[interested_observer]

From TheCameraStoreTV - This could have probably gone into several areas.

Everyone loves to talk about the quality of different camera manufacturer's color and straight out of camera JPEGs. We decided to do a blind(ish) test, to see which images photographer's really preferred in a variety of situations. Which camera's SOOC images are really the ones to beat? Watch as Chris Niccolls investigates!

You Tube

You Tube

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Interesting.

[Crust]

As a jpeg Pentax user... This is pretty sad.

[Heie]

Owning a DSLR to shoot JPEG is like owning an espresso machine to boil water for your instant coffee...

[Crust]

Heie,

I would love to shoot more raw, but the sheer file size and the time it takes to process everything was just too much for me. I've tried using compact and all-in-one cameras (high-end ones) and low-light capability was not good. I'm not sure if I'm an exception, but I do seen to know more people who shoot using jpeg in their DSLR than people who shoot raw. Maybe I'm just a 'filthy casual' (joking).

---------- Post added 11-16-16 at 08:33 AM ----------

BTW, I do agree that raw quality was better, but I just didn't think it was worth the time. I'm thinking of shooting in jpeg for 99 percent of my photos and then shooting raw just for the photos I think may be the best one. The problem with this is that some of my best photos are quick spur of the moment photos.

[AldaCZ]

Owning a DSLR to shoot JPEG is like owning an espresso machine to boil water for your instant coffee...

But one can tweak the JPG processor.

[grahame]

like owning an espresso machine to boil water

Heie,
I agree with you that shooting JPEG ONLY is a waste of great potential a DSLR camera could provide.
But this is based on the fact that direct JPEG from DSLR waste a lot of potential, and Pentax wastes more than many other .
If a camera in future can process everything for me, can learn my taste, understand the situation and mimic my PP setting for each frame in a split of a second, I will shoot with JEPG 100%. Why bother?
I shoot RAW+ only when IQ is very critical or I know the light will be very complex. most time I just set at JPEG only and light PP on JPEG.
RAW from K1 is about 40-50 MB? processed Tiff files from them are ~100 MB? I don't remember the exact numbers but should be close. I have to say, not fun if I have a lot of photos come back home.
So a better in camera JEPG processing is very critical for me.

[Tako Kichi]

I watched the video and didn't think the Pentax shots were bad enough to warrant last place, in fact I thought some of the winners were over saturated in many cases, especially the studio shots.

Having said that I always shoot RAW (I can't remember when I last shot a jpeg with my K-30) so I have no idea what the stock jpegs are like.

[boriscleto]

Heie,

I would love to shoot more raw, but the sheer file size and the time it takes to process everything was just too much for me. I've tried using compact and all-in-one cameras (high-end ones) and low-light capability was not good. I'm not sure if I'm an exception, but I do seen to know more people who shoot using jpeg in their DSLR than people who shoot raw. Maybe I'm just a 'filthy casual' (joking).

---------- Post added 11-16-16 at 08:33 AM ----------

BTW, I do agree that raw quality was better, but I just didn't think it was worth the time. I'm thinking of shooting in jpeg for 99 percent of my photos and then shooting raw just for the photos I think may be the best one. The problem with this is that some of my best photos are quick spur of the moment photos.

Why do people think it takes a long time to process RAW?

From this



To this



took about 2 minutes in Lightroom.

[grahame]

took about 2 minutes in Lightroom.

questions are: how bad if you shoot jpeg with reasonable setting on camera? and how much better if compared with the same image that is processed from a JPEG file? And what if shooting with JPEG from a nicer precessing camera as shown in the video?

Your original photo was appropriately exposed, and there is no extreme dynamic light range or colored light shinning in. I believe JPEG from camera should look good as well.

[Dan]

In my experience, Pentax JPEGs are really quite bad. In the test they used the K-70. While I haven't tried that camera, I do have its predecessor, the K-S2. The K-S2 JPEGs are so bad that I quit shooting RAW+JPEG. I found that I could never use the JPEGs, and so they were just a waste of card space. Maybe I would have been happier with the quality if I just shot JPEG and wasn't able to compare them to the results I was getting from the RAW files.

[DeadJohn]

Re. the jpg vs raw debate: I'm a firm believer in raw for the types of photos I take. It doesn't take much time to process: I load them all into Lightroom, flag the ones with the most potential, then process only those. I spend around 30 seconds on initial processing, and then those that are best get a few more minutes.

I tried to use raw+jpg but gave that up because I felt like I was wasting time deciding whether the the jpg was good enough or if I should process the raw. Those decisions for every photo took more time than the processing I do on the potential keepers. Additionally, the extra jpg wasted space and further slowed bursts.

YMMV. I do a lot of night photos where raw is far superior to jpg. I also like city streetscapes, and mixed lighting with harsh shadows lets raw save some things that might fail as jpg.

[BrianR]

Owning a DSLR to shoot JPEG is like owning an espresso machine to boil water for your instant coffee...

This analogy is terrible. Instant coffee is horrendous no matter what you use to boil the water with. Choice of a dslr vs P&S (or other camera) can have a major impact on the straight out of camera jpegs you're producing (depending on subject, conditions, etc.).

Raw isn't always the best choice for everyone. Nor is Jpeg. Blindly shooting in one or the other because someone on the internet told you it was "the best" instead of making an informed decision for yourself would be the bigger tragedy.

[boriscleto]

questions are: how bad if you shoot jpeg with reasonable setting on camera? and how much better if compared with the same image that is processed from a JPEG file? And what if shooting with JPEG from a nicer precessing camera as shown in the video?

Your original photo was appropriately exposed, and there is no extreme dynamic light range or colored light shinning in. I believe JPEG from camera should look good as well.

Different lighting scenario. Same amount of processing time...

[StephenHampshire]

Re. the jpg vs raw debate: I'm a firm believer in raw for the types of photos I take. It doesn't take much time to process: I load them all into Lightroom, flag the ones with the most potential, then process only those. I spend around 30 seconds on initial processing, and then those that are best get a few more minutes.

I tried to use raw+jpg but gave that up because I felt like I was wasting time deciding whether the the jpg was good enough or if I should process the raw. Those decisions for every photo took more time than the processing I do on the potential keepers. Additionally, the extra jpg wasted space and further slowed bursts.

YMMV. I do a lot of night photos where raw is far superior to jpg. I also like city streetscapes, and mixed lighting with harsh shadows lets raw save some things that might fail as jpg.

I also shoot Raw + - you need to tweak the JPEG settings to get results you like, but you can get perfectly acceptable results with JPEG. I agree with you hat low light/ hi ISO shots really benefit from using RAW - but then I guess that is the case with any brand 9 I only have experience with Panasonic and Fuji in this area.
My gripe with Pentax is the daft "dual use focus select wb/jpeg/shooting mode/flash buttons on the K5 and K3 mean that I keep changing JPEG parameters when I am trying to select focus points!!!!!!