Do people really shoot in JPEG???

keyser · 01-02-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

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.

I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that!

jgredline · 01-02-2010, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by keyser

I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that!

Yea, the film forum is my home away from home.

stevebrot · 01-02-2010, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by keyser

I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that!

I work mostly in RAW because of my film background in a wet darkroom. Rare is the negative that is "right" straight out of the camera! I can't imagine making prints using the same exposure, development, and contrast grade for every frame on a roll of film unless I were doing proofs.

Again, the choice of format depends heavily on what you shoot, how you shoot it, and your expectations for the final image.

I generally have a need to adjust either the white balance and/or exposure and/or the curves for most of the shots that I post here or on Flickr. JPEG generally does not offer the latitude I need without introducing artifact. Call me picky, I guess. Either that or I just like to fiddle.

If you don't have similar needs, shoot JPEG and be happy. There is no need to feel inferior, defensive, less sophisticated, or whatever. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if you and your customers/family/friends find the results good and satisfying you are doing the right thing. There are many forum members that do just that and you can't argue with their results.

Steve

keyser · 01-02-2010, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I work mostly in RAW because of my film background in a wet darkroom. Rare is the negative that is "right" straight out of the camera!

Ok, you have me there. I don't develop my own stuff and don't have any of the equipment to... I think the day I setup a full darkoom in my bathroom will be the day i get kicked out! (I live in a Condo and only have a few rooms to choose from).

The argumentative side of me feels like telling you to shoot Velvia though.

Marc Sabatella · 01-03-2010, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Raybo

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

If you're not good at it, sure.

UnknownVT · 01-03-2010, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by jeryst

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

Pentax dSLRs are supplied with the Pentax Digital Camera Utility (Browser/Photo LAB) -
based on SlickyPix - this is actually pretty reputable and nice.
Not Freeware - but comes "free" with Pentax dSLRs.

The most used RAW processor is probably Adobe Camera RAW - which is Free -
BUT it is a plug-in for PhotoShop -
however it is also compatible with the much less expensive PhotoShop Elements.
Elements can be had for a very reasonable price in older versions -
it is currently on version 8 -
but Elements 7 can easily be found for less than $30 shipped.

GIMP (Freeware) via a plug-in utility (PSPI) can also accept PhotoShop plug-ins -
I haven't tried this - but I assume Adobe Camera RAW would work with GIMP via PSPI?

Another temporary avenue is Adobe LightRoom which is a $300 piece of software, currently on version 2.6 -
BUT one can get Adobe LightRoom 3 Beta for Free until April/30/2010

Alfisti · 01-03-2010, 09:23 AM

Just be careful with the software, you really need one that makes changes on import or the RAW workflow becomes .... wel lit becomes what people who don't know what they are doing think it is ..... a one at a time process.

If I were to suggest a place to start, I think Lightroom and a $30 copy of say Photoshop elements woul dbe ideal. Lightroom really, really does change your entire head space, you press import and wham .... your images are processed.

Raybo · 01-03-2010, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

If you're not good at it, sure.

Not good with actual imaging or what?

B Grace · 01-03-2010, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by keyser

Ok, you have me there. I don't develop my own stuff and don't have any of the equipment to... I think the day I setup a full darkoom in my bathroom will be the day i get kicked out! (I live in a Condo and only have a few rooms to choose from).

The argumentative side of me feels like telling you to shoot Velvia though.

For projection or scanning? Seriously, though, I think we could all benefit from shooting a couple of rolls of Velvia now and then. Fuji would benefit too! My film usage has dropped off to maybe a roll every month or so and that's just sad.

Marc Sabatella · 01-03-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Raybo

Not good with actual imaging or what?

I meant, if you're not good at PP, then sure, it's easy to ruin an image with it.

keyser · 01-03-2010, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by B Grace

For projection or scanning? Seriously, though, I think we could all benefit from shooting a couple of rolls of Velvia now and then. Fuji would benefit too! My film usage has dropped off to maybe a roll every month or so and that's just sad.

Well, for its requirement of exact exposure 'in camera'. I'll probably switch to Velvia in the summer when I can benefit from the beautiful colours.

As for only getting through only a roll of film a month; I find in winter right now I only bring my film camera on walks but only shoot about that much. I'm pretty selective about my shots though; I've experienced the frustration of machine-gunning then having to spend hours on PP with my digital and now actively avoid doing that.

I now apply the same process to digital. JPEG has less latitude for PP, but you don't always need it.

UnknownVT · 01-03-2010, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

Just be careful with the software, you really need one that makes changes on import or the RAW workflow becomes .... wel lit becomes what people who don't know what they are doing think it is ..... a one at a time process.

If I were to suggest a place to start, I think Lightroom and a $30 copy of say Photoshop elements woul dbe ideal. Lightroom really, really does change your entire head space, you press import and wham .... your images are processed.

I understand that LightRoom is supposed be designed for the workflow when shooting RAW.

However
" According to 2009 statistics from research company InfoTrends, released by Adobe product manager John Nack, of all the 1,045 North American professional photographers who were interviewed, 37.0% used Lightroom and 6.3% used Aperture while 57.9% used the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in. "

The problem is the poster asked for something free,
and $300 is not really close to free.....

Another piece of software that is supposed to be designed for RAW processing workflow is
RAW Therapee -
this is Freeware - and some think highly of it.

dragonfly · 01-03-2010, 01:04 PM

You can do amazing things with a raw image that you just can't do with JPEG. It takes a lot of time to develop the images, but the results are worth it.

mattdm · 01-03-2010, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by dragonfly

You can do amazing things with a raw image that you just can't do with JPEG. It takes a lot of time to develop the images, but the results are worth it.

Let me modify that bit:

You can do some amazing things with some RAW images that you just can't do as well with JPEG. It can take a lot of time to develop the images, but the results may be worth it in some cases.

Marc Sabatella · 01-04-2010, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by UnknownVT

The problem is the poster asked for something free,
and $300 is not really close to free.....

True. Although if you can quality for the educational discount, you can get LR for $100. And some of the other programs that support a LR-style workflow are a bit cheaper than LR (ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, Bibble 5).

I think part of the upshot of this discussion should be to help people quantify the differences between the various applications out there. I love free software as much as the next person - haven't touched Microsoft Word since installing OpenOffice.org, am typing this on Firefox, etc. But there are some *major* advantages to Lightroom and programs like it that specifically relate to the topic at hand: the tradeoffs between shooting RAW versus shooting JPEG. Basically, the free tools out there are pretty much all such that shooting RAW really does seem like a chore compared to JPEG. Those of us stressing that shooting RAW is *as easy as if not easier than* shooting JPEG are assuming one has access to tools that make this so.

Of the free tools out there, only Picasa to my knowledge currently supports the sort of workflow I am talking about, although it's got some significant limitations of its own. I guess for someone interested in shooting RAW, intrigued by the notion that it can be in fact as easy or easier than JPEG, but unconvinced enough to spend a couple hundred bucks to find out, playing with Picasa a while would be a reasonable way to experiment. Of course, LR and its competitors all offer free trials - usually a month, which may or may not be long enough to really come up to speed.

01-03-2010, 01:23 AM	#111
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	RAW processors Originally posted by jeryst Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased? Pentax dSLRs are supplied with the Pentax Digital Camera Utility (Browser/Photo LAB) - based on SlickyPix - this is actually pretty reputable and nice. Not Freeware - but comes "free" with Pentax dSLRs. The most used RAW processor is probably Adobe Camera RAW - which is Free - BUT it is a plug-in for PhotoShop - however it is also compatible with the much less expensive PhotoShop Elements. Elements can be had for a very reasonable price in older versions - it is currently on version 8 - but Elements 7 can easily be found for less than $30 shipped. GIMP (Freeware) via a plug-in utility (PSPI) can also accept PhotoShop plug-ins - I haven't tried this - but I assume Adobe Camera RAW would work with GIMP via PSPI? Another temporary avenue is Adobe LightRoom which is a $300 piece of software, currently on version 2.6 - BUT one can get Adobe LightRoom 3 Beta for Free until April/30/2010

01-03-2010, 12:57 PM	#117
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by Alfisti Just be careful with the software, you really need one that makes changes on import or the RAW workflow becomes .... wel lit becomes what people who don't know what they are doing think it is ..... a one at a time process. If I were to suggest a place to start, I think Lightroom and a $30 copy of say Photoshop elements woul dbe ideal. Lightroom really, really does change your entire head space, you press import and wham .... your images are processed. I understand that LightRoom is supposed be designed for the workflow when shooting RAW. However " According to 2009 statistics from research company InfoTrends, released by Adobe product manager John Nack, of all the 1,045 North American professional photographers who were interviewed, 37.0% used Lightroom and 6.3% used Aperture while 57.9% used the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in. " The problem is the poster asked for something free, and $300 is not really close to free..... Another piece of software that is supposed to be designed for RAW processing workflow is RAW Therapee - this is Freeware - and some think highly of it. Last edited by UnknownVT; 01-03-2010 at 01:02 PM.

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, 09:39 PM	#106
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Originally posted by jgredline 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. I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that!

01-02-2010, 09:53 PM	#107
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by keyser I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that! Yea, the film forum is my home away from home.

01-02-2010, 10:25 PM	#108
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by keyser I lot of us are also active in the Film forum... I guess we're just 'left field thinkers'. Certainly feels a lot like that! I work mostly in RAW because of my film background in a wet darkroom. Rare is the negative that is "right" straight out of the camera! I can't imagine making prints using the same exposure, development, and contrast grade for every frame on a roll of film unless I were doing proofs. Again, the choice of format depends heavily on what you shoot, how you shoot it, and your expectations for the final image. I generally have a need to adjust either the white balance and/or exposure and/or the curves for most of the shots that I post here or on Flickr. JPEG generally does not offer the latitude I need without introducing artifact. Call me picky, I guess. Either that or I just like to fiddle. If you don't have similar needs, shoot JPEG and be happy. There is no need to feel inferior, defensive, less sophisticated, or whatever. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if you and your customers/family/friends find the results good and satisfying you are doing the right thing. There are many forum members that do just that and you can't argue with their results. Steve

01-02-2010, 11:29 PM	#109
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Originally posted by stevebrot I work mostly in RAW because of my film background in a wet darkroom. Rare is the negative that is "right" straight out of the camera! Ok, you have me there. I don't develop my own stuff and don't have any of the equipment to... I think the day I setup a full darkoom in my bathroom will be the day i get kicked out! (I live in a Condo and only have a few rooms to choose from). The argumentative side of me feels like telling you to shoot Velvia though.

01-03-2010, 12:22 AM	#110
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Raybo To much of a "good" thing can just kill the whole experience of getting a natural image. If you're not good at it, sure.

01-03-2010, 09:23 AM	#112
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Just be careful with the software, you really need one that makes changes on import or the RAW workflow becomes .... wel lit becomes what people who don't know what they are doing think it is ..... a one at a time process. If I were to suggest a place to start, I think Lightroom and a $30 copy of say Photoshop elements woul dbe ideal. Lightroom really, really does change your entire head space, you press import and wham .... your images are processed.

01-03-2010, 09:40 AM	#113
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella If you're not good at it, sure. Not good with actual imaging or what?

01-03-2010, 10:17 AM	#114
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	Originally posted by keyser Ok, you have me there. I don't develop my own stuff and don't have any of the equipment to... I think the day I setup a full darkoom in my bathroom will be the day i get kicked out! (I live in a Condo and only have a few rooms to choose from). The argumentative side of me feels like telling you to shoot Velvia though. For projection or scanning? Seriously, though, I think we could all benefit from shooting a couple of rolls of Velvia now and then. Fuji would benefit too! My film usage has dropped off to maybe a roll every month or so and that's just sad.

01-03-2010, 10:52 AM	#115
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Raybo Not good with actual imaging or what? I meant, if you're not good at PP, then sure, it's easy to ruin an image with it.

01-03-2010, 12:40 PM	#116
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Originally posted by B Grace For projection or scanning? Seriously, though, I think we could all benefit from shooting a couple of rolls of Velvia now and then. Fuji would benefit too! My film usage has dropped off to maybe a roll every month or so and that's just sad. Well, for its requirement of exact exposure 'in camera'. I'll probably switch to Velvia in the summer when I can benefit from the beautiful colours. As for only getting through only a roll of film a month; I find in winter right now I only bring my film camera on walks but only shoot about that much. I'm pretty selective about my shots though; I've experienced the frustration of machine-gunning then having to spend hours on PP with my digital and now actively avoid doing that. I now apply the same process to digital. JPEG has less latitude for PP, but you don't always need it.

01-03-2010, 01:04 PM	#118
dragonfly Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: on the wall Photos: Gallery Posts: 715	You can do amazing things with a raw image that you just can't do with JPEG. It takes a lot of time to develop the images, but the results are worth it.

01-03-2010, 01:30 PM	#119
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by dragonfly You can do amazing things with a raw image that you just can't do with JPEG. It takes a lot of time to develop the images, but the results are worth it. Let me modify that bit: You can do some amazing things with some RAW images that you just can't do as well with JPEG. It can take a lot of time to develop the images, but the results may be worth it in some cases.

01-04-2010, 09:55 AM	#120
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by UnknownVT The problem is the poster asked for something free, and $300 is not really close to free..... True. Although if you can quality for the educational discount, you can get LR for $100. And some of the other programs that support a LR-style workflow are a bit cheaper than LR (ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, Bibble 5). I think part of the upshot of this discussion should be to help people quantify the differences between the various applications out there. I love free software as much as the next person - haven't touched Microsoft Word since installing OpenOffice.org, am typing this on Firefox, etc. But there are some major advantages to Lightroom and programs like it that specifically relate to the topic at hand: the tradeoffs between shooting RAW versus shooting JPEG. Basically, the free tools out there are pretty much all such that shooting RAW really does seem like a chore compared to JPEG. Those of us stressing that shooting RAW is as easy as if not easier than shooting JPEG are assuming one has access to tools that make this so. Of the free tools out there, only Picasa to my knowledge currently supports the sort of workflow I am talking about, although it's got some significant limitations of its own. I guess for someone interested in shooting RAW, intrigued by the notion that it can be in fact as easy or easier than JPEG, but unconvinced enough to spend a couple hundred bucks to find out, playing with Picasa a while would be a reasonable way to experiment. Of course, LR and its competitors all offer free trials - usually a month, which may or may not be long enough to really come up to speed.