[bull drinkwater]

looking for a good answer, I take a picture in raw dng,
1 I prosess it and save it as a jpeg file.
2 I run it through a converter and get a jpeg file.
3 I let the camera convert it as a jpeg.
the question, which will give me the best IQ with a jpeg file??????????

---

Last edited by bull drinkwater; 02-23-2015 at 02:18 AM.

[Vihmameister]

As long you do not learn, camera gives probably better jpeg-s(depends what program did camera use). When you get skilled your own on post-processing, you do not ask that anymore.

[kiwi_jono]

I don't know what the raw files are like from a Q but generally you should be able to extra better IQ from a raw file with a good converter. But most of the gain with using a raw is the flexibility you have with adjusting the image - for example you can set different WB, sharpening settings without any loss of IQ.

I used to be a die hard JPG in camera user. But now I have seen the light (literally) and have been able to get better results with processing RAW files.

[Caver]

Hi!
It depends for what are the jpg files used.
Saving a jpg file from the raw dng (whichever raw processing software is used) lets you specify more things, thus is the most flexible:
- If you need just smaller files for showcasing them on a website you can batch-resize them,
- you can specify the amount of jpg compression (the less compression the better quality)

However, you can also shoot raw+jpg, jpg-s set to smaller file size - thus you will end with instantly usable decent quality jpg files and the raw files for doing intensive post processing or image manipulation later.
It all depends on your needs.

[stevebrot]

the question, which will give me the best IQ with a jpeg file??????????

Are you asking how to get the best JPEG as final output? You have three options with a Pentax digital camera (well two actually):

• Do the original capture as a JPEG
• Do the original capture as RAW and do an in-camera conversion to JPEG (actually the same as the point above)
• Do the original capture as RAW and convert to JPEG using software in post-processing

All three are capable of providing quality output within the limits of the JPEG image format, but the last gives you the highest level of control for tweaking the best out of your initial capture.

The question you might want to ask is, "why JPEG?" If IQ for final product is your goal and prints are the target medium, TIFF would be the better choice. JPEG is mostly useful for publishing to the Web or e-mail.


Steve

[itshimitis]

Are you asking how to get the best JPEG as final output? You have three options with a Pentax digital camera (well two actually):

• Do the original capture as a JPEG
• Do the original capture as RAW and do an in-camera conversion to JPEG (actually the same as the point above)
• Do the original capture as RAW and convert to JPEG using software in post-processing

All three are capable of providing quality output within the limits of the JPEG image format, but the last gives you the highest level of control for tweaking the best out of your initial capture.

The question you might want to ask is, "why JPEG?" If IQ for final product is your goal and prints are the target medium, TIFF would be the better choice. JPEG is mostly useful for publishing to the Web or e-mail.


Steve

For final output after processing in the majority of cases I save in highest quality jpg. The exceptions are deep blue skies where posterisation has raised its head where processing to tiff is really the only sensible option.

[TER-OR]

RAW from Q are really good. I've had severely underexposed images (settings got inadvertently knocked out of whack) and recovered perfectly useable jpgs in post-processing. That said, the jpg engine in the Q seems really quite good, and much of the time I don't bother to post-process myself. THat's why I still use RAW+JPG in the Q, plus my wife doesn't like to do any post-processing.

[stevebrot]

The exceptions are deep blue skies where posterisation has raised its head where processing to tiff is really the only sensible option.

8-bit vs. 16-bit color depth...

My practice is to archive as TIFF using a broad color gamut.


Steve

[DeadJohn]

My processing style is to use your #1 option. I load all the DNGs to Lightroom, delete hopeless photos (misfocused, bad composition that can't be saved by cropping), then mark my potential favorites with 1 star. I then process the 1-star photos to see if I get a keeper, and rank the keepers with 2 or more stars. I only convert the keepers to jpg because I don't need to share the others.

1 I prosess it and save it as a jpeg file. This lets you adjust the photo using Lightroom or other software, and offers the maximum quality because you can adjust colors, contrast, etc. (It also offers potential for the worst jpeg if you process things poorly, but you can easily reprocess old photos as long as you keep the original DNG.)

2 I run it through a converter and get a jpeg file. I've never tried this one because it's more work than #3 and less control than #1.

3 I let the camera convert it as a jpeg. This is the easiest and gives a pretty good result straight from the camera. JPG format has limited headroom for further software processing, though.

[jatrax]

looking for a good answer, I take a picture in raw dng,
1 I prosess it and save it as a jpeg file.
2 I run it through a converter and get a jpeg file.
3 I let the camera convert it as a jpeg.
the question, which will give me the best IQ with a jpeg file??????????

Converting to jpeg from a RAW file on the computer will potentially give you the best final image. However, unless you are willing to spend the time to learn RAW processing the camera will often give you better results. RAW development gives you the potential for a better image but also the potential to do a poor job of developing.

The question you might want to ask is, "why JPEG?" If IQ for final product is your goal and prints are the target medium, TIFF would be the better choice.

I print from the DNG file in Lightroom rather than archiving a TIFF most of the time. I do save a TIFF if I do work in PS but most of the time (90%) everything is done in LR and no actual image file is saved unless I export a jpeg for web or make a print. Am I missing something by not saving as a TIFF and printing that? My printing skills are still under development so quite possible I'm missing something.

[ndevlin]

Am I missing something by not saving as a TIFF and printing that? My printing skills are still under development so quite possible I'm missing something.

No. That's how it's done. The only tiffs i ever have are generally ones that come back from my retoucher. LR has a decent print engine. No reason to save as some other file format and print from elsewhere.

When I output jpegs, I rarely save them. I just save a snapshot at the time of the final export settings, which I label as "website jpeg export" or some such. Snapshots in LR are a super useful tool, because it allows you to functionally "save" a particular version of the processing without creating files or taking up space.

- N.