Use JPEG and forget RAW?!

[Adam-T]

Congratulations on being ignorant as to why there`s an issue .. you see thesedays , JPG engines even at low ISOs are loaded with unnecessary noise reduction which kills all the fine detail

Adam, you're normally a reasonable chap, lets try and keep it that way.

It was a response to match an aggressive response

You may not be happy with some jpeg rendering but I have to say that the jpegs from both the E-M1 and the GM1 are very decent in my experience.

the Oly ones are loaded with NR - not as bad as Fuji of course but kill a large chunk of the difference in fine detail rendering between lenses and far from make the most of DR

You obviously need to consider the audience, display type and viewing distance, jpegs are fine for the vast majority of uses for many people.

so are iPhone and megazoom bridgecams . when you're spending as much money as even an EM10 costs, it`s a shame not to make the most of it

It's only when you pixel peep that you'll often notice a difference.

and with only 16Mp , you need to, you can`t throw pixels away with wanton abandon like you can with 24Mp or 36Mp , the cameras and lenses have the ability to create large prints with cropping but you need RAW to do that - certainly with Olympus (Panasonic JPGs are less smeary) -

Sony (who were the King of Smear up til not so long ago ) have listened and the A6000 releases amazing fine detail from its JPG engine once the NR is set to lowest, in fact if you lower the sharpness (to stop haloing) and sharpen yourself, the only real need to shoot RAW is to tune W/B and DR after the fact . you can get the Nth degree more detail from RAW in Capture one but the diff is nothing like Oly JPGs to RAW

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[papillon_65]

Congratulations on being ignorant as to why there`s an issue .. you see thesedays , JPG engines even at low ISOs are loaded with unnecessary noise reduction which kills all the fine detail

Adam, you're normally a reasonable chap, lets try and keep it that way.

It was a response to match an aggressive response

You may not be happy with some jpeg rendering but I have to say that the jpegs from both the E-M1 and the GM1 are very decent in my experience.

the Oly ones are loaded with NR - not as bad as Fuji of course but kill a large chunk of the difference in fine detail rendering between lenses and far from make the most of DR

Detail that you're not going to notice in many situations or isn't actually that important, if at all, to the viewer, depending on subject of course. Wedding and event photographers often shoot jpegs and Olympus is no different in this respect, Don does it himself and gets excellent results, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

You obviously need to consider the audience, display type and viewing distance, jpegs are fine for the vast majority of uses for many people.

so are iPhone and megazoom bridgecams . when you're spending as much money as even an EM10 costs, it`s a shame not to make the most of it

I'm sure plenty would argue that using the Olympus jpeg engine that's exactly what they're doing, and saving time, which to some people equals money. Of course Iphones and bridge cameras aren't exactly well suited to professional applications either, though they can produce excellent results in the right hands.

It's only when you pixel peep that you'll often notice a difference.

and with only 16Mp , you need to, you can`t throw pixels away with wanton abandon like you can with 24Mp or 36Mp , the cameras and lenses have the ability to create large prints with cropping but you need RAW to do that - certainly with Olympus (Panasonic JPGs are less smeary) -

You don't need raw to produce large prints from these cameras - that's just not true.

Sony (who were the King of Smear up til not so long ago ) have listened and the A6000 releases amazing fine detail from its JPG engine once the NR is set to lowest, in fact if you lower the sharpness (to stop haloing) and sharpen yourself, the only real need to shoot RAW is to tune W/B and DR after the fact . you can get the Nth degree more detail from RAW in Capture one but the diff is nothing like Oly JPGs to RAW

I can quite easily shoot jpegs and print to very large sizes and get great results from both of my m4/3's cameras, I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in this respect.

One of the other advantages of shooting jpegs is speed of operation, you're much less likely to hit the buffer and you'll better frame rates on most cameras, to some people that may be critical.

 

[Colin K. Work]

So you are person who believes that uneducated majority dictates how technology works, while educated minority is the ones being wrong?

Do you know what cameras does to produce the JPEG file? Do you know what the JPEG really is? Do you know how the computers (any computer, even the digital cameras) gets the image presented us on screens? Do you know how printers operates the JPEG to get it printed on material?
Do you know how a WWW-browser manipulates the JPEG so you look at it on computer? Do you know how your computer network stack can manipulate the JPEG to transfer the bits? Do you know how the patented JPEG algorithms can be used to generate the file/data and how those can be altered?

I don't think so that majority even knows those very basic things I mentioned.

And yet they want to be the ones that claim knowing how the stuff works and be the people who can "label" technical things by trying to mystify everything under the "JPEG engine" because they can't gasp what the technology really is used for and made for.

"engine" is a perfectly acceptable word for anything which produces something through a process - be it hardware or software. Indeed, Babbage referred to his computer as a "difference engine".

And of course today we have "search engines" ...

"JPEG engine" seems to me a very useful way of referring to the suite of algorithms and standards which are involved in the process. Whether or not someone understands what goes on is irrelevant. Language is a matter of concensus, and the majority will understand what is meant by "JPEG engine".

They will generally not know what is meant by "codec for digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still images"

We live in a very complex world - it would be nice if we had the time to fully understand all the technology we use and rely on. How many of us really understand how electronic banking actually works?

In order to survive we need all-encompassing concepts (like 'banking') to allow us to function without having to understand all the details.

 

[Adam-T]

I'm sure plenty would argue that using the Olympus jpeg engine that's exactly what they're doing, and saving time, which to some people equals money. Of course Iphones and bridge cameras aren't exactly well suited to professional applications either, though they can produce excellent results in the right hands.

I only shoot JPGs for work in areas which are either less critical such as Press stuff or for products where the environment is controlled

You don't need raw to produce large prints from these cameras - that's just not true.

you don`t need these cameras to produce large prints either (I`m sure an iPhone 6 can doa 20X16) - it depends on what you`re expecting

Mr Parrot (very cockily) assumed that I didn`t know how to use a JPG engine. I`ve been tweaking them for over 1.5 Decades and squeezing the most from them, they`re great for product and press work .

- my point was (and it stands) they you`re not going to make anywhere near the most of either the AA-less sensor or top glass like the 12-40 /40-150 Pro or the primes using Oly`s JPG engine . if you or he don`t care then fine, he`s got an FZ1000 anyway which as a JPG shooter is probably as good as any M43 rig he`s had .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[SpinOne]

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

Is my name Wrotniak? Is he the one pushing the shutter on my camera?

Again: Why do I want to spend my time during the shoot adjusting settings, when I can do it after the shoot and with more control?

And why do I want an output that offers less control, less precise tools, and erases data that the camera's algorithms decides it doesn't need?

In some instances, it does make sense to spend a few minutes getting the WB down, tweaking a few settings, and firing away in JPEG. If I'm shooting high volumes in relatively stable conditions (e.g. sports, a fashion show) and/or need to deliver the images very quickly (e.g. journalism), then JPEG is a great tool.

Or, if you just don't like post, or aren't good at post, then JPEG is the wiser choice.

In others, it makes less sense. M4/3 cameras have less DR, which means you have a little less room for error with exposure, and interpretation is a bit more critical. If lighting conditions are changing, if I have the time to work in post, if it's a high dynamic range image, if I plan to convert to B&W, if time is not of the essence, then RAW makes more sense. Some settings can't be controlled well in JPEG -- e.g. Olympus is notorious for slathering NR on its JPEGs, even when you think NR is turned off.

And of course, shooting RAW does not preclude using automated options -- whether it be a Lightroom preset that uses Olympus colors, or using the Oly software to generate an image with all those Oly JPEG options while still offering lots of control in post.

This has nothing to do with "knowing how to optimize a JPEG engine." It's a question of what tool you choose to use for a given job.

 

[DonParrot]

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

Congratulations on being ignorant as to why there`s an issue .. you see thesedays (and especially with Olympus even with the Noise filter as low as possible) , JPG engines even at low ISOs are loaded with unnecessary HIDDEN noise reduction which kills all the fine detail and makes the images look plasticky anything much bigger than web size

"There is also an option to save both raw and JPEG files from each frame taken. The Olympus JPEG engine is so good,

I`m glad you`re satisfied with what it spits out - I for one want to get the best from this expensive kit rather than merely with the NR loaded compromised JPGs . the difference is like getting film processed in a proper hi end lab (or developing them yourself) as opposed to what a machine spits out in boots - whatever you`re happy with I guess .

 

[DonParrot]

I'm sure plenty would argue that using the Olympus jpeg engine that's exactly what they're doing, and saving time, which to some people equals money. Of course Iphones and bridge cameras aren't exactly well suited to professional applications either, though they can produce excellent results in the right hands.

I only shoot JPGs for work in areas which are either less critical such as Press stuff or for products where the environment is controlled

You don't need raw to produce large prints from these cameras - that's just not true.

you don`t need these cameras to produce large prints either (I`m sure an iPhone 6 can doa 20X16) - it depends on what you`re expecting

Mr Parrot (very cockily) assumed that I didn`t know how to use a JPG engine. I`ve been tweaking them for over 1.5 Decades and squeezing the most from them, they`re great for product and press work .

- my point was (and it stands) they you`re not going to make anywhere near the most of either the AA-less sensor or top glass like the 12-40 /40-150 Pro or the primes using Oly`s JPG engine . if you or he don`t care then fine, he`s got an FZ1000 anyway which as a JPG shooter is probably as good as any M43 rig he`s had .

Who claims that the Oly JPEGs aren't better than what you can achieve with an iPhone mustn't wonder if he is called incompetent. The truth is the truth and this won't be changed by arrogant patrionising.

I don't know if you can access this site without having registered but this bloke is shooting 99 percent JPEG with Oly cameras, sells his pics to numerous big publications and has won numerous contests.

EyeView's pics


So just leave me alone with your unjustified nonsense.

 

[papillon_65]

I'm sure plenty would argue that using the Olympus jpeg engine that's exactly what they're doing, and saving time, which to some people equals money. Of course Iphones and bridge cameras aren't exactly well suited to professional applications either, though they can produce excellent results in the right hands.

I only shoot JPGs for work in areas which are either less critical such as Press stuff or for products where the environment is controlled

You don't need raw to produce large prints from these cameras - that's just not true.

you don`t need these cameras to produce large prints either (I`m sure an iPhone 6 can doa 20X16) - it depends on what you`re expecting

Comparing an Iphone or a smartphone to a highly capable interchangeable lens camera really doesn't cut it as a valid argument as to why you shouldn't shoot jpegs.

Mr Parrot (very cockily) assumed that I didn`t know how to use a JPG engine. I`ve been tweaking them for over 1.5 Decades and squeezing the most from them, they`re great for product and press work .

Well there you go, jpegs are useful, by your own admission.

- my point was (and it stands) they you`re not going to make anywhere near the most of either the AA-less sensor or top glass like the 12-40 /40-150 Pro or the primes using Oly`s JPG engine . if you or he don`t care then fine, he`s got an FZ1000 anyway which as a JPG shooter is probably as good as any M43 rig he`s had .

A pro grade lens is going to improve jpegs just as much as they do a raw file and I can't say I've ever seen a married couple complain about their photo's because the photographer didn't shoot in raw. I shoot events, no-one has ever questioned which format I've used - ever. All people ever care about is the end result, regardless of how you got it or whether you shot jpeg or raw.

 

[Adam-T]

Who claims that the Oly JPEGs aren't better than what you can achieve with an iPhone mustn't wonder if he is called incompetent. The truth is the truth and this won't be changed by arrogant patrionising.

I`d suggest stop doing it then ! , you obviously haven`t been keeping up on what an iPhone-6 is capable of , it shames many compacts .

 

[Adam-T]

Well there you go, jpegs are useful, by your own admission.

I didn't say they weren`t and never did - all I said was that they far from make the most of the super high quality glass and the EM1's sensor

 

[DonParrot]

Congratulations on this proof of the fact that you just don't know how to optimise a JPEG engine and squeeze the most out of it. Oly icon Wrotniak has been shooting JPEG only for many years...

Is my name Wrotniak? Is he the one pushing the shutter on my camera?

Again: Why do I want to spend my time during the shoot adjusting settings, when I can do it after the shoot and with more control?

You are free to so if you like to do so. But stop claiming that this automativcally results in better pictures.

And why do I want an output that offers less control, less precise tools, and erases data that the camera's algorithms decides it doesn't need?

I don't know why you would want that. I want it as I love to get anything right on site. I enjoy the shooting while I don't enjoy sitting in front of my computer monitor and shift the controls to get out of my pictures what I believe to be the maximum. And even more so as none of the onlookers will realise the difference - if there is one, that is - if they don't see both pics side by side. If it satisfies you fine. I really hope you have as much fun as possible. But don't tell those who take another point of view that they are second-class photographers. That's unfriendly and arrogant. And of course, it isn't true.

In some instances, it does make sense to spend a few minutes getting the WB down, tweaking a few settings, and firing away in JPEG. If I'm shooting high volumes in relatively stable conditions (e.g. sports, a fashion show) and/or need to deliver the images very quickly (e.g. journalism), then JPEG is a great tool.

Or, if you just don't like post, or aren't good at post, then JPEG is the wiser choice.

Correct.

In others, it makes less sense. M4/3 cameras have less DR, which means you have a little less room for error with exposure, and interpretation is a bit more critical. If lighting conditions are changing, if I have the time to work in post, if it's a high dynamic range image, if I plan to convert to B&W, if time is not of the essence, then RAW makes more sense. Some settings can't be controlled well in JPEG -- e.g. Olympus is notorious for slathering NR on its JPEGs, even when you think NR is turned off.

Well, I'm absolutely happy with the details of my Oly JPEGS and with the headroom the LSF JPEGs offer. And in absolutely critical lighting conditions I also shoot Raw. I'm no idiot, you know.
And when it comes to the DR of the Oly cameras: In 2012, the EM5's DR came close to the one of the FF cams and everybody was thrilled. And now, three years later, the DR of the µFT cameras is critical. Well, I know that the technology progresses consistently but this is plain ridiculous.

And of course, shooting RAW does not preclude using automated options -- whether it be a Lightroom preset that uses Olympus colors...

There isn't a Lightroom preset producing the oly colours. Period

 

[papillon_65]

Well there you go, jpegs are useful, by your own admission.

I didn't say they weren`t and never did - all I said was that they far from make the most of the super high quality glass and the EM1's sensor

 

[DonParrot]

Who claims that the Oly JPEGs aren't better than what you can achieve with an iPhone mustn't wonder if he is called incompetent. The truth is the truth and this won't be changed by arrogant patrionising.

I`d suggest stop doing it then ! , you obviously haven`t been keeping up on what an iPhone-6 is capable of , it shames many compacts .

I wasn't aware that µFT now belongs to the compact-camera segment. I sincerely apologise for my ignorance.

 

[SpinOne]

Again: Why do I want to spend my time during the shoot adjusting settings, when I can do it after the shoot and with more control?

You are free to so if you like to do so. But stop claiming that this automativcally results in better pictures.

I never made any such claims, not even close. Again, my primary point is that RAW means more control. As you would know, if you actually bothered to read my post(s).

And why do I want an output that offers less control, less precise tools, and erases data that the camera's algorithms decides it doesn't need?

I don't know why you would want that.

And yet, that's exactly what you're recommending.

There is no question that JPEGs, even excellently produced ones, offer less control. The JPEG settings also offer far less control, and less granular controls, than any major RAW developer. Does my E-M1 offer sharpening controls that include precise control over Detail and Radius? How much control does the camera offer over NR? If I shoot a B&W JPEG, can I adjust exactly how much I want to make the image look like I used an Orange or Red filter? Can I reduce the sharpening?

Are your camera's EVF and LCD calibrated? Do you genuinely believe they are hyper-accurate? When you create a JPEG, is it somehow magically calibrated for both screen and print output?

Do you really deny that the JPEG dumps data that it doesn't use? Do you have some magic trick to recover highlight and shadow detail that isn't present in the JPEG?

I want it as I love to get anything right on site. I enjoy the shooting while I don't enjoy sitting in front of my computer monitor and shift the controls to get out of my pictures what I believe to be the maximum.

As I said before: Use whatever tools work for you. If you prefer pushing buttons on your camera than clicking a mouse -- hey, it's your image.

Heck, there are some incredible photographs taken with cameras that offer little or no control -- pinholes, Polaroids, Instagram, Holgas and the like.

That said, I can definitely say that for how I work and what I do, I will get the best images by shooting in RAW; doing B&W conversions manually; adjusting it on a properly calibrated monitor; tweaking the output manually for prints; adjusting exposure, contrast, sharpening and more in specific sections of the image. That is not the case for everyone, but it is *cough* arrogant for you to insist that it is not the case for me, when you basically ignore my (albeit brief) descriptions of how I work and what I do.

Shooting RAW always gives me the option to downshift to a more automated development process, with very little extra time or effort. E.g. I can apply a whole series of operations when importing to LR. If I don't need the extra control, or don't want to invest the time? No problem.

Furthermore: Plenty of people take all sorts of steps to ensure maximum image quality. This may mean getting a higher-quality body; selecting the best lenses they can afford; using a tripod; using high-quality studio strobes and light modifiers; using different software to adjust images, and so forth. It is up to each individual to decide how much or how little time they want to invest in adjusting their images.

And even more so as none of the onlookers will realise the difference....

By that standard, we should all use compact cameras. Or iPhones.

And when it comes to the DR of the Oly cameras: In 2012, the EM5's DR came close to the one of the FF cams and everybody was thrilled. And now, three years later, the DR of the µFT cameras is critical. Well, I know that the technology progresses consistently but this is plain ridiculous.

What, exactly, strikes you as ridiculous?

M4/3 is now a very capable system. It offers a wide range of body types, and a decent selection of lenses. That doesn't change the fact that many scenes push or exceed its dynamic range. I'm not saying "the DR is unacceptable" or "every single photo everyone takes pushes the limits of M4/3's DR, only that you often need to invest a little extra effort to ensure the best image. Why that offends your sensibilities is unclear.

And of course, shooting RAW does not preclude using automated options -- whether it be a Lightroom preset that uses Olympus colors...

There isn't a Lightroom preset producing the oly colours. Period

In case you missed it, LR does now have Olympus camera profiles. The not 100% perfect, but they're very close. And of course, you can roll your own.

And as I noted: You could always use Olympus Master.

 

[Fri13]

Actually there are printer softwares that does far better work than Adobe Photoshop when it comes to scaling images.

Adobe Photoshop as well sucked in PS7 version about downscaling, you needed to try different downscaling methods and in different manners (increments or at once) based your photo as the quality could have been worse if doing wrong, and then feed that file to printer (even with correct DPI value) and you get worse image quality than wanted.

But don't have anymore accurate information how scaling works in modern versions of Adobe products as I don't really use those but just special programs that gives more flexibility and control for scaling and printing.

 

[Wallybipster]

Ok, I'll bite on a very troll-ish post that makes a lot of assumptions.

First of all, when I'm out on a hike I take as many mental snapshots as I do with my camera. While no one has a perfect memory, this idea that re-creating from memory is inherently bad is asinine.

Sorry, but my brain has more DR than any JPG machine. And the only way I can get close to what I perceive visually in less-than ideal light to sit down and play with the scene. In reality can I ever recreate what I saw, jpg or raw? No way, never, it's impossible. Perspectives, limitiations of both the camera and the eyes and mind make that an impossibility.

Second, I generally know darn well when my processing is blatantly going past what reality is. I usually have a creative vision for this specifically on a shot-by-shot basis. Raw gives me more creative control to do so, and since photography is an art and not just an attempt to xerox the world somehow, what is wrong with that?

What is this idea that Jpeg shooting is somehow more pure? Your camera is just as likely to make bad decisions on the jpg side as you are on the rest of the process. So is it somehow better to trust the machine rather than being in control of the whole workflow process? I always get annoyed when I hear people brag about how a shot wasn't touched up in post, but sure, they used the sunset mode or some other setting on the cameras jpg engine. What's the difference really? Why is my vision for the shot somehow worse than what the guts of the camera decide is the proper processing?

Is it good to expose right in the first place so you don't have to go nuts in RAW? Absolutely. But does being a Jpg shooter make one a better photographer somehow? It may force you into learning how to do better at some elements of photography, but then you miss out on other aspects of developing your pictures. I don't see a right or wrong way between the two, they are just different philosophies that can be more or less useful in different situations.

 

[Big D in SP]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

Having said that, I shoot raw because I'm just not that meticulous or that good!

 

[KTClown]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

I shoot in both JPEG & RAW sometimes, then I can chose how I want to adjust my photos/edit.

So an option to think about.

 

[Paul Auclair]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

what is a JPEG?

your confidence is amazing so obviously you are correct in your evalutaion of all camera users...so yes INDEED..it's high time all camera manufacturers remove all RAW capture options from their cameras.

what a blessing...i can't wait.

I hope Olympus issues a Firmware update to remove RAW capture from it's current and existing models.

 

[ALinGolden]

Simple and well said Dan. This guy doesn't have a clue, but he's happy with jpg results. Doesn't get better than that!

Al