[newmikey]

I alway shoot RAW+ and sometimes judge the jpegs enough to work with but almost never without at least some PP. Raw comes in handy in challenging lighting or WB conditions and is still my preferred option though I end up using jpeg a bit more than I used to in the past. The K-5 IIs jpegs as well as those out of the Ricoh GR tend to be pretty good and that helps.

[WPRESTO]

Forgot to switch to raw when we set out on our recent trip, discovered the error a couple days along, so I just left it in JPEG mode. Not entirely disappointed even with marginal lighting situations were RAW is generally better at retaining shadow & highlights.

[bdery]

The only times I shoot RAW are when doing night exposures, sometimes in the studio, and when doing tests. I set up my JPEGS the way I want them and I'm very satisfied with the results.

I enjoy taking pictures, not developing them.

[goatsNdonkey]

I alway shoot RAW+ and sometimes judge the jpegs enough to work with but almost never without at least some PP. Raw comes in handy in challenging lighting or WB conditions and is still my preferred option though I end up using jpeg a bit more than I used to in the past. The K-5 IIs jpegs as well as those out of the Ricoh GR tend to be pretty good and that helps.

newmikey, do those cameras give you more control over what the in-camera processing for the jpegs will be? If so, how do you take advantage of that. Or is some standard set of settings what gives you the "pretty good" jpeg?

[newmikey]

newmikey, do those cameras give you more control over what the in-camera processing for the jpegs will be? If so, how do you take advantage of that. Or is some standard set of settings what gives you the "pretty good" jpeg?

I like leaving the in-camera settings as "flat" as possible but on rare occasions use highlight and shadow protection settings.

[Dlanor Sekao]

I like my JPGs just fine. There is a time and place for Raw for me.......and a time and place for JPGs.
Don't have the time or patience to shoot all Raw as for me its not needed and gives me time for more Important things in Life !

---------- Post added 07-08-16 at 09:10 PM ----------

I set up my JPEGS the way I want them and I'm very satisfied with the results.I enjoy taking pictures, not developing them.

+1 on this.

[goatsNdonkey]

The only times I shoot RAW are when doing night exposures, sometimes in the studio, and when doing tests. I set up my JPEGS the way I want them and I'm very satisfied with the results.

I enjoy taking pictures, not developing them.

bdery, very interesting post. But when you say that you "setup" your jpegs, what are you doing different than leaving the default settings for things like sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc, or other parameters affecting in-camera jpgs that your particular Pentax dslr might give you access to?

This is really the heart of the question I am trying to get at -- Can better than average in-camera jpegs be achieved, and, if so, how and in what circumstances? Awareness of this could help people who only rarely shoot jpegs, people who shoot them half of the time, or people who are afraid of or not very interested in the RAW+PP (that is, shooting in Raw followed by Post-processing on the computer) cycle.

So what guidance, based on your experience setting up jpegs your way, can you share with others?

---

Last edited by goatsNdonkey; 07-08-2016 at 06:18 AM.

[Dlanor Sekao]

I get in-camera JPEG's that I'm happy with and don't require large amounts of my time post-processing... <snipped>I'd rather spend my time shooting and enjoying, then a majority of my time in front of my mac, processing from RAW to JPEG...

Same here +1

[bdery]

bdery, very interesting post. But when you say that you "setup" your jpegs, what are you doing different than leaving the default settings for things like sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc, or other parameters affecting in-camera jpgs that your particular Pentax dslr might give you access to?

This is really the heart of the question I am trying to get at -- Can better than average in-camera jpegs be achieved, and, if so, how and in what circumstances? Awareness of this could help people who only rarely shoot jpegs, people who shoot them half of the time, or people who are afraid of or not very interested in the RAW+PP (that is, shooting in Raw followed by Post-processing on the computer) cycle.

So what guidance, based on your experience setting up jpegs your way, can you share with others?

You can select the type of processing the camera does. Neutral, vivid, etc. You know those. Then you can select a few specific things (shadow correction, noise reduction for varying ISO, even clarity on the K-1). Lens correction can also be adjusted. Moiré reduction too. White balance (multi-zone auto most of the time, except when using flash, for me).

There are MANY controls to be had over your JPEGS. Once you've set the camera the way you want it, it becomes possible to get close to the results you'd get by developing RAW images yourself.

[pepperberry farm]

I have my in-camera processing set up as "Natural", which seemed to be the closest I could find to what my eyes see; so far, I have found this to work very well for me.


additionally, I do 'chimp' my shots as I am shooting, so I can alter exposure, ISO, etc. as I am shooting....

[goatsNdonkey]

You can select the type of processing the camera does. Neutral, vivid, etc. You know those. Then you can select a few specific things (shadow correction, noise reduction for varying ISO, even clarity on the K-1). Lens correction can also be adjusted. Moiré reduction too. White balance (multi-zone auto most of the time, except when using flash, for me).

There are MANY controls to be had over your JPEGS. Once you've set the camera the way you want it, it becomes possible to get close to the results you'd get by developing RAW images yourself.

So it sounds like, if someone in a rush does some batch post processing, letting their PP program teak a few things automatically, they might not actually be taking as much control over the final image as someone with a K-1 who is being diligent about using all of the control over in-camera processing that is available. Hmmmm? Interesting. And as pepperberryfarm points out, those settings can be tweaked as one shoots.

True, careful post processing done image by image after the exposure has greater potential, but does every PPer use the highest level of care with each image all of the time? Could careful control over in-camera jpegs sometimes get better results than PPed images where one just goes through the motions? I'm not calling for debate on these two questions as much as suggesting that people who shoot both ways some of the time be honest with themselves...and then consider sharing those reflections.

[bdery]

True, careful post processing done image by image after the exposure has greater potential, but does every PPer use the highest level of care with each image all of the time? Could careful control over in-camera jpegs sometimes get better results than PPed images where one just goes through the motions? I'm not calling for debate on these two questions as much as suggesting that people who shoot both ways some of the time be honest with themselves...and then consider sharing those reflections.

My point is this exactly. say you're trying to see the Milky way on your pictures, then RAW and careful processing is needed. But to shoot kids running on the lawn, JPEGS are more than good enough.

[eyrr]

I like mine. I have a k-50. I shot some RAW when I first got the camera, and occasionally use the save as RAW function, but I shoot mostly jpeg. I process with Picasa and sometimes photofiltre, and I didn't see much difference in my processed RAW files vs my jpegs. My current computer is a refurbished office Windows 7 machine that doesn't have the specs to run sophisticated pp software well. I think it makes more sense to concentrate on learning to shoot the camera well, then consider more sophisticated processing after I've upgraded the computer.

I shoot mostly outdoors in natural light. I sometimes post-process my jpegs, but I'm frequently satisfied with the results OOC.

With the K-50:

• Usually Auto White balance (surprisingly good)
• Available in-camera corrections enabled and Auto (distortions, D-Range, long exposure noise reduction etc)
• Custom Image Natural with +1 Saturation, Contrast and Sharpness

I found the default custom image setting Bright obviously unnatural looking, but Natural was a bit flat, so I tweaked it to my taste.

[fwcetus]

"Who gets in-camera JPEGs they like, even if they PP RAW files at other times?"

Well, the way the question is worded, I shouldn't even answer, but I will anyhoo...

First, I never shoot/PP RAW at all. I guess I'm a left-over from the film days (especially slide film days) and I expect that I have to get the exposure properly, right from the camera. I understand that shooting RAW would let me do more tweaking of exposures, but, in critical exposure situations, I can bracket exposures, right?.

Second, while I am certain that, once in a while, I would benefit from shooting RAW, I have only seldom had a "keeper-vs-discard" problem not due to missed focus, and due instead to missed exposure.

I am sure that, for many, YMMV, but that's my own "style", FWIW.

[Nicolas06]

So it sounds like, if someone in a rush does some batch post processing, letting their PP program teak a few things automatically, they might not actually be taking as much control over the final image as someone with a K-1 who is being diligent about using all of the control over in-camera processing that is available. Hmmmm? Interesting. And as pepperberryfarm points out, those settings can be tweaked as one shoots.

True, careful post processing done image by image after the exposure has greater potential, but does every PPer use the highest level of care with each image all of the time? Could careful control over in-camera jpegs sometimes get better results than PPed images where one just goes through the motions? I'm not calling for debate on these two questions as much as suggesting that people who shoot both ways some of the time be honest with themselves...and then consider sharing those reflections.

It is a worflow thing. Depending of your workflow, you may prefer working with one or the other or a mix.

For me and I speak for my workflow, not saying it is universal I work frow RAWs only.

Here is my workflow:

I usually start by previewing the photos fast on a viewer and to keep only the best, most interresting shots. i can do that several time.

Then I try to select a color profile/rendering that overall suit well the shooting session and what I want to express. The basis for that is a DxO film pack simulation. I work it on a few representative on the set, until I get the rendering I want and apply it to all photos.

I then review each photo one by one, adapt the things a bit if needed, work on horizon/perspective and check if a reframing would not improve the picture. i continue to drop photos on the go when I didn't manage to decide the one to keep before.

At that point I export all images and look at them in slide slow, trying to see if something should be corrected and they all look good. I make a few minor corrections, export again and I am done.

For all I said, basically the picture being taken as RAW or Jpeg is irrelevant to the process. All pictures get the same workflow anyway. But I know that I have more information to work with RAW. I can usually get bette high iso, tweak the white balence or overall rendering more. I can get back the burned highlights or push the shadows.

If I just want the jpeg without thinking I can directly export all of them without doing anything or applying one the profile I created in the past.

To me it is more work, more complication to think RAW or JPEG this time or even to compare RAWs and JPEGs to see if one is better. I just take one format, always raw and I am done with it.

Furthermore, the K3 ergonimics make it quite easy to mess up the JPEG settings when trying to move the selected AF point. It can happen I end up with some weird settings due to that. In raw I don't care as it is not even taken into account.

But that just me. People will do JPEG only or mix for their own reasons. For me RAW only is just much simpler. I don't have to think about it and I am done.