[Cee Cee]

But you have to load them all into the computer anyway, why not just shoot in RAW and develop the ones you like, CeeCee?

the raws from my K30 always seem dark and have to be corrected to see the potential in a shot, if I work really hard at it I can almost make it look as good as the jpeg all my jpeg settings are set for neutral, (one notch up for sharpness) I use GIMP/ UFRAW. There are some tweaks I use in Gimp which I apply to a greater or Lesser extent to all my keepers, I just find it tedious to develop in UFRAW, export to jpeg then load jpeg to GIMP and apply any tweaks/adjustments and re save. When I compare the shots from camera JPEG / GIMP, to those I've done UFRAW / JPEG / GIMP, I really struggle to see any difference or improvement, unless the shot has a really bad exposure problem.

How do you get RAW out of your JPEG?

as MrB1 said

[hyyz]

OP's point was K1's Jpeg is so good. If Jpeg out of camera is not good, you don't have choice but to process RAW. But since it is good, you save some hassle. It is good that sometimes you would waste time in trying to repeat its effect in RAW processing. I myself found sometimes I spent a lot of time trying to beat Jpeg.

I guess, in theory, a Jpeg out of RAW processing is still Jpeg. If a Jpeg out of camera is as good as it gets, in theory there's no point to spend time to process RAW to try to beat it.

[Cee Cee]

Okay, if you can tolerate the camera's decision making (18% grey and all that - underexposes many scenes), and that you can't brighten one area, darken another, for instance - fine!

I quite routinely lighten or darken areas of the picture using the camera jpeg & gimp. Bird pictures for example, if I use spot metering the the subject is usually ok but the background can blow out, so I use center weighted which can make the subject a little dark, I correct the exposure on the subject by selecting just inside the outline of the subject with feather "on" so as not to get an abrubt change then adjust levels on the subject only, provided it's only a small correction the results I see are pretty much the same as making a 3 image HDR from the raw, one method takes about 20 seconds the other takes 10 minutes. I suppose it depends on what software one uses and it's strength & weaknesses as to what techniques we each use, but in the end it's all just shuffling pixels around to get your desired result.

[Rupert]

Not my idea of keepers, but we're all different in our objectives.

When you have shot your first million squirrel shots, you will see it all differently. I've even considered just using an Etch-A-Sketch.....

Raw is no doubt the way to go in serious shooting...but I do little shooting that you would consider serious. Many bird shots and even some squirrels deserve a run in Raw.....Raccoons, almost always!

Here, where lighting and color were important, Raw+ proved very useful!


I think we are off of the OP's original intent...though I am no mind reader....if light is good and your settings are right, Jpegs in the K1 turn out very nicely....and I can agree with that, my experience is that they do! Some that think the K1 Jpegs are inferior are off base in my view......inferior to what? My K5IIs? K3? No, they are certainly not inferior in those instances.

Regards!

[joergens.mi]

I'm quite shure, that the jpg's OOC are really good - especially when you fine tune the settings. For most of the work they are perfect.
The talk about a bad jpg engine is mainly from testers, which are unpacking the camera, never used a Pentax before, don't reset to factory settings - the guy who used it for the last test may have changed settings - and shooting.

It's quite clear, the OOC pictures with default settings are made for the far eastern taste of pictures - very colorful. And most of the time Pentax is doing little in noise reduction for the default cases. It's up to the photographer to change this settings to get his results. And you should choose a default picture style you like.

[MrB1]

(Laughs).
Okay, if you can tolerate the camera's decision making (18% grey and all that - underexposes many scenes), and that you can't brighten one area, darken another, for instance - fine!

These comments appear to assume that everyone who chooses to make use of a camera's JPEG files shoots with auto-everything, knows nothing about digital photography, and can't use an image editor. Regarding the first part of your comment, some of us actually know something about exposure, we can relate it to the limitations of a camera's lightmeter, and we have discovered the effectiveness of applying appropriate compensation. With regard to the second part of your comment, some of us have achieved a reasonable level of competence in using computer software features - tools, layers, etc. - to enhance our images, overall and/or selectively, to achieve the desired high-quality result. This is evident every week at the local photo club, where there are always high-quality images displayed, many by members who work with JPEG files.

Philip

[Rondec]

I will say that if you are uploading your images, say, to Lightroom, you still have to go through them and delete the ones you don't like. The ones I do like, I have made presets that work pretty quickly for general purposes and then there will be three or four that I spend more time than that with selective sharpening, dodging or burning or whatever.

As I said before, shooting landscape is not a situation where you can generally shoot jpeg. If the exposure for the foreground is right, the sky will be blown out and if you expose for the highlights then the foreground will be really dark. The only solution I have found is to shoot in RAW and do some work to get things balanced (I could carry a GND filter, but I don't tend to -- tough with the DFA 15-30 anyway).

[GeneV]

I have been a raw shooter since 2008, but with two cards and the capacity of current SD cards, I generally have one larger capacity card store the raw, and another store the jpegs, especially when traveling. Like the OP, I have been very pleasantly surprised with the quality of the jpegs in recent models. If the light and exposure are good, there is very little difference, and I do enjoy post processing.

With the K1, the option that works best when traveling is to have the camera save a smaller jpeg for sharing, and leave the raw (backed up to a portable drive) to process the full resolution shot at home. Dealing with 36mp raw or jpeg files on a tablet is very cumbersome. Even if I am the photographer for an event, I and the folks who had me there often like to see what I am getting. We all get a much better idea from a 12mp or 22mp jpeg on a tablet than the rear lcd of the camera.

[Rupert]

Jpegs work just fine.....like several have mentioned it depends on your setting adjustments, and your processing. In this shot the Jpeg is as good as the Raw for the intended purpose...which is not a billboard size print, just a downsized picture to be web posted. I have my settings adjusted to my taste.....use an old Elements7 program (with two dozen superb plug-ins) and can do most every procedure that I can do with Raw processing.

It's fast and easy, the smaller files process faster and my end result is very often as acceptable as the Raw would be. I am not against Raw processing...it is useful and wonderful, just not always necessary.

Angry squirrel just before pouncing on a stray cat......Catdip tonight!


Want to make a subtle change to the lighting on his face? Selective lighting works as well on Jpegs as on a Raw......I use Light Machine..very handy Plug-In. K1 Jpegs process very easily!


Here is one where Raw and three different programs were used to get a half decent result. It was shot through my office windows, through a side window that has a charcoal colored fiberglass screen. Raw can help get all possible out of an otherwise wasted shot.


The first shot took less than a minute to process...the second considerably longer!

Squirrels don't really care if it is Jpeg or Raw, just as long as they get their few seconds of fame on the internet, so the world can see their astounding "handsomeness" and unflinching bravery!

Regards!

EDIT: Forgot to mention.....for those that use Flickr, the Aviary is great for minor edits of a shot you have posted there but still needs a little attention. You can do quite a bit of adjustments in there and it is fast and easy.

Just a few quick clicks and I changed this one in contrast, focus, and brightness...

[bdery]

It should be the expectation that the manufacturers put the necessary R&D into their firmware, in order to get the best from the R&D they have put into the hardware. Therefore, good cameras should be capable of producing good images to store in their JPEG files.

This!

Okay, if you can tolerate the camera's decision making (18% grey and all that - underexposes many scenes), and that you can't brighten one area, darken another, for instance - fine!

It's a myth that you CAN'T process a JPEG. You have less headroom but you can certainly work with it.

[clackers]

the raws from my K30 always seem dark

But this is what I said, CC ... this tendency to underexpose in many scenes has to be corrected in the final JPEG by either you or the camera. You might as well do it yourself, to your taste!

There are some tweaks I use in Gimp which I apply to a greater or Lesser extent to all my keepers, I just find it tedious to develop in UFRAW, export to jpeg then load jpeg to GIMP and apply any tweaks/adjustments and re save. When I compare the shots from camera JPEG / GIMP, to those I've done UFRAW / JPEG / GIMP, I really struggle to see any difference or improvement, unless the shot has a really bad exposure problem.

If you *are* loading these JPEGs and postprocessing them anyway, they might as well be RAW, with better headroom in every department ... dynamic range, noise, sharpening, white balance ... the hamburger with the lot.

It doesn't make sense to me that the camera damages an image with questionable decisions, then you have to load a lossily compressed file into GIMP or whatever and *undo* those decisions, losing quality in the process with crushed colours, sharpening artefacts and plastic skin textures because of global noise reduction.

If I genuinely don't care about my keeper images, fine ... but each to their own, I guess!

[clackers]

With regard to the second part of your comment, some of us have achieved a reasonable level of competence in using computer software features - tools, layers, etc. - to enhance our images, overall and/or selectively, to achieve the desired high-quality result. This is evident every week at the local photo club, where there are always high-quality images displayed, many by members who work with JPEG files.

Trust me Philip, my camera is usually set to RAW+JPG, I have postprocessed both RAW and JPEG files many, many times, I understand the limitations very well.

Whatever the camera has done to a file with its preset, you can do better.

[MrB1]

It doesn't make sense to me that the camera damages an image with questionable decisions, then you have to load a lossily compressed file into GIMP or whatever and *undo* those decisions, losing quality in the process with crushed colours, sharpening artefacts and plastic skin textures because of global noise reduction.

If I genuinely don't care about my keeper images, fine ... but each to their own, I guess!

(with my emphases)

All this language of hyperbole is really quite unnecessary.

With due relevance to this discussion, my experience is that the phrase "don't care" is more appropriately used in the following context:-
I would guess that the majority of people (including photographers) viewing good images don't care which file format was used to create the photograph they are viewing, and probably can't tell from what they are seeing anyway. The photographs that someone presents on screen or in print can be of high quality, whether they were produced from raw files or JPEG files, and the photographer's method of working is a matter of free choice.
So we might agree on the principle "each to their own".

Cheers.
Philip

[GeneV]

It's a myth that you CAN'T process a JPEG. You have less headroom but you can certainly work with it.

Exactly. I improved on my jpegs for years before I started using the raw files. That includes my scans of film, which never gave me true raw files.

---------- Post added 02-09-17 at 05:09 AM ----------

(with my emphases)

All this language of hyperbole is really quite unnecessary.

With due relevance to this discussion, my experience is that the phrase "don't care" is more appropriately used in the following context:-
I would guess that the majority of people (including photographers) viewing good images don't care which file format was used to create the photograph they are viewing, and probably can't tell from what they are seeing anyway. The photographs that someone presents on screen or in print can be of high quality, whether they were produced from raw files or JPEG files, and the photographer's method of working is a matter of free choice.
So we might agree on the principle "each to their own".

Cheers.
Philip

And each format has its place. I came full circle from always using and tinkering with jpegs, to never having the camera store anything but raw files, to using both.

[robtcorl]

This often repeated discussion always reminds me of those on grilling/bbq forums.
Gas grill vs charcoal grill, or lump charcoal vs briquette charcoal.
No matter the method, or fuel used, one can achieve excellent results, as long as one knows what they're doing.

For the record, I'm a charcoal burner.
Also for the record, I'm strictly a jpeg shooter and no amount of cajoling will ever change me since it suits what I want to achieve.