Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2010, 11:02 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
JPEG settings to simulate RAW and preserve detail

I normally shoot RAW, but when shooting thousands of pictures for an event (I get 2x the images with JPEG) or requiring large bursts, I shoot in JPEG.

I try to make my JPEGs like my RAWs for workflow presets, shadow detail, color clipping, and noise.

Since I normally shoot RAW and all my imported photos have a preset applied to them, assuming the contrast and sharpening are, well, as a RAW file. I'm not fixing them individually in post. By doing this, it is less work than manually disabling / resetting import presets in lightroom for JPEGs.

As a result, I shoot in Natural, with contrast and sharpness set to -4, Shadow Correction at +3, NR off, and saturation at -1 (for some reason this is the only setting I am afraid to go lower on as I feel it might actually desaturate over the original RAW)

Contrast and Shadow Correction are set that way to get the most shadow detail out, similar to RAW. Contrast at -4 had a nearly linear tone curve, according to DPR. Sharpness at -4 because I believe that's actually "no sharpness" as opposed to having a reverse sharpness filter. I always post process contrast manually to get my images to pop. Sharpness is set that way to reduce the amplification of noise with sharpening and to do NR in LR3 or Topaz DeNoise.

The only problem I could foresee is slight loss of precision in contrast steps going from 12-ish bit (less effectively) to 8-bit, but I haven't noticed anything bad.

Comments?

09-02-2010, 01:20 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,722
I've never tried the settings you're describing, but the sharpness thing is an interesting theory.

I currently shoot at 3 stars, with +2 sharpness/saturation. The setup is more that adequate for my purposes, as I'm not a big believer in RAW.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

09-02-2010, 01:52 PM   #3
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
... or requiring large bursts....
If "large bursts" mean Hi continuous shooting, I strongly advise to remove/kill all form of in-camera processing.

I tend to shoot long sequence of continuous shooting (> 10 s). After many tries, I switch off all on-board processing and I tend to maximise the JPEG file size. There was a recent thread on continuous shooting (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/112492-k-7-continuous-shooting.html) that is relevant. With a SD card Sandisk Extreme III Class 10, one member (RonHendriks1966) recommend JPEG 14 Mp One-Star, while I tend to use JPEG 6 Mp Three-Stars.

Hope that the comment may help....
09-02-2010, 02:41 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hcc Quote
If "large bursts" mean Hi continuous shooting, I strongly advise to remove/kill all form of in-camera processing.

I tend to shoot long sequence of continuous shooting (> 10 s). After many tries, I switch off all on-board processing and I tend to maximise the JPEG file size. There was a recent thread on continuous shooting (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/112492-k-7-continuous-shooting.html) that is relevant. With a SD card Sandisk Extreme III Class 10, one member (RonHendriks1966) recommend JPEG 14 Mp One-Star, while I tend to use JPEG 6 Mp Three-Stars.

Hope that the comment may help....
I get 50+ buffer size when I shoot with the K-x and 3 star 12MP, lens correction off at low ISO.
However, when going to ISO 1600 or so it drops to 17, and 3200 and above, 7. I believe this is due to the fact that the analog ISO amplifier tops out at around 1600.

Sharpness and contrast -4 reduce the amount of processing but it's probably imperceptible.

09-02-2010, 03:53 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,401
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
I normally shoot RAW, but when shooting thousands of pictures for an event (I get 2x the images with JPEG) or requiring large bursts, I shoot in JPEG.

I try to make my JPEGs like my RAWs for workflow presets, shadow detail, color clipping, and noise.

Since I normally shoot RAW and all my imported photos have a preset applied to them, assuming the contrast and sharpening are, well, as a RAW file. I'm not fixing them individually in post. By doing this, it is less work than manually disabling / resetting import presets in lightroom for JPEGs.

As a result, I shoot in Natural, with contrast and sharpness set to -4, Shadow Correction at +3, NR off, and saturation at -1 (for some reason this is the only setting I am afraid to go lower on as I feel it might actually desaturate over the original RAW)

Contrast and Shadow Correction are set that way to get the most shadow detail out, similar to RAW. Contrast at -4 had a nearly linear tone curve, according to DPR. Sharpness at -4 because I believe that's actually "no sharpness" as opposed to having a reverse sharpness filter. I always post process contrast manually to get my images to pop. Sharpness is set that way to reduce the amplification of noise with sharpening and to do NR in LR3 or Topaz DeNoise.

The only problem I could foresee is slight loss of precision in contrast steps going from 12-ish bit (less effectively) to 8-bit, but I haven't noticed anything bad.

Comments?
I am a full time JPEG shooter, not a RAW and post process shooter,

With your settings. low contrast and shawdo detail preserve set to 3 you have, If I can discuss this using greyscale terms from a histogram, changed the resolution of tonal detail significantly./

Many years ago now, I did testing with contrast neutral, at minimum and maximum on my *istD. the testing involved setting a camera up and shooting at every shutter speed, with an aperture that allowed me to go at about +/- 6 stops from correct exposure.

I then went through each shutter speed, and plotted the measured greyscale value of a block wall withuniform lighting, over the entire range. What I found was that there is a band, in greyscale values between about 25 and 230 greyscale that can be divided linearly into stops (or exposure value) almost linearly. depending on contrast setting there are either 4 or 5 stops in this band, centered around the median value of 127.

By putting shadow detal protection on, the bottom half is expanded from 2 or 2 1/2 stops by at least another stop, highlight protection does the same.

As a result the linear range is expanded from 4-5 stops to 6-7 stops.


What this means is that you have compressed the data a little, and when post processing to give punch, you are risking the colors appearing blotchy.

I use these settings, but not to maximize for every shot the apparent dynamic range, but to compensate for lighting to always spread my histogram across the entire range. on clowdy days, I cut shadow and highlight protection and boost contrast, on bright days I go the other way. in this way, you get results that are good enough right out of the camera, and probably better than cutting contrast and always shooting at maximum dynamic range.

Just my $0.02 worth
09-02-2010, 04:26 PM   #6
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Nothing wrong with shooting jpeg per se but that 8-bit jpeg file that the camera processes to only yields 256 levels of brightness for each RGB channel.
Whereas shooting in RAW (12-bit) delivers 4,096 levels of brightness for each RGB channel, a whopping 16 times the amount of image data per channel. Yes, that's 16x more info!!!

We all know shooting digitally is very much akin to shooting slide film where the latitude for perfect exposure from highlight to shadow is pretty narrow. So if you're shooting RAW, you at least have more leeway in capturing more detail and dynamic range, whereas with jpeg, you have to be even more careful to expose correctly as you have an even narrower range in which to post process outside the camera.

I would just leave to the camera defaults if I were to shoot in jpeg and I want the greatest flexibility to adjust when I import to the computer. If you make defined adjustments in-camera like saturation, color, contrast, etc., you pretty much already set the resultant image to those set parameters and your workability during post processing might be limited. Simply put, I don't think there's any jpeg settings that can simulate RAW and preserve detail because you're starting out with a lot less detail when you choose to shoot in jpeg.

Last edited by creampuff; 09-02-2010 at 04:32 PM. Reason: spelling
09-02-2010, 05:17 PM   #7
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
However, when going to ISO 1600 or so it drops to 17, and 3200 and above, 7. I believe this is due to the fact that the analog ISO amplifier tops out at around 1600.
Eruditass: do you have high ISO correction on ? I do not know well enough the K-x, but the K-7 has a High-ISO correction option that does take some processing time.

I discover this during a continuous shooting test with two lenses: DA18-250mm and Nokton 58mm f1.4. With the same lighting conditions, shooting at the same object, in P-mode, I was at ISO 1600 with the DA18-250mm, and at ISO400 (If I remember right) with the Nokton for the same identical shot. High ISO correction was on with the DA18-250mm and off with the Nokton f1.4. It took me a while to acknowledge/accept that the high-ISO correction is not trivial and slow down the continuous shooting sequence after some shots.

Last edited by hcc; 09-02-2010 at 08:26 PM.
09-02-2010, 05:50 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
SNIP
Thanks for the info.

QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Nothing wrong with shooting jpeg per se but that 8-bit jpeg file that the camera processes to only yields 256 levels of brightness for each RGB channel.
Whereas shooting in RAW (12-bit) delivers 4,096 levels of brightness for each RGB channel, a whopping 16 times the amount of image data per channel. Yes, that's 16x more info!!!
Since JPEG is stored in fixed point (I believe) most of its precision is in the upper end, and less in the shadows. Thus, shadow correction is bumping compressing the shadow detail into the midrange, where there is more precision anyway. And usually they are pushed back down into the shadows (where one doesn't resolve colors as well anyway) except for certain areas like harsh shadows in the sun, which can be preserved with local adjustments. The rest of the tonal range is left untouched.

I can see lowering the contrast as making visible blotchiness due to the 4096 -> 256 mapping, however, since it affects the whole tonal range. I'd have to read more about JPEG and low compression.


Last edited by Eruditass; 09-03-2010 at 05:12 AM.
09-02-2010, 09:59 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 328
Does the 4 star jpeg only affect the compression with a lower ratio? Does it keep more detail than 3-star? I'm not expecting RAW type detail or anything but it looks like its a great alternative to having to PP RAW pics.
09-03-2010, 05:05 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jboyde Quote
Does the 4 star jpeg only affect the compression with a lower ratio? Does it keep more detail than 3-star? I'm not expecting RAW type detail or anything but it looks like its a great alternative to having to PP RAW pics.
4 star keeps more detail than 3 star, but I don't know exactly what they correspond to. Often it is set too high, see this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/1092...-too-high.html

The purpose of this thread is not to have an aleternative to PPing RAW pics, but to simulate that need for PPing in JPEG.
09-03-2010, 05:18 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,401
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
The purpose of this thread is not to have an aleternative to PPing RAW pics, but to simulate that need for PPing in JPEG.
But the whole point of having control of the settings, in my opinion, is to avoid the need for PP.

When I explained my approach of modifying the JPEG settings along the same lines as I would select different films for the 3 film bodies I used concurrently, to adapt for lighting situations, I was accused of "pre post processing"

WHile I can understand the desire to have settings that may match your work flow and postprocessing routines, with JPEG, I just have to question whether it is the right approach. Clearly, shooting with the flattest lowest saturation image, and then boosting this during PP to me seems to be the worst way to use the settings.

If, on the otherhand, you select settings that are close to optimum for the situation, then the minor PP for histogram corrections in any editor are much less noticible than the gross PP that would go into bring a bright contrasty image out of the completely flat and neutral image you are suggesting.

Maybe I am just being thick, but for me, the proper use of JPEG settings is to eliminate post processing, not to emulate RAW processing.
09-03-2010, 12:25 PM   #12
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,657
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
.....................as I'm not a big believer in RAW.
Blasphemy! Lunacy! Heresy!
09-03-2010, 12:45 PM   #13
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,401
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
......................as I'm not a big believer in RAW.
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Blasphemy! Lunacy! Heresy!
No, practicality actually

I am also a big supporter of JPEG and getting it right in camera.

With a little forethought and practice it is not that hard, and as far as I'm concerned, a minor adjustment on near perfect settings in JPEG if it is ever needed, will be a better result than a major adjustment to either wrong JPEG or RAW settings.
09-03-2010, 01:59 PM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
imtheguy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia Beach
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,950
I MIGHT be a raw believer if I could ever learn to process raw to look better than slightly processed jpegs. Using PE8 with purchased plugins. Sigh......
09-03-2010, 03:24 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
But the whole point of having control of the settings, in my opinion, is to avoid the need for PP.

When I explained my approach of modifying the JPEG settings along the same lines as I would select different films for the 3 film bodies I used concurrently, to adapt for lighting situations, I was accused of "pre post processing"

WHile I can understand the desire to have settings that may match your work flow and postprocessing routines, with JPEG, I just have to question whether it is the right approach. Clearly, shooting with the flattest lowest saturation image, and then boosting this during PP to me seems to be the worst way to use the settings.

If, on the otherhand, you select settings that are close to optimum for the situation, then the minor PP for histogram corrections in any editor are much less noticible than the gross PP that would go into bring a bright contrasty image out of the completely flat and neutral image you are suggesting.

Maybe I am just being thick, but for me, the proper use of JPEG settings is to eliminate post processing, not to emulate RAW processing.
Agreed on all points on the usual purpose of JPEG. However, I intended for this thread to be about an unusual use of JPEG. I don't plan much case-by-case more extreme PP out of these thousands of photos I take when shooting JPEG, save removing harsh shadows (shadow correction and contrast adjustments). The sharpness vs noise point can be used out of this context, however.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, contrast, correction, detail, dslr, images, jpeg, jpeg settings, noise, nr, photography, shadow, sharpness
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JPEG quality settings often too high? Class A Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 08-19-2010 08:02 AM
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG sterretje Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh? Raptorman Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
K10 Jpeg Settings Kemal Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 04-23-2007 12:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top