auto WB, the default STANDARD picture style.

I always use STANDARD(closest to a blank canvas) since I am an amateur and I am not in a hurry. I like to determine my own 'look' from the beginning.

I never use any imported profiles or presets. I can do almost anything in post that a photographer can do in-camera

I hope that helps. I never try to duplicate a "look".

I think presets work the best when the scene lighting is average(18% grey) and is coming mostly from behind(4 o'clock to 7 o'clock) as in the two photos below. I think it should result in a lot less PP.

Are there not any sliders that you generally push in one direction? Pulling down highlights for instance. My self made landscape preset is pretty much just changing 4 settings, highlights, shadows, tone curve and sharpening. I will adjust these further if needed, but usually I adjust other sliders first.

I use ACDSee Studio Pro and use the same sliders as you do. I only use tone curves for B&W, because I like to adjust individual colors for my own "look" with primary color sliders and global or local saturation.

Depending on the "look" I want I sometimes tone down highlights or open up shadows.

I sharpen, but I do not over sharpen(mostly 20%-30%) unless I crop a lot or I am planning to make a very large print.

I reduce noise, but not by as much as most photographers do.

P.S. If I am just going to post to DPR, I sometimes use FastStone. It's very good and fast. I belong to www.1x.com and do my serious PP when I submit to that website. You can check my link to it in my profile.

 

[Thomerik]

Has someone tested the High ISO NR settings on the newer Z cameras? I wonder if I should start at low or normal. Probably low and see how it goes?

 

[jthomas39]

Has someone tested the High ISO NR settings on the newer Z cameras? I wonder if I should start at low or normal. Probably low and see how it goes?

If you are shooting jpgs, you should test this at the jpg "Fine*" setting, for the best quality jpg image.

That High ISO NR only applies to the jpg, not the raw, of course. I normally edit raw files and the raw post processing noise reduction is amazing. And the colors and contrast are more editable in these low light scenes, too.

I briefly tested the High ISO NR, and the Low was surprisingly effective with moderate noise. High can show obvious blurring of fine detail in the shadows and sometimes too much smoothing of areas that have faint detail.

The useful Hogan Guide to the Z6 iii says that the camera applies a small amount of "noise-reduction-like-effects" at high ISOs even with the High ISO NR turned off. That's interesting.

 

[Bob A L]

I would recommend starting at low or even off if the choice is available. Then see what you think and move up and try the others. I only shoot DX only and currently running at normal which works well and doesn't affect the photos much at all. I freely shoot up to 6400 without concern with jpegs sooc. I never use any post process noise removal tools.

 

[Thomerik]

Has someone tested the High ISO NR settings on the newer Z cameras? I wonder if I should start at low or normal. Probably low and see how it goes?

If you are shooting jpgs, you should test this at the jpg "Fine*" setting, for the best quality jpg image.

That High ISO NR only applies to the jpg, not the raw, of course. I normally edit raw files and the raw post processing noise reduction is amazing. And the colors and contrast are more editable in these low light scenes, too.

Yes, but as mentioned in this thread I'm looking to shoot RAW + JPEG, might aswell optimize the JPEG settings that doesn't affect RAW incase I want to keep the JPEG.

I briefly tested the High ISO NR, and the Low was surprisingly effective with moderate noise. High can show obvious blurring of fine detail in the shadows and sometimes too much smoothing of areas that have faint detail.

I prefer a bit of noise to less detail, so I should probably try low at first.

The useful Hogan Guide to the Z6 iii says that the camera applies a small amount of "noise-reduction-like-effects" at high ISOs even with the High ISO NR turned off. That's interesting.

When you import camera settings into lightroom you can see that the NR slider does go up a bit even with it turned of. It increases with higher ISO, so yes, they do apply some NR to jpegs anyways.

 

[PhotoTave]

There is a Facebook group called "Nikon Imaging Cloud Recipes". People there have shared some good profiles that I've been using to shoot with my Z5II the last month. That may be a good starting point.

 

[Thomerik]

Has someone tested the High ISO NR settings on the newer Z cameras? I wonder if I should start at low or normal. Probably low and see how it goes?

If you are shooting jpgs, you should test this at the jpg "Fine*" setting, for the best quality jpg image.

That High ISO NR only applies to the jpg, not the raw, of course. I normally edit raw files and the raw post processing noise reduction is amazing. And the colors and contrast are more editable in these low light scenes, too.

I briefly tested the High ISO NR, and the Low was surprisingly effective with moderate noise. High can show obvious blurring of fine detail in the shadows and sometimes too much smoothing of areas that have faint detail.

The useful Hogan Guide to the Z6 iii says that the camera applies a small amount of "noise-reduction-like-effects" at high ISOs even with the High ISO NR turned off. That's interesting.

Setting it to "low" is interpreted as both luminance slider and color noise slider at around 30 each in LR for shots taken at base ISO in good light. I would only assume that the unnecessary IQ penalty won't be as significant in the actual JPEG? Seems a bit over the top for the "low" setting at base ISO.