[dtmateojr]

I shoot JPG most of the time now. I realised that a properly executed JPG shot only needs very minor tweaking if needed. It also means I can process the shot with my iphone. I don't like post processing in the computer anymore.

[robgski]

My sentiments exactly.

[BruceBanner]

I shoot JPG most of the time now. I realised that a properly executed JPG shot only needs very minor tweaking if needed. It also means I can process the shot with my iphone. I don't like post processing in the computer anymore.

Do you have any favourite in camera jpg processing features turned on at all?

[dtmateojr]

Do you have any favourite in camera jpg processing features turned on at all?

Standard setting gives me the most flexibility. From here I can tweak the contrast and colour.

[BruceBanner]

Standard setting gives me the most flexibility. From here I can tweak the contrast and colour.

I actually quite like some of the Jpg presets (Muted, Flat) etc, I can't recall what other Jpg processing options I turned on but what I did notice was a massive lag in processing the image after taken

I know that if I set all jpg stuff off, and shoot just jpg then i don't get buffering issues etc, I know it's 'faster', but something I had on this one time when I was experimenting really caused things to slow down.

[clackers]

I actually quite like some of the Jpg presets (Muted, Flat) etc,

Just make your own, better presets of those styles in Lightroom, I reckon.

[Schraubstock]

I shoot JPG most of the time now. I realised that a properly executed JPG shot only needs very minor tweaking if needed

I would love to show you what you have left behind in this image you poste had you shot this in RAW format. But perhaps you like it like that.

The sky looks totally washed out, yet there is evidence of lovely white claods there. In RAW with minimal highlight adjustment they would have made the image sing.

On the other hand if you like what you get from JPG there is no reason to change. I do not know what camera you are using but I assume you spent a few grand on both body and glass. But forgive me, the image you posted you could have gotten from a point and shoot for far less money. Make your investment work for you.
If you have a two card camera, save RAW in one and JPG in the other. This way you can rescue an image you care about.

Cheers

---

Last edited by Schraubstock; 10-27-2018 at 10:42 PM.

[dtmateojr]

I would love to show you what you have left behind in this image you poste had you shot this in RAW format. But perhaps you like it like that.

The sky looks totally washed out, yet there is evidence of lovely white claods there. In RAW with minimal highlight adjustment they would have made the image sing.

On the other hand if you like what you get from JPG there is no reason to change. I do not know what camera you are using but I assume you spent a few grand on both body and glass. But forgive me, the image you posted you could have gotten from a point and shoot for far less money. Make your investment work for you.
If you have a two card camera, save RAW in one and JPG in the other. This way you can rescue an image you care about.

Cheers

There are no clouds. This is complete grey overcast. It was raining. Can't you see the reflections on the road?

And BTW, this was taken with an iPhone

[BigMackCam]

There are no clouds. This is complete grey overcast. It was raining. Can't you see the reflections on the road?

And BTW, this was taken with an iPhone

The point is, even if you couldn't see any detail in the sky, it's usually there. Except for thick mist and fog, a "white out" sky usually has details. And with a RAW image, you can recover and work with those details to create a much more interesting sky. With a JPEG image, blown highlights and crushed shadows are gone for good. If the photographer is fully aware of that and understands what he/she is losing by shooting JPEG, that's fine. At least it's an informed choice... though it wouldn't be mine

iPhone images are great at small reproduction. The heavy sharpening and noise reduction don't bear close scrutiny, but images at this size can look remarkably good.

[robgski]

Another + to shooting jpg, at least on a K-5, isit allows me to use various in-camera effects that RAW does not.

[dtmateojr]

The point is, even if you couldn't see any detail in the sky, it's usually there. Except for thick mist and fog, a "white out" sky usually has details. And with a RAW image, you can recover and work with those details to create a much more interesting sky. With a JPEG image, blown highlights and crushed shadows are gone for good. If the photographer is fully aware of that and understands what he/she is losing by shooting JPEG, that's fine. At least it's an informed choice... though it wouldn't be mine



iPhone images are great at small reproduction. The heavy sharpening and noise reduction don't bear close scrutiny, but images at this size can look remarkably good.

There are no blown highlights here. Sample it with photoshop and see if you get 255,255,255.

Trust me, I can print this at billboard size

Show me a raw shot of an overcast sky with details.

[panonski]

RAW files are just usefull for better DR - when you have pic high levels of light, and highs levels of shadows.
--
You have advantage in RAW in that scenario...
..
In plain ordinary pics, without such high contrast scenarios - jpg is more then enough. ...

I shoot only JPG all the time, and RAW just once or twice when I really need it...

Guys who shoot just RAW ? I think - they have more time and memory on hard drives

[Dartmoor Dave]

Feels like I'm sticking my head above the parapet here, but I'm with dtmateojr about the street scene shot. I don't think the photo would work anywhere near as well with visible cloud detail. I love the X-shaped composition, with the road, the trees, and the lines of the buildings all leading towards the vanishing point in the centre. It seems to be a crucial part of the composition that the bottom of the frame goes darker and darker into shadow, while the top half goes lighter and lighter until there's no detail at all.

Nowadays there seems to be an obsession that no photograph must ever have any pure blacks or pure whites, but to my eyes this particular photo would be much less interesting and effective with more sky detail.

However. . . that doesn't mean that I'm recommending shooting jpeg only. Exactly the same effect could have been achieved by shooting raw, with more control over the end result.

[BigMackCam]

There are no blown highlights here. Sample it with photoshop and see if you get 255,255,255.

Trust me, I can print this at billboard size

Show me a raw shot of an overcast sky with details.

I'm not being critical of your image - it's beautiful... a fine photograph regardless of the equipment used

I don't want to turn the thread into a discussion about the iPhone, but... with respect, any image from any camera can be printed at billboard size, and with sufficient viewing distance it can look pretty good. But closer inspection reveals the weaknesses.



As for RAW vs JPEG, I heartily recommend that people shoot with whatever suits their needs

RAW files are just usefull for better DR - when you have on one pic high levels of light, and shadows.

RAW files are useful for a lot more than that. With RAW, you're recording the maximum range of inside and outside gamut colours and tonality, with no sharpening and noise reduction, and no JPEG compression artefacts. That gives a totally clean file with maximum amount of unadulterated image data on which you can perform non-destructive adjustments and edits. It allows for the best possible control over colour and tonal transitions, and subject / scene-optimised noise reduction and sharpening. And you can revisit these adjustments & edits many times to get them just right. If you accept what the camera spits out as a JPEG, that's all baked in permanently, based on what the manufacturer has provided. Sure, you can perform edits on top of that, but then when you re-save, you're compressing further and introducing yet more JPEG artefacts. And if the in-camera noise reduction and/or sharpening weren't right for a particular image, tough... you're stuck with it.

That aside, JPEG definitely has its uses. And, as I said above, people should shoot with whatever suits their needs - so long as they're aware of the benefits and limitations of each format

[BruceBanner]

The point is, even if you couldn't see any detail in the sky, it's usually there. Except for thick mist and fog, a "white out" sky usually has details. And with a RAW image, you can recover and work with those details to create a much more interesting sky. With a JPEG image, blown highlights and crushed shadows are gone for good. If the photographer is fully aware of that and understands what he/she is losing by shooting JPEG, that's fine. At least it's an informed choice... though it wouldn't be mine

iPhone images are great at small reproduction. The heavy sharpening and noise reduction don't bear close scrutiny, but images at this size can look remarkably good.

I was going to say something similar, that images made for instagram for example, often phone cameras are fine for the job, and any 36mp shot from our K-1's are not going to give the viewer the full treatment of what the shot actually has going for it, it needs to be appreciated on larger scale.

I don't think I could shoot jpg because i tend to fawn over my images, always thinking I can squeeze an improvement out of an image here or there. And then sometimes I want quite large editing parameters such as greater sky/cloud control which I then tend to think immediately I should be in RAW mode.
So I tend to just stick to RAW always and edit my images properly at home (some taking 2mins others 10).

The purpose of this thread initially was to discover if really there exists individuals with a very high calibre of work that originates from Jpg only, and possibly even a low level of editing as well (ie either being slightly clever with the Jpg setup in camera before taking the shot) or just doing very basic stuff post, all of this perhaps pointing towards the concept that relying on RAW somehow handicaps our actual potential as photographers and perhaps shooting jpg may take us slightly back towards 'film day style of shooting' where we are more cautious and deliberate with our shots (and equipment).

It was a hypothetical question. I would really like for people to say "sure... check this guys portfolio out" etc, examples of not just the odd Jpg here or there, but someone whom exclusively shoots like this (with high end equipment mind you).