Does JPG count as PP?

schmik · 06-23-2009, 07:00 PM

I've been thinking about RAW + PP vs in-camera JPG with custom settings.

Sometimes i see a shot posted online with the the term "straight from camera no PP". In a lot of these cases the JPG has +contrast +saturation applied in camera. This compared to a RAW file has a lot more pop!

Is it really no PP if the camera has applied processing to the JPG? I know that this is just a matter of semantics but I consider it strange. If someone is posting the image as an example of the cameras JPG ability then fine. But often i get the impression that people are using the in-camera processing to brag about a particular lens.

Anyway... it's not really all that important just wondered what others thought. BTW, i think this was inspired by all the measurbating about the k7 beta camera.

mike

Lowell Goudge · 06-23-2009, 07:07 PM

I think if the settings are set to give a photo the right "pop" with the in camera jpeg settings that is all fair. It is the same as getting exposure right, selecting the film for the lighting (including white balance) etc.

I always maintained that if you think about your JPEG settings there is no need to shoot raw because you get it right in camera.

By this I mean, look at the lighting, if it is dull/flat increase contrast, if it is contrasty and bright, decrease contrast. Set your WB to ghe correct conditions, etc.

alohadave · 06-23-2009, 07:29 PM

"straight from camera no PP" is a way for the person to tell you how much better a photographer they are than you are.

schmik · 06-23-2009, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by alohadave

"straight from camera no PP" is a way for the person to tell you how much better a photographer they are than you are.

I was thinking that too.... i just didn't say it.

I really enjoy PP.... ever since i got some DA LTDs i have had to do a whole lot less of it though. Translation : "those lenses make me a GREAT photographer!" hahaha

mike

*Andi Lo* · 06-23-2009, 08:43 PM

I personally think JPEG settings is PP, but not PP to the extent that you can say that it "went through photoshop" if someone asked.

In my humble opinion, PP is just part of life for digital photography. No need to be ashamed that you're doing it. PP is not just to correct mistakes, in fact I don't think that should be its main purpose. The purpose is to show the photo the way you want it. I never show anyone unPPed images these days, as I think there just isn't enough care put to it yet if you haven't PPed it in some form. In film I can select film to get the look I want, then why can't I do PP in digital to do the same? And if you argue that you can select JPEG setting to get the look you want, I will ask is do you put yellow filters to put contrast in your B&W images instead of PP?

marcdsgn · 06-23-2009, 09:00 PM

Regardless of the era - digital or film - post-processing skills are as important as in-camera skills.

Post-processing is the new term for "adjusting what the camera caught and making it look better". It's what darkrooms were for in the film era, and the best photographers were working in those rooms for as much time as they were working behind the camera.

From what I can tell, automatic in-camera adjustment compensates for the sensor's inability to capture an image as well as balanced film-stock could.

stevebrot · 06-23-2009, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Andi Lo

I personally think JPEG settings is PP, but not PP to the extent that you can say that it "went through photoshop" if someone asked.

In my humble opinion, PP is just part of life for digital photography. No need to be ashamed that you're doing it. PP is not just to correct mistakes, in fact I don't think that should be its main purpose. The purpose is to show the photo the way you want it. I never show anyone unPPed images these days, as I think there just isn't enough care put to it yet if you haven't PPed it in some form. In film I can select film to get the look I want, then why can't I do PP in digital to do the same? And if you argue that you can select JPEG setting to get the look you want, I will ask is do you put yellow filters to put contrast in your B&W images instead of PP?

What he said...

...except for the bit about yellow filters.

While it is possible to dial in a certain amount of filter affect in PP, I have found that I get better results shooting RAW with colored filters with white balance set to daylight. I then do the BW conversion in Lightroom.

Steve

SpecialK · 06-23-2009, 10:29 PM

There is no such thing as an "unprocessed" image.

*Andi Lo* · 06-23-2009, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by stevebrot

What he said...

...except for the bit about yellow filters.

I must be honest that I've actually never tried B&W-ing digital with filters myself. Just anecdotes from reading that "filters other than polarizer and UV can be replicated digitally". I brought that point up since I find RAW files way better than JPEG for B&W processing leeway.

Something to try out the next shooting session I guess

simico · 06-24-2009, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Andi Lo

I personally think JPEG settings is PP,

I personally think it's not. PP means post processing, which is further altering/modifying (processing) an image after it has been taken. In case of shooting in jpeg format, post processing is modifying the jpeg image created by the camera. The camera applying the jpeg settings to the raw image data is part of normal image processing. Imho.

foxglove · 06-24-2009, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by simico

PP means post processing, which is further altering/modifying (processing) an image after it has been taken.

So when has an image been "taken"? (I'm probably opening a real can of worms here...

)

I suspect that many would argue that an image is "taken" when the light hits whatever kind of photosensitive material you're using to record the image. In the case of digital, the light produces electric signals in the sensor, which are then processed by the camera. By this logic, even an unaltered raw file is processed to some degree.

It's not a matter of whether the image is post processed or not, it's how much it's been processed, and by whom. Many people are very happy to let their camera do the processing, and shoot jpg. Others are tinkerers, and enjoy doing as much of the processing as they can, so they shoot raw.

Julie

brkl · 06-24-2009, 07:05 AM

If that's post-processing, the only way not to post-process it to post a bunch of data copied from the RAW file with a hex editor.

schmik · 06-24-2009, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by brkl

If that's post-processing, the only way not to post-process it to post a bunch of data copied from the RAW file with a hex editor.

Being a computer nerd I find this comment very amusing. It's like the matrix... one must learn to see the image while staring a zeros and ones....

BTW, i do believe that jpg with custom settings is PP. In that case does that make RAW the new 'film' (soon to be obsolete)

mike

foxglove · 06-25-2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by brkl

If that's post-processing, the only way not to post-process it to post a bunch of data copied from the RAW file with a hex editor.

That's my point - every photo is processed. Light hits a photosensitive surface, and then a bunch of stuff has to happen before you can see the image. With film, you have to develop the film and print the image, with digital, a computer "develops" that mess of 1s and 0s, and either you or a computer further tweak that.

Originally Posted by schmik

Being a computer nerd I find this comment very amusing. It's like the matrix... one must learn to see the image while staring a zeros and ones....

Oooh, I'd never thought about it that way - very funny!

BTW, i do believe that jpg with custom settings is PP. In that case does that make RAW the new 'film' (soon to be obsolete)

Raw "soon to be obsolete"? Have I missed something? I don't pay much attention to the techie end of things much of the time, but... what?

Julie

Lowell Goudge · 06-25-2009, 05:47 AM

You guys (& gals) have it all wrong.

JPEG right out of the camera is NOT post processing but pre processing.

I will make this a little clearer. Let's separate JPEG conversion done to raw images, but done in camera, that is post processing, BUT if you only shoot JPEG, you are not post processing but pre-processing because you are making your decisions before you shoot.