[Ratmagiclady]

I'm just wondering... it seems all the comparisons between the Kx and K7 are largely regarding Jpeg performance... but do any 'semi-pro' level users actually shoot in JPEG????

Yes.



For one, with my computer facilities as they are at present, I only hit that RAW button 'for later' and am not dissatisfied with Jpegs.

Right now, the camera itself is the biggest computer in the house.

If I want to spend hours being picky, that's what film is for.

Then again, I'm so analog, it's been mere months since I stopped trying to take a lupe to the computer screen.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 12-31-2009 at 12:31 PM.

[Lowell Goudge]

I can't say that I'm totally convinced here. The trouble with a jpeg is that you are only recording a final interpretation of what the camera sees, not the actual information itself. This may be quite adequate for a lot of purposes but if we really want to obtain the best out of a file then it must be a bonus to have access to all the information recorded. With a JPEG we have 256 brightness levels with a 16bit RAW its 65,500 levels and because these are not spread evenly over the dynamic range it means that tones can get very jerky at the darker end of things in the compressed file. Having this depth of information also allows more detail to be pulled out of the highlights as well and I have an example here-

not so fast. Pentax RAW is only 12 bis not 16

The highlights may look burnt out in this JPEG but it prints fine from the TIFF.

it will print finr also from the jpeg because the printer is only 8 bit any way

As for the white balance then the article on the LL site mentioned above has this to say-

— Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

as i said this is only true if you totally screw it up, if you are close fine adjustment is easy in any format raw or jpeg. it is all about getting it right in the first place.

I run Photoshop CS and I can't seem to adjust the colour balance by the method you suggest, and messing about with various colour balances and levels has never bought me any joy in the past. However, a few simple adjustments in the cameras own editing software usually brings satisfactory results. I've also noticed that with in Pentax Photo Lab making a small change to exposure results in better skin tones before touching white balance.

this last point is irrelevent to raw vs jpeg and more about settings and work flow

RAW v JPEG. It's horses for courses at the end of the day.

Justin.

just one more point, someone said why should you settle for editing jpeg when you can work in raw. to this, I offer, why should you have to work at all.

[Alfisti]

I already answered that question, you need to work when the dynamic range exceeds that of the sensor and when colours clash. Try exposing an image with a lot of red, if you expose 'correctly' you will blow the red channel to smitherines or you live with a very dull and flat file for the rest of the image, red being far more demanding than most colours. Or, you expose for the highlights and pull the reds down in post with the extra headroom RAW gives you, THEN you convert to 8 bit.

Not to mention, do you think the same level of sharpening and saturation is suitable for a portrait as it is for an image of a bright flower with lots of detail?

You're suggesting all images are the same which is flat out wrong.

[cbaytan]

I am bored.

I am uttahere: outtahere.

[Biro]

What planet are you from? In my world, professionals rarely have their equipment bought for them, and they have to choose very carefully what purchases they will make, often making do with less than ideal equipment due to budgetary restraints.
Professional photographers don't all shoot for Sports Illustrated.
The studio I am with is still using Nikon D70 bodies for some jobs.
Fanboyism is just as prevalent among pros as among amateurs, but they aren't as strident or screechy as the run of the mill Pentax fanboy.

I'm talking about news photographers, not studio photographers. I mentioned how I can see how valuable shooting raw might be for those shooting weddings, portraits, fashion and ad photography.

But you raise a valid point about working with less than the latest equipment. This is very true. On the other hand, I've yet to see anyone blow a shot because they were working with a camera that's one or even two generations behind. A Nikon D70 or D200 is still a good camera today - as long as it's working properly. And an experienced, skilled photographer will still deliver the goods without the latest bells and whistles.

[Lowell Goudge]

I already answered that question, you need to work when the dynamic range exceeds that of the sensor and when colours clash. Try exposing an image with a lot of red, if you expose 'correctly' you will blow the red channel to smitherines or you live with a very dull and flat file for the rest of the image, red being far more demanding than most colours. Or, you expose for the highlights and pull the reds down in post with the extra headroom RAW gives you, THEN you convert to 8 bit.

Not to mention, do you think the same level of sharpening and saturation is suitable for a portrait as it is for an image of a bright flower with lots of detail?

You're suggesting all images are the same which is flat out wrong.

Actually, no I'm not saying all images are the same.

The point is that about 98% (number not for dispute, this is a WAG) of all photos taken do not benefit significantly from RAW,

Photos that do, as you have pointed out can be done in RAW, that's why my default is JPEG with RAW+ at the push of a button.

The point I am trying to make in all of this is that if you have situational awareness (and you should if you are a pro or semi pro) you know when you will need RAW and when JPEG is sufficient, as well as what settings you need.

A lot of the arguments surrounding RAW, like some of the ones I responded to are flat out wrong. You can make many of the same adjustments in either JPEG or RAW, there is nothing that says you cant, and for fine adjustments in the mid range of images you don't need the extra data.

If you are always working at the edges of the exposure range, sure RAW can give a little more, but how often are you always working in that range?

however, at the end of the day it is the results that matter and if anyone is satisfied with their shots or prints, regardless of how they got there, then it is OK.

My only point is to try to get as close as possible when I take the shot, not later. That's all. In a response to a similar thread once, I was accuesed of "Pre- Post Processing" because I made situational adjustments of my JPEG settings as I shot.

[Alfisti]

The moment you use two formats, it slows you down. If you shoot all RAW the workflow is far easier as you can batch JPG's using your cameras settings. This i swhere your argument breaks down, the second you touch even one image in post, it's faster, easier and more flexible to shoot RAW.

[jsherman999]

...
Last weekend I checked some raw+jpeg files from an autumn hiking just for fun (and to compare raw developer apps) and in every raw developer app (Lightroom, Bibble, RawTherapee, Lightzone, etc) the purple/violet color of the flowers became pale blue!! After playing with all the settings none of them could give the same result as the out-of-cam jpeg or Pentax DCU. Some of them couldn't even come close.

.

.

I've found this to be true, also, in fact I don't know how much I trust a lot of converters now. People say shooting jpeg is like letting the camera decide for you, but I think batch raw conversions often are letting the raw converter decide much more for you than the in-camera jpeg engine that you've presumably tweaked to your liking.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ACR/lightroom still choose it's own conversion defaults/approximations during a batch conversion of NEFs? (the older version I have does.)

I think you have to shoot in DNG if you want your in-camera settings profiles available to ACR. Which makes the output of your NEF batch conversions a crap shoot, and guarantees that PP time is required with each image to get it 'right' after conversion.


By the way, picasa allows some pretty powerful non-destructive jpeg editing, is free, and is cool. I PP all the time using it. I've found that a couple clicks in picasa often gets me to the same place that about 5 minutes of LR/Gimp/etc PP labor will get me in a raw workflow. YMMV.

.





.


Bad composition, and lost contrast by shooting into the sun with an unhooded 24 mm? Contrast click & crop, 10 secs.

.

.

Thousands of probably better examples I won't bore you with.


.

[justinr]

not so fast. Pentax RAW is only 12 bis not 16 it will print finr also from the jpeg because the printer is only 8 bit any way as i said this is only true if you totally screw it up, if you are close fine adjustment is easy in any format raw or jpeg. it is all about getting it right in the first place. this last point is irrelevent to raw vs jpeg and more about settings and work flow

just one more point, someone said why should you settle for editing jpeg when you can work in raw. to this, I offer, why should you have to work at all.

Yes yes, yes. I'm sure you are absolutely right, well done, but to be quite honest I'll stick with what works best for me. If I've got it all wrong then tough, I really don't care and I'm past arguing about such things. As I said, it's horses for courses and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Justin.

[jsherman999]

The moment you use two formats, it slows you down. If you shoot all RAW the workflow is far easier as you can batch JPG's using your cameras settings. This i swhere your argument breaks down, the second you touch even one image in post, it's faster, easier and more flexible to shoot RAW.

.

More potentially flexible, yes, but it's not faster or easier to work with a raw in post as a jpeg. You're using the same tools, and there's no conversion step with the jpeg, either. And the 'flexibility' often only pays dividends if you need to push exposure either way beyond jpeg clipping levels, or will be doing some extreme cropping and need very specific sharpening done on the crop, or really need to do something radical with the color cast. With all other typical PP work, working with the jpeg is fine. At least that's been my experience. (I started out as a raw-only shooter until I started to notice diminishing returns with my excellent K20D jpegs)

But I'd be generally curious to know how your workflow works where raw editing is faster than jpeg editing - maybe I'll learn something!



.

[Marc Sabatella]

By the way, picasa allows some pretty powerful non-destructive jpeg editing, is free, and is cool. I PP all the time using it. I've found that a couple clicks in picasa often gets me to the same place that about 5 minutes of LR/Gimp/etc PP labor will get me in a raw workflow.

If you can do it in a couple of clicks for JPEG, what stops you from doing it in a couple of clicks for RAW too? Why should it takes five minutes?

Note I'm *not* saying RAW will get the job done faster - just that no way should it ever be slower. And if, for example, wanted to bring out more detail in the cat in the first picture you posted, RAW gives you 4-64 times more headroom (depending on how many bits your RAW files are). There will often be pretty obvious differences in the amount of detail you can recover in cases like that.

[Alfisti]

.

More potentially flexible, yes, but it's not faster or easier to work with a raw in post as a jpeg. You're using the same tools, and there's no conversion step with the jpeg, either. And the 'flexibility' often only pays dividends if you need to push exposure either way beyond jpeg clipping levels, or will be doing some extreme cropping and need very specific sharpening done on the crop, or really need to do something radical with the color cast. With all other typical PP work, working with the jpeg is fine. At least that's been my experience. (I started out as a raw-only shooter until I started to notice diminishing returns with my excellent K20D jpegs)

But I'd be generally curious to know how your workflow works where raw editing is faster than jpeg editing - maybe I'll learn something!



.

I am talking about the entire work flow. With LR you can batch, if you have jps and raw files you can't batch because you need different sharpening, levels and contrast/sat/clarity etc.

That's my entire argument, its easier to shoot all raw and batch than it is to deal with jpgs at and the odd raw file.

I honestly think people need to sit down and run through the workflow, I just don't think I have the language skills needed to explain the workflow. Once you undestand it, jpg becomes needless.

[simico]

Not to mention, do you think the same level of sharpening and saturation is suitable for a portrait as it is for an image of a bright flower with lots of detail?

You're suggesting all images are the same which is flat out wrong.

That's my entire argument, its easier to shoot all raw and batch than it is to deal with jpgs at and the odd raw file.

So in one post you tell every image needs different processing (sharpening, saturation, etc), yet on another post you tell to batch process raw files (= apply the same processing). Nice contradiction

I honestly think people need to sit down and run through the workflow, I just don't think I have the language skills needed to explain the workflow. Once you undestand it, jpg becomes needless.

I think people like you should sit down, stop spreading the same false mantra about raw&jpeg and not tell other people how they should do things. Go create your own dictatorship if you want to force others to do everything the same way as you.

[Rondec]

.

More potentially flexible, yes, but it's not faster or easier to work with a raw in post as a jpeg. You're using the same tools, and there's no conversion step with the jpeg, either. And the 'flexibility' often only pays dividends if you need to push exposure either way beyond jpeg clipping levels, or will be doing some extreme cropping and need very specific sharpening done on the crop, or really need to do something radical with the color cast. With all other typical PP work, working with the jpeg is fine. At least that's been my experience. (I started out as a raw-only shooter until I started to notice diminishing returns with my excellent K20D jpegs)

But I'd be generally curious to know how your workflow works where raw editing is faster than jpeg editing - maybe I'll learn something!



.

A lot depends on what software you are using. Let's say that you are completely satisfied with your shots. You can open 25 (or more) RAW files at the same time, apply sharpening and then save them. If you have 100 files that were all taken in the same time and place, you can adjust the white balance on all of them at once. You can crop, adjust exposure, etc then to individual files as you desire.

This is using Adobe Elements 7. Even when I take jpegs, I open every file and make small adjustments, even if it is only sharpening. I can tell for certain that with Adobe's interface that RAW saves me time in the long run.

[Alfisti]

So in one post you tell every image needs different processing (sharpening, saturation, etc), yet on another post you tell to batch process raw files (= apply the same processing). Nice contradiction

Not a contradiction at all, you batch the images that don't need manual tweaking and you manualy tweak those that do. Again, you clearly do no thave a handle on the workflow, it's clearly beyond you.