The jpeg myth, musings on the S5...Part 1

[veroman]

so you now imply, my camera has more resolution thus i have to have
raw. since the fuji does not have a pro level of resolution it
doiesnt need raw nor is it truely capable of raw, thus jepg is fine
for fuji shooters? because the fuji file can ot be enlarged above
11x14?

Huh?....

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey

 

[whodo]

As I said several times, the S3 is my favorite (I also own a D2X and a 5D). However, I hate shooting JPEGs. Why? Because the S3 RAWs are so much better than the JPEGs!

The only reason I shoot more JPEGs with the S3 than RAWs is because of the SPEED! Not the fps, but the throughput (5 frames per minute!). Every time I process an S3 raw I cuss Fuji for the JPEGs that I am stuck with.

So... I will not get the S5 unless it solves the S3's raw problem. The S3 is all the JPEG camera that I need .

I don't understand the argument that JPEGs require no post processing and RAWs require so much work. My PC can turn my raw files into jpegs as good as the camera's while I do something else; or it can, with little extra effort on my part, turn the raws into something that will blow what the camera's jpeg engine is capable of.

Anyway, I post process just about everything I shoot and use (raw or jpeg), as I do when shooting film. As Ansel Adams said, the negative is just the score...

--
Regards,
Roger

 

[Evan Effa]

I'm not sure how you are misconstruing all this but you have to admit that shooting the S3 in RAW mode is an exercise for the only the most patient of souls. The quality and tonality may be outstanding but the camera itself is slow as molasses. Trying to a shoot a quickly evolving event in RAW with the S3 has been tried and abandoned by many on this forum because it is too frustrating. Fuji further punishes you with a 25 MB file to deal with. It is these issues that push the FUJI users towards the jpeg option...

Great jpegs and lousy RAW camera performance (even with outstanding RAW IQ) = jpeg preference for all but the most dedicated.

Fuji has a chance to change that with the S5 but I don't think they will.

The defensiveness around this issue is interesting. Surely we agree that the S3 isn't perfect and could really use improvement in some key areas. The S5 which was supposed to improve things may be a big step in some ways but it seems to fall far short of the mark in others areas like RAW handling. Compared to the competition, Fuji is falling further behind.

It's quite simple. Some of want to shoot RAW without being punished by a seemingly arrogant company that doesn't want to accommodate this need. ( I have written them politely without a response.) We, the potential customers, in turn, may not accommodate Fuji's need to sell their cameras.

-evan
--
S2 & D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Artichoke]

how many folks convert from RAW and use the file immediately?
I suspect nearly every RAW shooter does what I did when I shot RAW
convert the file & then tweak it in PS

almost every file will profit from some sort of a PS tweak ...fix perspective, straighten a horizon, clone out some trash or a wrinkle
I don't think any of these common fixes can be done with RAW conversion
shooting RAW you pay a price
it is so liberating no longer being obligated to shoot RAW
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[Horta]

They convert the raw to a 16 bit file 'choke. Then they process.

16 bit files are truly "deep."

how many folks convert from RAW and use the file immediately?
I suspect nearly every RAW shooter does what I did when I shot RAW
convert the file & then tweak it in PS
almost every file will profit from some sort of a PS tweak ...fix
perspective, straighten a horizon, clone out some trash or a wrinkle
I don't think any of these common fixes can be done with RAW
conversion
shooting RAW you pay a price
it is so liberating no longer being obligated to shoot RAW
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[Evan Effa]

Artichoke,

You will of course not have any breakup of the file's histogram if you do no level or curve manipulation; but, if for example, you need a + - 1 EV adjustment you will then see these effects in spades with an 8 bit file. In RAW these sort of manipulations can be done with much better success. I'm sure you know this from your S2 days....

I hear you saying that the S3 jpegs are great & good enough for your purposes...I am not trying to dispute that. I am saying that an S5 with good RAW capabilities should have been a priority for Fuji. They clearly don't agree anymore than you do. I guess time will tell, but you and Fuji won't win over a lot of potential buyers who have become accustomed to the quality and flexibility of an efficient RAW workflow.

Perhaps the S5 will score a little better than "above average" with Phil this time, but not for its RAW specs.

As always...a lively discussion

-evan

--
D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Bad Pic kev]

I'm not sure how you are misconstruing all this but you have to
admit that shooting the S3 in RAW mode is an exercise for the only
the most patient of souls. The quality and tonality may be
outstanding but the camera itself is slow as molasses. Trying to a
shoot a quickly evolving event in RAW with the S3 has been tried
and abandoned by many on this forum because it is too frustrating.
Fuji further punishes you with a 25 MB file to deal with. It is
these issues that push the FUJI users towards the jpeg option...

i missed the shift from raw file performance to camera raw performance. i will beg to differ on this point, maybe i am that one soul that is the exception, but this was shot raw i took 40 pics this day. hand holding the bigma, shooting raw, not great light, a osprey fishing. i didnt lose to many shots because of the camera raw, but the camera and lens AF issues.

Great jpegs and lousy RAW camera performance (even with outstanding
RAW IQ) = jpeg preference for all but the most dedicated.

Fuji has a chance to change that with the S5 but I don't think they
will.

The defensiveness around this issue is interesting. Surely we
agree that the S3 isn't perfect and could really use improvement in
some key areas.

no debate there

It's quite simple. Some of want to shoot RAW without being
punished by a seemingly arrogant company that doesn't want to
accommodate this need. ( I have written them politely without a
response.) We, the potential customers, in turn, may not
accommodate Fuji's need to sell their cameras.

i do not think its fuji being arrogant, but something else. i think there are a lot of issues that are explained pretty well by joe, thom and a few others that the fuji dslr group has a restrictions placed on them by fujifilm. just imagine what they could do if they were given a blank check and told to shoot higher than the moon?

--
Im outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, youre too much
Youre the only one I wanna touch
I see your face every time I dream
On every page, every magazine
So wild and free so far from me
Youre all I want, my fantasy

 

[Bad Pic kev]

thats what i said when i read your post
--
Im outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, youre too much
Youre the only one I wanna touch
I see your face every time I dream
On every page, every magazine
So wild and free so far from me
Youre all I want, my fantasy

 

[Evan Effa]

of the original RAW file.

It's like going to the 1 hour photo and getting your prints done without the negatives being returned to you. Any further reprints will have to be generated from a scan of the "print" & not the original negative.

-evan

--
D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Bad Pic kev]

but i never edit the original file. thus by starting from a copy, have i lost anything?
--
Im outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, youre too much
Youre the only one I wanna touch
I see your face every time I dream
On every page, every magazine
So wild and free so far from me
Youre all I want, my fantasy

 

[R Johns]

Evan,

I appreciate your response and I'd like to begin by saying that It was not you who I was referring to...

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that you were the first person to insult others with your first post.

something like, "obedient and compliant Fuji users", remember?

I suppose you'll do well as a FUJI corporate defender but you're
defensiveness is showing & it isn't terribly flattering.

Not defensive, irritated would be a better description and I've never owned a Fuji DSLR.

Do you seriously think Fuji is doing a good job with their DSLR line?

I think that they are doing a fine job, and I think that they provide a product that your money can't by elswhere...

If you don't agree with me that's fine but I am not interested in
trading personal insults.

Refer back above, to my opening remark...

He that is in you might not be too mpressed with your attitude either...

He that is within me, never stood down in the face of arrogance, either...

-evan

Look, a simple "Gee man, I wish that Fuji would focus more on speeding up the RAW process" would have sufficed. Clearly, your poking and prodding in your initial posts were disrespectfull, if not intentional. One can see that you've been softening your image since then.

I guess I'm saying that this could have been a more productive thread if you had started it that way, to begin with...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

 

[Evan Effa]

I hope you don't mind but I downloaded your colour image & opened it in Photoshop...perhaps unlike me you may have little need to change the levels or curves of an image after the fact but let's just say you wanted the scene to look a little brighter in the example you have posted. A gentle nudge of the curve upwards & this is what you get:



Now, I hope you won't argue that the scene shouldn't have this lift applied because I would agree that it was more moody & more effective before, but the point is still valid that this sort of 8 bit jpeg starts to fall apart if you need to make much adjustment in post. This image shot in RAW would have been much more robust. If you had underexposed an image like this by mistake, your options in jpeg would be inferior to those afforded you with a RAW capture.

Surely you would agree that this is not a specious argument.

-evan

S2 & D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Bad Pic kev]

They convert the raw to a 16 bit file 'choke. Then they process.

16 bit files are truly "deep."

but by being forced to converting the file from raw, there is a chance that some data might be discarded or altered.

even thom hogan says there is data loss with the compression that nikon uses.
--
Im outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, youre too much
Youre the only one I wanna touch
I see your face every time I dream
On every page, every magazine
So wild and free so far from me
Youre all I want, my fantasy

 

[Artichoke]

is that a 8 bit jpg derived from a 14 bit sensor proves superior to a 16 bit RAW file derived from a 12 bit sensor

when I first noted this, I was surprised, but Fujifilm did an extraordinary job with their conversion engine

many others who have actually used the S3 (and I doubt that you have spent any quality time using one) have found this the case as well

I can still elect to shoot RAW when I need it (which is almost never) & am certain the S5 would be a better camera if it could shoot RAW at a faster rate, but this is not all that important given its outstanding jpg output (an assumption on my part ...I anticipate the S5 will have superior output to the S3)

clearly Fujifilm is not marketing its DSLRs to machine gun style photography ...getting outstanding files without having the extra step of RAW conversion is a HUGE advantage for many, though maybe not you or Evan
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[Evan Effa]

Yes, you have lost the RAW capture or the original data / negative. Your OOC jpeg is already a "print" or derived interpretation of the RAW file. You cannot undo the contrast, sharpening or gamma curve applied by the conversion from the camera's jpeg engine.

-evan
--
D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Bad Pic kev]

Yes, you have lost the RAW capture or the original data /
negative. Your OOC jpeg is already a "print" or derived
interpretation of the RAW file. You cannot undo the contrast,
sharpening or gamma curve applied by the conversion from the
camera's jpeg engine.

that is assuming i want to make changes. i think there are at least 2 different debates going on in this thread.

do i make changes to every raw pic i take. yes, i must. do i make changes to every jpeg pic i take? no because i dont have to.

--
Im outa luck, outa love
Gotta photograph, picture of
Passion killer, youre too much
Youre the only one I wanna touch
I see your face every time I dream
On every page, every magazine
So wild and free so far from me
Youre all I want, my fantasy

 

[Evan Effa]

I apologize for reacting to what was seemingly a misinterpretation of your post. I read your note as an insult directed at me.

This may be one of the real limitations of these sorts of forum discussions...not catching nuances or reading the wrong intent. I have vowed not to engage in personal slurs or insults but I crossed the line.

sorry

-evan
--
S2 & D200

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa

 

[Horta]

is that a 8 bit jpg derived from a 14 bit sensor proves superior to
a 16 bit RAW file derived from a 12 bit sensor

I've discovered the opposite.

when I first noted this, I was surprised, but Fujifilm did an
extraordinary job with their conversion engine
many others who have actually used the S3 (and I doubt that you
have spent any quality time using one) have found this the case as
well

Doubt not.

I can still elect to shoot RAW when I need it (which is almost
never) & am certain the S5 would be a better camera if it could
shoot RAW at a faster rate, but this is not all that important
given its outstanding jpg output (an assumption on my part ...I
anticipate the S5 will have superior output to the S3)
clearly Fujifilm is not marketing its DSLRs to machine gun style
photography ...getting outstanding files without having the extra
step of RAW conversion is a HUGE advantage for many...

Then the S5 ought to be the gangbuster that the S3 was...

 

[newe]

As I sit hear after mastering my S2 for the last 5 years I look at my 13x19 Epson R1800 print outs of portraits, landscapes, macro and what not....both in jpeg and RAW...and I say to myself "man they are awesome" and anyone I show them too (really anyone...not just friends) they say "Awesome"; then I ask the so-called wedding pros at shows I attend for fun with my big Itoya portfolios and they say "wow"...I never tell then which one is raw or Jpeg....then I ask them if they shoot raw...and they forget LOL.

So in my world, and 99.9% of most photographers (including pro) there is just NO real world difference between them. Sure, maybe 1 or 2 out of 40 shots needs it...

So what is the relevance? Fuji knows it is irrelevant, and has spent the right about on RAW processing...nothing.

RAW is all psychological babble...it was needed when DSLRs were in their infancy...but processing is at the point where there is no point for RAW. I have enough people around me who I don't even know telling me they can't tell the difference...so what do I care? What does anyone care...nobody can tell the difference...this is at 13x19!!!!

So at the more traditional sizes, 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 there is no difference; they eye cannot see it.

Bravo to Fuji for not getting caught up in pro psycho-babble.

Blah....

 

[newe]

How many times in your life are you going to re-edit the 1000s of pics you take? Or the hard drives of pics you have. Life is way too short for that...take'em fix'em, keep'em. So much more else to do. This digital negative thing is such a falsehood.