To PP or not to PP ...

[Ferenc MOGOR]

...an out-of-camera JPG image?

Hi Folks,

I'd like to introduce this question to the Retouching Forum that I've been thinking of many times, and now here's my conclusion so far:

An out-of-camera JPG image is to be regarded as being finished, it’s final, the user utilized all the camera’s image processing and compressing facilities to it’s best, no further editing is required and all is left is to enjoy the picture (on-screen or in print or by sending on the Web).

But when a JPG image is further manipulated in any editing program seemingly in front of our eyes the quality is being improved, but the truth is that further data is being lost each time an edit is made, even if we don’t do anything else but just rotate the image.

We never take home the fresh bread from the bakery and heat up the oven to bake it a little more, or do we? ;-)

And now, the big question! What does our camera actually do once we hit the shutter release when JPG format is selected and we wait for the red LED to go off? It’s Top Secret!!! Nobody knows exactly, coz it’s a well-kept secret of the manufacturer!

When, for example, we set the contrast between + - 5 values do we know what we have set? When we set sharpness to hard or normal or soft, do we know what we have applied?

No.

And do we have a picture in front of us to monitor, preview or cancel any or all of the settings we don’t like?

No.

We have to take the picture (sometimes in worst case the picture of a life time) to find out what the in-camera processor has done! In other words, we just make a blind guess on what will work fine on our JPG images.

P.S. I’m sure I’m gonna receive a lot of feedback/comments on these above statements from many of you, so please don’t spare me, give it a go!! LOL

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Peano]

here's my conclusion so far:

An out-of-camera JPG image is to be regarded as being finished,
it’s final,

I'd like to see the premises that led you to your conclusion.
--
~ Peano

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

I'd like to see the premises that led you to your conclusion.
--
~ Peano

The premisies are not so important at the moment, let's say: my own common sense!

But also curious to hear your side of the story! )

Care to share your thoughts? Please!

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[MichelB]

Ferenc,

Welcome here in the retouching forum... We have to suppose you are really looking for an answer from people who have already chosen, otherwise they would be in other forums!
I've known several ages in PP.

I began with a twin lens reflex (1958). Black and white. Darkroom, dodging and burning, trying lots of film types, developers...
Then I had my transparencies era. No PP... click... and then nothing more.

Followed the period of positive colors by standard laboratories, very few enlargements.

Then came digital age (1999). Back to PP at last. Enlargements, lots of things to learn.

Is there a difference between out of camera jpeg and transparencies? Think of your camera LCD. Histograms. I do rember a pro photog who used hasselblads with polaroid backs just to ensure the slideshow he was shooting with his Nikon F were correctly lit and exposed.

And you know what? Now that I can postprocess, I understand better how to take good out of camera jpeg. Want to play with us?

--
Michel B

 

[Peano]

I'd like to see the premises that led you to your conclusion.
--
~ Peano

The premisies are not so important at the moment, let's say: my own
common sense!

Mutt: "When a jpeg comes out of the camera, that's it. It's final. No editing."

Jeff: "Why do you say that?"

Mutt: "Oh, my reasons aren't important. It's just common sense."

Jeff loses interest and walks away.

So does Peano.
--
~ Peano

 

[elight]

When, for example, we set the contrast between + - 5 values do we know what we have set? When we set sharpness to hard or normal or soft, do we know what we have applied?

We don't know exactly what the camera does, but with trial and error, we have some general idea and can predict what settings will do and what settings we like. Isn't that what all the camera reviews on this site are all about?

 

[alfredky]

you are correct, we don't know what is behind the inside of the camera and it's not so scientific custom adjustments, however the result is immediate and one can learn without cost what this settings do. If you look back at film, we had no control over the emulsions or the way a lab would process the film, it's not any different then today! The whole point is, who cares, lets take some pictures!
--
Alfred

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

Mutt: "When a jpeg comes out of the camera, that's it. It's final.
No editing."

Jeff: "Why do you say that?"

Mutt: "Oh, my reasons aren't important. It's just common sense."

Jeff loses interest and walks away.

So does Peano.

I think I gave you more reasons in my first post than Mutt gave you!

Though you are now just about to walk away, but I'm sure you're gonna look back here a couple of more time to see how the thread is developing, ...so please always feel welcomed to share any of your thoughts and ideas on the caption subject!

Thanks for your input!

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[cspringer]

so why would you consider that a final product?

...an out-of-camera JPG image?

Hi Folks,

I'd like to introduce this question to the Retouching Forum that
I've been thinking of many times, and now here's my conclusion so
far:

An out-of-camera JPG image is to be regarded as being finished,
it’s final, the user utilized all the camera’s image processing and
compressing facilities to it’s best, no further editing is required
and all is left is to enjoy the picture (on-screen or in print or
by sending on the Web).

But when a JPG image is further manipulated in any editing program
seemingly in front of our eyes the quality is being improved, but
the truth is that further data is being lost each time an edit is
made, even if we don’t do anything else but just rotate the image.

We never take home the fresh bread from the bakery and heat up the
oven to bake it a little more, or do we? ;-)

And now, the big question! What does our camera actually do once we
hit the shutter release when JPG format is selected and we wait for
the red LED to go off? It’s Top Secret!!! Nobody knows exactly, coz
it’s a well-kept secret of the manufacturer!

When, for example, we set the contrast between + - 5 values do we
know what we have set? When we set sharpness to hard or normal or
soft, do we know what we have applied?

No.

And do we have a picture in front of us to monitor, preview or
cancel any or all of the settings we don’t like?

No.

We have to take the picture (sometimes in worst case the picture of
a life time) to find out what the in-camera processor has done! In
other words, we just make a blind guess on what will work fine on
our JPG images.

P.S. I’m sure I’m gonna receive a lot of feedback/comments on these
above statements from many of you, so please don’t spare me, give
it a go!! LOL

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music.
Ansel Adams.'

 

[Gale Bizet]

--
Best Regards
Gale

http://www.pbase.com/techwish

http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html
Actions
http://www.atncentral.com

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

Ferenc,

Welcome here in the retouching forum... We have to suppose you are
really looking for an answer from people who have already chosen,
otherwise they would be in other forums!
I've known several ages in PP.
I began with a twin lens reflex (1958). Black and white. Darkroom,
dodging and burning, trying lots of film types, developers...
Then I had my transparencies era. No PP... click... and then
nothing more.
Followed the period of positive colors by standard laboratories,
very few enlargements.
Then came digital age (1999). Back to PP at last. Enlargements,
lots of things to learn.
Is there a difference between out of camera jpeg and
transparencies? Think of your camera LCD. Histograms. I do rember a
pro photog who used hasselblads with polaroid backs just to ensure
the slideshow he was shooting with his Nikon F were correctly lit
and exposed.
And you know what? Now that I can postprocess, I understand better
how to take good out of camera jpeg. Want to play with us?

--
Michel B

A very interesting story and a good reading, thanks for that!

But hey, in the good old film days it wouldn't have made any sense to copmpress a picture in it's file size coz it was not a digital thing. That just makes no sense in this way, eh?

But in this digital world our cameras do the processing inside similar to what the lab was doing with our negatives followed by enlargement, but were there any artifacts introduced?

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

When, for example, we set the contrast between + - 5 values do we know what we have set? When we set sharpness to hard or normal or soft, do we know what we have applied?

We don't know exactly what the camera does, but with trial and
error, we have some general idea and can predict what settings will
do and what settings we like.

When you are concerned about image quality you should not settle with such a simple approach, IMHO. But that's just me.

Isn't that what all the camera
reviews on this site are all about?

I dunno what you are referring to.

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

you are correct, we don't know what is behind the inside of the
camera and it's not so scientific custom adjustments, however the
result is immediate and one can learn without cost what this
settings do. If you look back at film, we had no control over the
emulsions or the way a lab would process the film, it's not any
different then today! The whole point is, who cares, lets take some
pictures!
--
Alfred

Hi Alfred,

While you share a part of what I have said but you don't reflect to the case of post-processing a picture that has already been processed by the camera's built-in algorithms and finally compressed into a jpg file.

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Kent C]

Peano

I'd like to see the premises that led you to your conclusion.

Here's the premise:

http://www.pbase.com/kentc/image/54361594

... and you bought into it. I'll just watch.
--
Kent

http://www.pbase.com/kentc
For prior discussions on most questions:
http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html
or d/l 'archives' at:
http://www.atncentral.com

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

Rarely what you photograph is what you see so why would you consider > that a final product?

Hi cspringer,

Good question, but I'd say that this is not a WYSIWYG type of question, but a technical question to all those who rely on their camera's ablilities without knowing exactly what the on-board processor is doing to their photos before making the final lossy compression into a jpg file.

And that's not all, but the whole topic I meant to those who do post-editing on an already processed and compressed image.

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Goofup]

But when a JPG image is further manipulated in any editing program
seemingly in front of our eyes the quality is being improved, but
the truth is that further data is being lost each time an edit is
made, even if we don’t do anything else but just rotate the image.

I've always snicker whenever I see the ole "data is being lost" line. Oooooo... we're gonna lose data!!!

Duh. Isn't that the whole idea of post processing- get rid of the bad data and replace it with good data??

 

[elight]

When we set sharpness to hard or normal or soft, do we know what we have applied?

If you knew, would you do something different?

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

I've always snicker whenever I see the ole "data is being lost"
line. Oooooo... we're gonna lose data!!!
Duh. Isn't that the whole idea of post processing- get rid of the
bad data and replace it with good data??

Hi Goofup,

Well, ...I think you are a bit lost here. If I follow your idea then we could simply make a 2 megapixel image into 10 megapixels by simply enlarging the file resolution in our editor, couldn't we?

Just go figure!

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Ferenc MOGOR]

When we set sharpness to hard or normal or soft, do we know what we have applied?

If you knew, would you do something different?

Care to elaborate your point in a bit more detailed way? ;-)

--
Cheers, Feri

'I can look at a fine photograph and sometimes I can hear music. Ansel Adams.'

 

[Goofup]

I said "replace", not "add additional".