[stevebrot]

...You have to like the JPEG output options of your particular camera and get the exposure just right like with slide film...

You said (typed?) a mouth full here.

From what I can tell reading this thread, most of the JPEG shooters either like the default camera settings or have massaged the available options to a general pre-set that meets most of their needs. Fair enough, I say.

The exposure issue is what really caught my eye. Those of us with a film background know how difficult it is, even with the best of metering, to nail exposure with 'chromes. There is also the issue of color temperature (white balance) with those daylight balanced films. I have a K10D and don't have the advantage of whatever improvements have been made on newer models to both the metering and the camera LCD. The screen on the back of my camera shows images that are fundamentally unlike the final result when copied to my PC. Even with the histogram, proper value placement is sort of a crap shoot. White balance is rarely spot on as well.

People like RiceHigh (yes, that guy) have made a career complaining about metering, auto-exposure, and white-balance issues with Pentax and other brand cameras. That kind of stuff has never been an issue for me because I have been shooting RAW. The extra latitude gives me the freedom to shoot more like I am working with color negative rather than color slide film.

In any case, I really don't see much cause for a JPEG/RAW war. In my view, we are so fortunate on so many fronts:

• Our cameras offer extensive JPEG processing options as well as comprehensive overrides for exposure and white balance
• We have the option of overriding our base settings at a press of a button to get whatever mix of JPEG and/or RAW files we need
• We have the option of in-camera RAW conversion
• JPEG output is really very good (this is not the case for my Canon G2)
• We have many excellent PP software options at a number of price points

Things are truly good

Steve

(Feeling all warm and fuzzy inside...)

Let's have a discussion about the benefits of boxers over 'tighty whitey's' next. This has been a good discussion that hasn't happened before (that I can remember) and it's had the benefit of allowing some of us jpeggers to come out of the closet.
Thanks to all of you who have made it a sensible discussion.
To the few RAW snobs out there, I say "".

[SteveM]

Let's have a discussion about the benefits of boxers over 'tighty whitey's' next. This has been a good discussion that hasn't happened before (that I can remember) and it's had the benefit of allowing some of us jpeggers to come out of the closet.
Thanks to all of you who have made it a sensible discussion.
To the few RAW snobs out there, I say "".

The 'tighty whitey's' comment scares me.....I'm worried it'll be posted as our next poll....

I've been shooting RAW but after reading this, I should try JPEG for a while....

[Blue]

the biggest reason I have gotten in the habit of shooting raw as a default is that I need some shots to be in tiff or high res jpeg for publications and presentations. Early this decade, tiff was almost the universal requirement. Now high res jpegs are acceptable as an alternative. When I shoot jpeg only, I sometimes forget to set it back to raw and have screwed up some opportunities by not having raw. However, it wasn't that long ago that digital shots were usually only good enough for lcd powerpoint presentations.

[UnknownVT]

However, it wasn't that long ago that digital shots were usually only good enough for lcd powerpoint presentations.

That musta been a L-O-N-G time ago

The highest resolution home PC monitor is around 1680x1050 - there are some that are HDTV format at 1920x1080 - that is barely 2Mp.....

Any respectable dSLR is at least 6Mp
(yes, there were the first Canon dSLRs at 3Mp....)
This is at least some 3 times the resolution of the most demanding display device....
and a 12Mp dSLR would be 6x the pixel count/resolution.....

There is NO way a 2Mp RAW image (if there is such a thing) could possibly be better than even a minimal 6Mp JPG
(all other things being equal).

So RAW even if it can be very flexible
and may allow for better PP manipulation
to correct one's shooting errors or adverse conditions -
it is still not a panacea/magic silver bullet for bad imaging... sorry.

[Adam]

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????

I do- 99% of the time

More convenient and the quality is typically better unless you really tinker with the raw settings.

[Blue]

That musta been a L-O-N-G time ago

The highest resolution home PC monitor is around 1680x1050 - there are some that are HDTV format at 1920x1080 - that is barely 2Mp.....

Any respectable dSLR is at least 6Mp (IN 2001, there weren't really any at least cost effective etc)
(yes, there were the first Canon dSLRs at 3Mp....)
This is at least some 3 times the resolution of the most demanding display device.... (I was talking about the output to journals.)
and a 12Mp dSLR would be 6x the pixel count/resolution.....

There is NO way a 2Mp RAW image (if there is such a thing) could possibly be better than even a minimal 6Mp JPG
(all other things being equal). (where did I say it was? I didn't.)

So RAW even if it can be very flexible
and may allow for better PP manipulation
to correct one's shooting errors or adverse conditions -
it is still not a panacea/magic silver bullet for bad imaging... sorry.

I guess you missed the part where I said I used them with lcd projectors. I said nothing about computer monitors. The high res was/is required for scientific journals and has to do with output. As far as monitors go, I still have a couple of 19" ViewSonic monitors purchased in 2002. In fact, I'm using one of them at the moment and is calibrated with a Huey. As far as the old digital cam, I still have it in the Jeep. Its a Nikon at 5 MP. I bought it in late '01 or earl '02 and it only shoots jpg.

Edit:

"There is NO way a 2Mp RAW image (if there is such a thing) could possibly be better than even a minimal 6Mp JPG (all other things being equal).a 2Mp RAW image (if there is such a thing) could possibly be better than even a minimal 6Mp JPG (all other things being equal).

Where did I say a 2 mp RAW was better than 6 mp jpeg? I didn't. However, you fail to realize that there are additional data in a RAW file. As I said, I would normally shoot jpeg, but just keep it at RAW as a default. The other issue with important images is that they can degrade with time from being opened and closed.

Edit: Edit: Nor did I say it was a crutch.

---

Last edited by Blue; 01-04-2010 at 08:58 PM.

[Lowell Goudge]

That musta been a L-O-N-G time ago

The highest resolution home PC monitor is around 1680x1050 - there are some that are HDTV format at 1920x1080 - that is barely 2Mp.....

Any respectable dSLR is at least 6Mp
(yes, there were the first Canon dSLRs at 3Mp....)
This is at least some 3 times the resolution of the most demanding display device....
and a 12Mp dSLR would be 6x the pixel count/resolution.....

There is NO way a 2Mp RAW image (if there is such a thing) could possibly be better than even a minimal 6Mp JPG
(all other things being equal).

So RAW even if it can be very flexible
and may allow for better PP manipulation
to correct one's shooting errors or adverse conditions -
it is still not a panacea/magic silver bullet for bad imaging... sorry.

I agree, and by the way, i am one of those using a 1680 x 1050 - 22 inch monitor

it makes pixel peeping a whole lot easier

[Blue]

I agree, and by the way, i am one of those using a 1680 x 1050 - 22 inch monitor

it makes pixel peeping a whole lot easier

Duh, I wasn't talking about monitors. As I said before, I've had a couple of 19" ViewSonics (1 from '01 and 1 from '02) that I still use. However, prior to about 2006, an editor at a journal would not take a jpg, period. Besides, I get out the big monitor for peeping.

[CWyatt]

I do- 99% of the time

More convenient and the quality is typically better unless you really tinker with the raw settings.

What RAW settings?

[Alfisti]

.

raw shooter infers: "So I'm just a socially backwards pixel-peeping geek? I think not, jerk! Plus it doesn't take much more time, usually."

I very seldom see much if any benefit to shooting raw about 90% of the time - no real resolution advantage, color is more variable but I don't want to vary it from what was shot, I can bring out details in shadows but I don't want to, they just distract from the theme of the image, etc, etc. Some may not be bothered much by small returns on effort, but I am.

Another example: Disk space and image cleanup. I don't like the increased file culling necessity a raw-only workflow brings. If I don't take the time to cull, I'm backing up GBs of old image files that I have no intention of ever, ever going back to to tweak further. Some may not be bothered much by a chore like file management attached to a pleasurable, relaxing hobby, but it annoys me, especially when I consider the diminishing returns mentioned above...

OK i'll be a right arsehole. I still disagree.

It never takes more time, not usually Again, I don't think people understand the workflow, the only extra effort is literally pressing the export button ... that's it, there is no extra effort. You can still choose to walk away from the RAW files and batch everything rather than hand process a single image just like you're shooting jpg. Difference being when (not if) you want to make changes, you have a RAW file, even if it's one file in a hundred.

As for disk space, surely you jest? It's like $70 a terabite.

Regarding file management, what file management????? I don't think you get the workflow, you can't or you'd understand that there are LESS images to manage not more because if I want to create an image for a 4x6 print or an 8x10 or a web sized image ... i just press EXPORT and it's generated from the RAW files.

For the 100th time, it's not slower, it's faster and easier if you know what you're doing.

[UnknownVT]

I guess you missed the part where I said I used them with lcd projectors. I said nothing about computer monitors. The high res was/is required for scientific journals and has to do with output.

My apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick -
a PowerPoint presentation using an LCD projector is still limited to the display card's maximum output resolution - which normally does not exceed the "best" monitors - in fact many of them are VGA = 640x480 or if one is lucky SVGA = 800x600 this is lower than the monitors I quoted at 1650x1050 or 19200x1080 -
the point is most digicam images including your 5Mp Nikon far exceed the LCD projector requirements.

Or have I got it wrong again? -
if so, please kindly quote the LCD projector model # and its specs?

Edit:
Where did I say a 2 mp RAW was better than 6 mp jpeg? I didn't. However, you fail to realize that there are additional data in a RAW file.

I did not say you did, I was going by the LCD PowerPoint presentation -
and the PowerPoint "slides" were very unlikely to have exceeded the common (even hi-res) monitor since PowerPoint is for PC screens.....

Any additional data in RAW is simply not visible when displayed on a typical (even hi-res) PC screen or LCD projected - since they have to be translated/converted to TIFF or JPG and displayable on a PC - which means typically sRGB and 8-bit......

Please feel free to correct me again with the typical PowerPoint "slide" resolution you had to work with (if necessary post one somewhere where we can all look at it please?)

Edit: Edit: Nor did I say it had jack shit to do with bad imaging. I bet you were a hoot with a Polaroid.

really,
that was unnecessarily RUDE -
I was not being rude or even disrespectful to you.

If you wish to be rude please take it off-line in a private message please.

[Blue]

VT, you still missed the entire point of my original post. I'm not arguing about display or projector quality. I was talking about for the occasion when I needed tiff in high resolution for scientific journals . . . printed media. Its only be the past couple of years that they have started taking high rez jpegs. The 5 mp jpgs weren't there the first half of this decade. To re-iterate, I generally shoot raw so that when I need a shot, I don't have to worry about it. Its easy to down size etc. Plus, I'd hate for someone to hit me up for a tiff for a publication and not be able to do it. I used the old Nikon for PowerPoint presentations almost 95% of the time up until about 2 years ago and still would on certain shots and still use the earlier photos when I need them.

On top of that, for special images, if shot in jpeg, I'd still have to keep a "master" due to the risk of degrading/corruption of the jpg.

Edit: Poster printing is a whole other issue.

[Blue]

My apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick -
a PowerPoint presentation using an LCD projector is still limited to the display card's maximum output resolution - which normally does not exceed the "best" monitors - in fact many of them are VGA = 640x480 or if one is lucky SVGA = 800x600 this is lower than the monitors I quoted at 1650x1050 or 19200x1080 -
the point is most digicam images including your 5Mp Nikon far exceed the LCD projector requirements.

Or have I got it wrong again? -
if so, please kindly quote the LCD projector model # and its specs?



I did not say you did, I was going by the LCD PowerPoint presentation -
and the PowerPoint "slides" were very unlikely to have exceeded the common (even hi-res) monitor since PowerPoint is for PC screens.....

Any additional data in RAW is simply not visible when displayed on a typical (even hi-res) PC screen or LCD projected - since they have to be translated/converted to TIFF or JPG and displayable on a PC - which means typically sRGB and 8-bit......

Please feel free to correct me again with the typical PowerPoint "slide" resolution you had to work with (if necessary post one somewhere where we can all look at it please?)



really,
that was unnecessarily RUDE -
I was not being rude or even disrespectful to you.

If you wish to be rude please take it off-line in a private message please.

I took your post as condescending. I don't bicker in PMs, however, I edited the post.

[UnknownVT]

you still missed the entire point of my original post. I'm not arguing about display or projector quality. I was talking about for the occasion when I needed tiff in high resolution for scientific journals . . . printed media.

On top of that, for special images, if shot in jpeg, I'd still have to keep a "master" due to the risk of degrading/corruption of the jpg.

Gotcha this time - thank you.

If you keep RAW images -
there is no reason why one could not keep the original JPG either -
it's less space too