[dtmateojr]

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 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

You keep moving the goal post just to prove that JPG shots are inferior.

You said that my shot is only good for small prints and now you are saying that it's not good when inspected zoomed in. These are very conflicting requirements. Nobody will put their noses in front of a billboard print.

I will bet my left nut that if I showed you two different shots you will not be able to pick which one was shot with raw or jpeg.

[panonski]

You keep moving the goal post just to prove that JPG shots are inferior.

You said that my shot is only good for small prints and now you are saying that it's not good when inspected zoomed in. These are very conflicting requirements. Nobody will put their noses in front of a billboard print.

I will bet my left nut that if I showed you two different shots you will not be able to pick which one was shot with raw or jpeg.

I can honestly say - shooting raw - without purpose to recover shadows vs highlights - doesn't mean anything.

I printed 40-60 cm ( 16 x 24 inch ) jpg files from my Sony Ericson with just 2 mpix, and 400 kB size - and you cannot notice lack of details....

Lack of details is visible only on screen, when you hardly zoom scroll into an image...

In that case, no one image would be looked perfect, or good.


JPEG vs RAW makes no sense, unless you do not want brilliant DR.

[Dartmoor Dave]

You keep moving the goal post just to prove that JPG shots are inferior.

I've just been looking through your "liked" posts here on PF, and if all of those were taken as jpegs then your own photography is perfect proof of just how good jpeg can be in the right hands. Really excellent work that makes me want to give shooting jpegs a go myself.

[panonski]

I've just been looking through your "liked" posts here on PF, and if all of those were taken as jpegs then your own photography is perfect proof of just how good jpeg can be in the right hands. Really excellent work that makes me want to give shooting jpegs a go myself.

pixel peepers are not photographers ...

Only photo to count, is one it can show your ability to tell the story...

If the right feelings came out from your picture,
no one would try to find
how many details you save, or don't...

Pixel peepers mania is when you have PRO photo work for clients, and even then,
no one would care for
small lack of details - because they would not see that any even existed...

--
Much worse is to deliver unsharp images.

---

Last edited by panonski; 03-31-2018 at 04:52 AM.

[BigMackCam]

You keep moving the goal post just to prove that JPG shots are inferior.

You said that my shot is only good for small prints and now you are saying that it's not good when inspected zoomed in. These are very conflicting requirements. Nobody will put their noses in front of a billboard print.

Why are you being confrontational? All I've done is compliment your shot (I'll do that again - it's beautiful, really very nice), and suggested that almost any camera's photos can be printed at any size, billboard included, and look good from a suitable viewing distance. I've also pointed out that JPEG files have processing and compression built into them, and that processing may not be optimal for the shot. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with shooting JPEG - I'm just stating the limitations. Look, I have cameras that only shoot JPEG and it doesn't stop me from using them and getting great photos. For me personally, though, if RAW is available, that's what I shoot because I like to have maximum control and minimum artefacts. That's all

I will bet my left nut that if I showed you two different shots you will not be able to pick which one was shot with raw or jpeg.

I've never said that JPEG is inferior to RAW, only that RAW offers more control and ability to optimise, rather than accepting manufacturer-coded adjustments that can't be changed once they're baked in. Eventually, the RAW file is going to be exported to JPEG anyway, so it will have some compression artefacts depending on the level of compression used.

I really don't want to get into a conflict with you, but if you feel it's necessary to challenge me and prove a point, then by all means let's give it a try. Please provide two 800 x 800 100% crops of an image with fine detail and a nice area of solid colour, with the RAW file free of any additional processing.

Could I ask that you start a new thread for this, though, as I think we've derailed the OP's thread enough

[Schraubstock]

Can't you see the reflections on the road? And BTW, this was taken with an iPhone

Just because the road is wet does not mean it was raining when the shot was taken. Skies can change very quickly.

You sound pretty upset over what I wrote, be assured this was not my intention.

I did not expect you to post a mobile phone picture. I was under the impression we are discussing DSLRs.

Anyway even the mobile phone recorded some variations in the sky tonality but is not quite up to the task to make it look good.

Cheers

[MrB1]

All that really matter are the final output and how one wishes to achieve it. At the local camera club every week we see many superb images, some from raw files, others from JPEGs, and no-one knows which. They compete well on an equal basis, which is partly due to the image size being limited to around A3 (16x12) printed and 1600x1200 px projected, and partly because visiting competition judges, and others viewing the prints or projected images, look at the photographs not the pixels.

There is probably much advice around the web for those who wish to utilise JPEGs, but here are several points:-
As well as adjusting features such as the Custom Image settings as desired, the D-Range tools in the camera can also be helpful, as can the HDR Capture Mode.
When setting exposure for JPEGs, it is essential to protect important highlight areas - it is impossible to recover them after over-exposure.
JPEGs should be recorded in the camera at the greatest size and quality (minimum compression).
If deemed necessary, JPEGs are amenable to editing in computer software without noticeable loss of quality (for the images sizes noted above viewed normally) - always working only on a copy of the original JPEG file.
It is advisable to complete the desired edits in one session, so that the product is saved as another JPEG file only once.
Edited images should be saved at the highest JPEG quality to minimise compression artifacts.

The photos that I take along to the club are almost always produced from camera JPEGs, often tweaked in PaintShop Pro. When they lose out it is mainly because of deficiencies in their artistry and creativity (both are not my forte), as they usually compete quite well for technical image quality. However, another good feature of our Pentax cameras is that we can review on the rear screen the last JPEG just captured, then choose to save its raw data as well, if we should feel the need for it.

But as always, to each his own.
Philip

---

Last edited by MrB1; 03-31-2018 at 05:39 AM.

[BigMackCam]

I can honestly say - shooting raw - without purpose to recover shadows vs highlights - doesn't mean anything.

For you, perhaps not. For me, it most certainly does.

I published an article here on the forums regarding Lightroom processing of Pentax Q images... If you care to, take a look at that article and see the difference between the straight-out-of-camera JPEG and the hand-processed RAW. The amount of additional detail from the RAW file is considerable. You can even see it at web-size reproduction, but it's particularly evident in the 100% crops.

As I said before, shadow and highlight recovery are by no means the only benefits to shooting RAW...

EDIT: I'm going to step out of this thread now. I've made my points as to why I think RAW can be preferable, and hopefully clarified that I don't think JPEG is inferior... just different. Both are valid and have strengths and weaknesses depending on what the photographer wants from their images. I don't presume to know which is best for anyone but me

[Schraubstock]

Here is an example

This image is badly underexposed, had it been exposed correctly the sky would be totally white.

[angerdan]

The more you demand from your machine the more problems it creates. Gaming, Audio and now Photography, things just go wrong. Don't get me wrong, when technology works it's great, but it's only great for awhile. I have friends who use everything and they all too have problems time to time. My father (a retired software programmer) hardly uses them anymore, and I can totally understand and relate as to why.

I get so much leway with PP Raw files have I neglected to learn some basics in photography (mainly controlling light better) etc.? I wonder if relying purely on the built in camera processing is enough?

So... is there any Jpg shooters out there that are outputting a high quality workflow? It appears to me some tricks can't be done, such as stacking files in PS etc, but I do wonder...
What if you shot Jpg only, and got paid for weddings and such, and you accomplish a high standard because... well because you've just gotten very good at it. Imagine the time saving of not PP images?!

I wonder if I could move away from some technologies, perhaps strip it back to a decent phone and camera and be done with that...

I work 20 years with computers (since Blizzard published StarCraft) and currently i only wonder about he problems of other people. It's like with cars, if you know how it works and how it is constructed, you don't have problems - but see solutions.

Shooting in JPG has thehuge disadvantage of not beeing able to do fast and easy corrections (like brightness/contrast/disortion correction/cropping) with instant preview of each step. Also Histogram adjustments arent possible in real-time, because you can see it only before and after an edit, which even tooks much longer in the camera than on PC.
So for shooters with always the same light conditions like product photography, JPG-shooting is possible without relevant disadvantages.

With HDMI output you get 1080p resolution at best, maybe only 720p (depending on the camera/screen/connection combination).
So it's general question to use limited ressources like only a camera without external peripherie but a screen or an professional like solution (PC with image editing software).

With less effort you can get more out of the pictures with an PC.

[SpecialK]

It got me thinking, 'shooting RAW... has it made me a 'bad' photographer?', that is... I get so much leway with PP Raw files have I neglected to learn some basics in photography (mainly controlling light better) etc.?

jpg = master the camera
Raw = master the image

Just about any image will benefit from basic tweeks such as cloning, cropping and leveling so in theory you will be touching every shot in PP.

We invest a lot of time, money and effort in getting the image. Spending a minute (or less) making the results the best you can in PP takes less time than chimping, renaming, organizing, and backing up files.

You can spend time fiddling with camera settings and evaluating results on a small LCD (if you have time), or fiddle in PP on a larger screen (when you have time).

[Dartmoor Dave]

pixel peepers are not photographers ...

That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a pixel peeper.

For the record, the post of mine that you quoted was intended as genuine praise. I really did think the photos were excellent.

[panonski]

That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a pixel peeper.

For the record, the post of mine that you quoted was intended as genuine praise. I really did think the photos were excellent.

Oh, Dave, I was not meaning of you, when I talk about pixel peepers ...

It was just in generally :P

[Dartmoor Dave]

Oh, Dave, I was not meaning of you, when I talk about pixel peepers ... It was just in generally :P

Thanks panonski. Apologies for misunderstanding you.

[Ron Boggs]

You can spend time fiddling with camera settings and evaluating results on a small LCD (if you have time), or fiddle in PP on a larger screen (when you have time).

Funny how we can see things as opposites...To me:

Fiddling with camera settings means fiddling while the subject is right in front of me for color-matching and exposure (and allowing for a reshoot as needed) and while I'm out in the field standing on moss in a forest or similar (I don't go where there are people). Each hour afield is another hour of life I gained.

Fiddling with PP on a computer is to me an indoor activity and every hour spent at a desk and computer is a lost hour of my life.

Rather waste my imaging time out in the field rather than wasting imaging time at home. However, I have unlimited time to be afield and most folks have nearly unlimited time at be home.

(note that the tiny camera LCD is just as inaccurate as the uncalibrated monitors and even, shudder, laptop screens that 99.99% of us use for home PP)

Thank heavens for differences in humanity because I couldn't live with other people close enough to hear me sneeze on the front porch and most sane modern folks couldn't live where I live with no cell service and crappy satellite internet. That changes our worldviews IMMENSELY and for the better. It takes all of us to make a civilization! I'll cheer for your awesome images when I see them published, please do the same for my JPEG's. Editors couldn't care less which method we choose to shoot!