Using JPEG files as The Digital Negative

[Cedric Simon]

Hello again Niklas, I am not at home at the moment, and I don't remember the ISO I used for the picture, but it does not really make a big difference.

The thing is simple for me: even when setting Contrast to the minimum in the camera, it still applies a stupid curve that you cannot modify (if this was possible, then I would be really happy), and it decides for you how it will map the 12bits to 8bits.

And I don't know if it is me or what, but it seems I face "high dynamics" situations everyday, meaning that either I underexpose by at least 1 stop, or I get burned skies.

Example:



This is a photo from Quebec, and I don't think it is overexposed... but the cute funny small metal roof was totally burned, and I had in fact to copy the right part, invert it, and paste it to get something, otherwise it was simply totally white, like the sky. If I had shot RAW...

So ok, you are going to tell me, I simply had to compensate and use -2/3EV...

But it is a bit tiring to always always underexpose the whole photo simply to avoid burning a few parts... !

Yes, exactly. Therefore I always shoot with "Neutral Picture" style
and sharpening set to 0. Lowering contrast. Then you get close to RAW
for my type of shooting.

Niklas
http://nikn.com

 

[Niklas]

And I don't know if it is me or what, but it seems I face "high
dynamics" situations everyday, meaning that either I underexpose by
at least 1 stop, or I get burned skies.

I too get burned skies all the time, that cannot be avoided, and I don't like non-burned HDR-look skies. As your example shows, the skies are severly burned and it's a good shot, with good post processing, and very good you just fixed that metal roof! I prefer the skies burned, like you do, in that photo, ho ho.

Niklas
http://nikn.com

 

[Cedric Simon]

I too get burned skies all the time, that cannot be avoided

you can avoid it, by using RAW

I don't like when nearly everything is ok, except for a few places where things are totally burnt. It is a bit frustrating.

and I don't like non-burned HDR-look skies.

so do I: HDR seems to be the "hype", but most of the time people generate totally artificial looking images, I don't like them. But I can appreciate a dramatic cloudy sky with non-totally-black shadows.

Exemple:



But this one was shot with a compact digicam (Fuji F30), and I strongly overexposed (something around -2EV). Everything was totally black. As a result now the image is a bit noisy, and the colors are lost, but I like the result.

The other one I shoot with "correct exposure" that many people here claim to master and eliminate the need for RAW lead to a totally white sky !

skies are severly burned and it's a good shot, with good post
processing, and very good you just fixed that metal roof! I prefer
the skies burned, like you do, in that photo, ho ho.

the photo was "saved", but I had to really retouch the photo by duplicating zones, I don't consider this as good practice...

Anyway, I am converted, for me this is RAW, I'll never ever go back !!

One of the reasons to choose RAW is also that you can be lazy with white balance, (and a bit on exposure, sometimes) and concentrate on shooting, instead of having to shoot a white point, set the manual white balance, and try several EV compensation to get a correct exposure...

That's only my point of view.

 

[Leon Wittwer]

The value of raw over jpg does depend much on what you shoot. If you are shooting scenes where the emphasis is on the midtones, you are not emphasizing highlight or shadow detail/contrast, you have pretty good light and you judge the exposure correctly, then jpg will do rather well. These conditions do include a lot of photographs that people take.

On the other hand, if you take shots with large brightness ranges and you want to get good detail/contrast in the highlights and/or shadows, the raw can do a better job. In addition, raw lets you choose the white balance after the fact.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Leon Wittwer]

The conversion to 8 bits is a significant limitation of jpg as it limits the amount of future adjustment that can be done without getting significant processing artifacts. Of course, if you get the exposure right, a lot of pp should not be necessary. If you do not get it right, then 8 bits per color does limit the amount you can correct.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[DavZell]

Just a technicality, but this is not completely true in CS3. If your convert your image to a smart object, you can apply adjustments and filters (saturation, sharpen, blur, watercolor, etc) and they are captured as either Smart Filters or Adjustment Layers. Each can be turned off or altered individually. You can also re-arrange the order of the filters/adjustments.

D.

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

You can edit JPEGs and RAW in Adobe Lightroom and use the clarity tool.
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/

 

[PeaceFrog]

Your example would have more impact if you had also started from the jpg (if you had shot RAW + jpeg) and don’t your best PP work on the jpg to make it match as closely as possible so we can see how much better the RAW file ended up.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

I shoot both RAW and JPEG. I tend to use the JPEGs when I need something quick. On important events I will often shoot RAW+JPEG. If I need to turn around something quick I can often use the JPEGs.

I personally like the flexibility of RAW, you can do a lot with the image. But I also really like the Canon JPEG output ever since Canon started using the DIGIC II processors. I think Canon delivers a very nice, high quality JPEG that satisfies many requirements.

What I find funny most about threads like this is the B&W lines that get drawn. There is no one right answer that fits for everyone. If JPEGs work for you then keep using them, just make sure you understand the format. I never edit my original JPEGs I will edit only copies.

RAW can be a great way to go, but I must say until Rawshooter came out I have no idea how people would shoot RAW and manage and develop a lot of RAW images. Now for me Lightroom extends on the concept and with the workflow it makes it easy for me to manage large numbers of RAW images.

Before RawShooter and LightRoom I was a 95% JPEG 5% RAW shooter, now I would say it is more like 70% RAW 30% JPEG.

Find the mix that you like and enjoy.
--
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/

 

[RedFox88]

You can open JPG's with ACR4.1 and the Clarity slider works just fine
with JPG.

ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw which opens only RAW and DNG files.
Once a RAW file is converted to JPG, it's JPG. You cannot open a JPG
in ACR. You can open it in photoshop: elements or full version.

Sorry...you are wrong. It can absolutely be done. I used Adobe Bridge
and you can right click on a JPG and open and edit it using the ACR
software.

There is no Bridge with PSE. If you open a JPG in PSE 5 it opens in the normal editor. You open a CR2 file and it opens with ACR. Adobe Camera Raw is not a seperate executable program with PSE.

 

[Cedric Simon]

But if you shoot well initially, there is no need for RAW.

by "shoot well", then you mean underexposing or using complex ND grad filters when outisde, or also using several flashes when inside...

I am pretty sure that for sports events shot at full tele, with "normal" dynamic range, there is no need for RAW. And for studio work, you master the light (in theory) so no real need for RAW.

But look at my very basic-ultra simple-very common examples I posted here... I don't see how I could do without RAW OR severe underexposing...

 

[iMac therefore iAm]

That was one thing I was really looking forward to, but I found it to be extremely limiting and I don't even bother with it.

Just a technicality, but this is not completely true in CS3. If your
convert your image to a smart object, you can apply adjustments and
filters (saturation, sharpen, blur, watercolor, etc) and they are
captured as either Smart Filters or Adjustment Layers. Each can be
turned off or altered individually. You can also re-arrange the
order of the filters/adjustments.

D.

--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.

 

[Julio]

If you liked Digc II JPGs just wait till you see the Digic III output. I went from a 20D to a 40D... 40D jpgs are much better than what I saw come out of the 20D, and lightyears ahead of 10D JPGs.

Even the high ISO NR does a great job of reducing noise while preserving detail very well... no smudged plastic look at all.

--
http://www.pbase.com/j_trujillo

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Your example would have more impact if you had also started from the
jpg (if you had shot RAW + jpeg) and don’t your best PP work on the
jpg to make it match as closely as possible so we can see how much
better the RAW file ended up.

Yes, that's a valid point. However, while I hoped the contribution would be helpful for the question posed, I have no need to prove my impressions.

Nor do I really care which format another chooses to adopt. And there's no guarantee that I won't just change my mind and just go JPG at any time in the future. I'm pleased with my methods/results of the moment - even if delusional.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

 

[Lights]

--That's why I started shooting RAW was my 10d. Figured that I might as well sharpen a RAW file as a jpg. and at the same time have more latitude for adjusting white balance etc. I think because of the data available in RAW files too..there might be a bit less posteriztion when carried to extremes in processing...but I'm still not sure in actual practice. One thing is though that most of the files myself that I work on...most of the work is done 'after' the basic RAW conversion...and when using jpgs the first thing done is convert to 16 bit. and work on them like that...so there's less loss (from what I've read anyhow) I've read some big names (that escape me now) who have used jpgs almost exclusively. One thing about a jpg is the finality of the shutter click too...that if everything is right...that, that's it. It kinda makes a person think about what they're doing more. I can really see both sides of this all.
http://www.pbase.com/madlights

'The bravest person in the world was the first person to milk a cow, and drink what came out' - Steve Martin

 

[PeaceFrog]

Fair enough. I just think it would be educational to see such a comparison from someone at some point.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

 

[Julio]

...and when using jpgs the first thing done is convert to
16 bit. and work on them like that...so there's less loss (from what
I've read anyhow)

Sorry but that doesn't work. I have seen that misconception mentioned here and there over the years. If and 8-bit/channel file is converted to 16-bits/channel the tonal range and colors will not cover the whole range of possible tones and colors. It's a simple mathematical conversion so there will be gaps. (eg. the difference between 8-bit JPGs and 14-bit RAWS is 256 vs. 16,384 or 64X. A value of say 5 upsampled to 14 bits will be 5 X 64=320 and a value of 6 will be 384 - there will not be anything between 321 and 383.) Theoretically, some transformations in Photoshop while working in 16-bits will "fill-in the gaps" by creating new tones. That is what has caused some people to propose such upsampling. But just as theoretical is the possibility that you will instead emphasize those gaps resulting in posterization. I have never seen an example of a JPG that benefited from upsampling to 16-bits.

I've read some big names (that escape me now) who
have used jpgs almost exclusively. One thing about a jpg is the
finality of the shutter click too...that if everything is
right...that, that's it. It kinda makes a person think about what
they're doing more. I can really see both sides of this all.

Yes. You do have to take more care when shooting JPG and this is what has caused some grumpy JPG shooters to denigrade RAW shooters as being careless and sloppy. In actual fact the opposite is true. I shoot RAW because like Ansel Adams, I want maximum control of every step of the process... same reason I profile my monitor and printer.

--
http://www.pbase.com/j_trujillo

 

[Bobo Hodls]

If I can make some time, I'll give it a go. No promises.

Though, abundant documentation is available that can clearly convey the benefits of shooting RAW (that Bruce Frasier book, for one). Whether one requires or desires what RAW can provide over JPGs is a different matter entirely.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Yes. You do have to take more care when shooting JPG and this is what
has caused some grumpy JPG shooters to denigrade RAW shooters as
being careless and sloppy. In actual fact the opposite is true. I
shoot RAW because like Ansel Adams, I want maximum control of every
step of the process... same reason I profile my monitor and printer.

I couldn't agree more. Not that I fit into that class of photographer, but I desire to through eliminating limitations. Akin to obtaining the best gear & developing software possible, to insure the only limitations that need mastering are my own.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing.

 

[aayjay]

There is no Bridge with PSE. If you open a JPG in PSE 5 it opens in
the normal editor. You open a CR2 file and it opens with ACR. Adobe
Camera Raw is not a seperate executable program with PSE.

Actually you can also open a JPG using ACR directly in Photoshop CS3 by choosing "File-Open As"

Choose the JPG file and change the "Open As" option to Camera Raw. This will bring up ACR.

I'm not sure if Elements will allow you to do the same thing, but you might want to try it. You do not need Bridge.

Alan