Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Clicker · 01-02-2010, 09:37 AM

Whoo ...long thread but i follow this rule of thumb RAW for big prints 30x40 + JPGs for everything else. This is why some manufacturers put dual card slots in their "mortgage your house" cameras

This is one of those discussions for a meet.

Maffer · 01-02-2010, 10:27 AM

Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out.

Raybo · 01-02-2010, 11:10 AM

I have been shooting Jpeg from the get-go and my reasoning is.......my "eye" will develope to the point of knowing what settings to use in different conditions. I will get some so-so images along the way but I think it will pay off in the long run.

jeryst · 01-02-2010, 12:37 PM

Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

Alfisti · 01-02-2010, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by jeryst

Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

Go back maybe 3 pages in this thread, i posted a very clear example.

keyser · 01-02-2010, 12:53 PM

Some interesting views in this thread. I'm a jpeg shooter because there are few areas where my post production is at all impacted by the use of compression. I find RAW files too big to properly archive, too unweildy to use and more of an annoyance than a help.

It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother? I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect!

The only time I'm going to feel stupid is if I'm selling a shot an they demand the RAW.... I'm not even close to that stage yet.

Alfisti · 01-02-2010, 12:55 PM

How is storage a problem? Memory is cheap as chips.

As for exposure, i am done repeating myself but get back to me when the light range exceeds that of the sensor and man, some of you guys must have a lot of time to NAIL every single exposure bar none, that is quite remarkable.

Eruditass · 01-02-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

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.

Agreed here, batch develop on import is awesome, effectively making RAW turn into JPEGs with more headroom. However, LR2's NR sucks. Some times I'd rather have K-x's JPEG engine do NR than have to open up another program!

Space used to be an issue for me, but K-x's RAW are nicely compressed and not all that much bigger.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-02-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Maffer

Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out.

go back a few pages

pentax raw is only 12 bit to start with, so this entire argument is not as strong as people think.

The bottom line is what ever people are comfortable with,

if you have the time and situational awareness to set your JPEG settings to match lighting conditions. (Just like old time film shooters did between different types of film) then shoot jpeg. If you want to go out and shoot and correct later because that is what you are accustomed to, then fine, go out and do that to.

THe whole point here is there are options and there is no 100% answer. Some situations may deserve RAW whole for others it is a complete waste of time.

CRPhoto · 01-02-2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Do people really shoot in JPEG???

yes..people still do shoot jpg, and we also print 8x11, 11x17, 20x30 and even on 30x40...and the clients love it. So, if they like it and it works for me then I 'll keep using jpgs.

Marc Sabatella · 01-02-2010, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by keyser

It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother?
I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect!

Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are *tons* of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state).

Marc Sabatella · 01-02-2010, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by jeryst

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing.

sounds like you've got a camera, so it's easy enough to test this for yourself. Shoot a scene in tungsten light with the WB set to daylight (or vice versa), then try to fix the color. Trivial in RAW - you can get it just as good or even better than if you had set the correct WB in the first place. But you'll never do as well with JPEG.

Of course, it's not just about fixing mistakes, but this makes for an easily reproducible example.

Quote:

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

The one that came with the camera is free, although it's rather cumbersome compared to the programs that truly make shooting RAW as easy as or even easier than shooting JPEG.

Mark Castleman · 01-02-2010, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by jeryst

Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

The two that are used most often are Lightroom and Aperture. Lightroom is available for Windows and Mac while Aperture is a Mac only program and while neither costs as much as say CS4 they are certainly not free. Many pros use Bridge along with Photoshop but I have never tried that combination. I use Aperture myself and I have been quite happy with it.

Raybo · 01-02-2010, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are *tons* of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state).

I can adjust my images 'till i'm blue in the face, it's somewhat like adjusting your new HD TV, to many options and never being happy with the results.

To much of a "good" thing can just kill the whole experience of getting a natural image.

jgredline · 01-02-2010, 08:40 PM

all I know is that I am happy to be a part of the Jpeg only club

I know there are 4 or 5 of us and that's cool.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do you shoot in Raw Vs JPeg??	Softsoap	Photographic Technique	14	02-25-2010 02:52 PM
The K-7 makes me want to shoot JPEG	aerodave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	66	11-14-2009 03:10 PM
Winners: Point & Shoot Contest #23 - "People"	and	Pentax Compact Cameras	2	09-26-2009 09:33 AM
Point & Shoot Contest #23 - "People"	and	Pentax Compact Cameras	22	09-26-2009 05:19 AM
Finding people to shoot	xecutech	Photographic Technique	171	03-11-2009 06:54 AM

01-02-2010, 09:37 AM	#91
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Whoo ...long thread but i follow this rule of thumb RAW for big prints 30x40 + JPGs for everything else. This is why some manufacturers put dual card slots in their "mortgage your house" cameras This is one of those discussions for a meet.

01-02-2010, 10:27 AM	#92
Maffer Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 308	Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out.

01-02-2010, 11:10 AM	#93
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	I have been shooting Jpeg from the get-go and my reasoning is.......my "eye" will develope to the point of knowing what settings to use in different conditions. I will get some so-so images along the way but I think it will pay off in the long run.

01-02-2010, 12:37 PM	#94
jeryst Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Western PA Posts: 136	Very interesting thread. I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save. But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision. Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

01-02-2010, 12:47 PM	#95
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by jeryst Very interesting thread. I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save. But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision. Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased? Go back maybe 3 pages in this thread, i posted a very clear example.

01-02-2010, 12:53 PM	#96
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Some interesting views in this thread. I'm a jpeg shooter because there are few areas where my post production is at all impacted by the use of compression. I find RAW files too big to properly archive, too unweildy to use and more of an annoyance than a help. It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother? I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect! The only time I'm going to feel stupid is if I'm selling a shot an they demand the RAW.... I'm not even close to that stage yet.

01-02-2010, 12:55 PM	#97
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	How is storage a problem? Memory is cheap as chips. As for exposure, i am done repeating myself but get back to me when the light range exceeds that of the sensor and man, some of you guys must have a lot of time to NAIL every single exposure bar none, that is quite remarkable.

01-02-2010, 01:14 PM	#98
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by Alfisti 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. Agreed here, batch develop on import is awesome, effectively making RAW turn into JPEGs with more headroom. However, LR2's NR sucks. Some times I'd rather have K-x's JPEG engine do NR than have to open up another program! Space used to be an issue for me, but K-x's RAW are nicely compressed and not all that much bigger.

01-02-2010, 02:02 PM	#99
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	Originally posted by Maffer Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out. go back a few pages pentax raw is only 12 bit to start with, so this entire argument is not as strong as people think. The bottom line is what ever people are comfortable with, if you have the time and situational awareness to set your JPEG settings to match lighting conditions. (Just like old time film shooters did between different types of film) then shoot jpeg. If you want to go out and shoot and correct later because that is what you are accustomed to, then fine, go out and do that to. THe whole point here is there are options and there is no 100% answer. Some situations may deserve RAW whole for others it is a complete waste of time.

01-02-2010, 03:23 PM	#100
CRPhoto Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 260	Quote: Do people really shoot in JPEG??? yes..people still do shoot jpg, and we also print 8x11, 11x17, 20x30 and even on 30x40...and the clients love it. So, if they like it and it works for me then I 'll keep using jpgs.

01-02-2010, 06:54 PM	#101
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by keyser It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother? I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect! Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are tons of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state).

01-02-2010, 07:01 PM	#102
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by jeryst But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. sounds like you've got a camera, so it's easy enough to test this for yourself. Shoot a scene in tungsten light with the WB set to daylight (or vice versa), then try to fix the color. Trivial in RAW - you can get it just as good or even better than if you had set the correct WB in the first place. But you'll never do as well with JPEG. Of course, it's not just about fixing mistakes, but this makes for an easily reproducible example. Quote: Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased? The one that came with the camera is free, although it's rather cumbersome compared to the programs that truly make shooting RAW as easy as or even easier than shooting JPEG.

01-02-2010, 07:44 PM	#103
Mark Castleman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Westminster, Colorado Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 298	Originally posted by jeryst Very interesting thread. I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save. But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision. Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased? The two that are used most often are Lightroom and Aperture. Lightroom is available for Windows and Mac while Aperture is a Mac only program and while neither costs as much as say CS4 they are certainly not free. Many pros use Bridge along with Photoshop but I have never tried that combination. I use Aperture myself and I have been quite happy with it.

01-02-2010, 08:29 PM	#104
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are tons of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state). I can adjust my images 'till i'm blue in the face, it's somewhat like adjusting your new HD TV, to many options and never being happy with the results. To much of a "good" thing can just kill the whole experience of getting a natural image.

01-02-2010, 08:40 PM	#105
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	all I know is that I am happy to be a part of the Jpeg only club I know there are 4 or 5 of us and that's cool.