Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2010, 09:10 PM   #16
Site Supporter
grey goat's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spring Green, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 323
I just got my K-7 (I know: not a K-x) nine days ago. I started out shoot JPG since I'd never shot RAW and was trying to figure out the camera.

But now, RAW. DNG, in particular.

I've heard that the K-x JPGs are great, but . . . even so, there's compression in any JPG, even at the highest quality setting. So no matter how good it is, some data is gone for good.

Sure, many (most?) of my shots I delete before or right after I download. For some of the others, perhaps the compression wouldn't matter. But for some of the, I want every bit of info I can get.

That's why I shoot RAW (DNG).

Then again, I have the K-7, not the K-x. . . .

02-12-2010, 09:22 PM   #17
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 32
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm a newbie k-x owner too.

But I can't undo any changes i make to .jpg files in lightroom. Raw (.dng) files i have no problem with, but if i import jpg i have to make snapshots after every change. That's enough for me to put me off using .jpg.

Last edited by schitzengiggles; 02-12-2010 at 09:31 PM.
02-12-2010, 09:27 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Mystic Quote
well, I do understand what is raw and what is jpg, but what I wanted to stress is:

K-x jpeg engine is such good, that I do not have to spend the time
Once again, the advantge of RAW has *never* been about how "good" it is comapred to default JPEG's. Default RAW is never any better than default JPEG on any camera - that's a myth. The difference has always been and always will be apparent only when you start needing to do extensive PP. If you don't plan to do extensive PP, you don't need RAW on *any* camera. Again, the K-x is no different on this respect.
02-13-2010, 06:04 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Great story! It really is an amazing camera. I switched it to K-x raw because my doctor said I would get more of the vitamins which are lost in the cooking process.
hahaha

you know that it's better to eat raw food without cooking at all

02-13-2010, 06:06 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I'm confused. If you feel jpeg is just as good as RAW, then why use RAW for the "important" shots instead of jpeg?
well it's in case I will want to post process them drastically and maybe in several ways.. so for better results i'd use raw..
02-13-2010, 06:12 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marv Toler Quote
The K-x will allow you to save a shot in both RAW and JPEG formats. Process a few RAW images and see if you like the results better than the JPEG. You alone will know if the extra effort is worth it to you.
that is a good suggestion..
however what I did is:
shot ir raw, then post process it in computer, then thought if I post process this image in camera, then i'll have what camera is giving me, and then decide..
well to be totally honest.. I got better results on the picture that I post process in computer, but
1. I'm not sure it's fair, because I did not use the same settings;
2. I'm not sure if post processing in camera later - gives the same results as shooting jpeg;
3. the difference was visible only with 100% crops and I do not think it's worth the time spent on developing raw, also taking so much disk space; unless very important shots.. which are up to 10% of my photography;
02-13-2010, 06:22 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by schitzengiggles Quote
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm a newbie k-x owner too.

But I can't undo any changes i make to .jpg files in lightroom. Raw (.dng) files i have no problem with, but if i import jpg i have to make snapshots after every change. That's enough for me to put me off using .jpg.
LR treats jpgs the same way it treats raw files..
if you make changes in LR and not export, It'll have all the data of what was done to the files, and you can decide whether close LR and resume working on them later or whether to export the changes as new files or overwrite the files with the changes you've done.. or simply undo everything..

unless you export, no actual changes are made to the files, even to the jpegs.

of course no changes are made to raw files also.. even if you export.. raw files are unchanged all the time.. you cannot overwrite them..

but later if you move the file in your computer.. you're in troubles, because you might loose the data of changes you've done..

also what is anoying to me is that backup now or later message that is constantly appearing..

also my friend had a problem, he used an external hd for archiving his photos, but as he installed some other hardware to his computer, computer changed the letter of the drive.. from G to H and all the data that he applied to the raw files was almost lost.. he spend several days restoring the changes to the Raw files.. I'm not sure how it all ended to him..
02-13-2010, 07:45 AM   #23
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,622
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote

Are you really confused or just being argumentative?
I guess that would be a valid question to you as well regarding that question. I didn't mean for mine to sound argmentative, it was a legitimate question. If jpeg gives him the results he wants then that is the only argument he needs in favor of jpeg, but the initial post said that jpegs were the same quality as RAW, so I was just curious why, if they are the same, he would use one in some circumstances and the other in other situations.

02-13-2010, 07:59 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I guess that would be a valid question to you as well regarding that question. I didn't mean for mine to sound argmentative, it was a legitimate question. If jpeg gives him the results he wants then that is the only argument he needs in favor of jpeg, but the initial post said that jpegs were the same quality as RAW, so I was just curious why, if they are the same, he would use one in some circumstances and the other in other situations.
good point! I overestimated jpeg quality by saying that raw and jpega are of the same quality.. they are not.

but if to compare K20d, K7 raw vs. jpeg quality, Kx is much better.
02-13-2010, 08:28 AM   #25
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by Mystic Quote
...
well, I do not count the point that you could adjust wb later.. since with LightRoom you can do that for jpg also..
And that does not influence the quality after saving the jpeg again?

Another example can be blown highlights. The jpeg engine will (probably) already have thrown away the info that is needed to be able to do some fixing on it (exposure compensation in PP) so the result will not be as good as if you started with the raw.
02-13-2010, 08:51 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
If you need the extra headroom that raw gives, then raw is an advantage. I've found that most of the pictures that I take will fit into a jpg file quite nicely.
If this wasn't the case, slide film would not work, since it suffers from compressed tonal range as well.
02-13-2010, 04:43 PM   #27
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
And that does not influence the quality after saving the jpeg again?
Not significantly, no. If you re-save the same jpeg hundreds or dozens of times, you'll get degradation, but you can get away with doing it several times with no detectable additional loss.
02-13-2010, 06:01 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: on the wall
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 715
I was at a party last night and taking pics in almost zero light. The few shots that I got that were in focus were in serious need of PP, due to a blacklight in at the party and lots of pink lights for whatever reason.

I was able to adjust the pics sufficiently so that the people looked human again and were well exposed. I'm positive that I was able to adjust the pics more than I would be able to with JPEG images.
02-14-2010, 01:37 AM   #29
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by Mystic Quote
Now I wonder.. is there a need to shoot raw with kx?
since the quality of jpeg is the same as raw (cerrect me if i'm wrong), and jpg noise control is exceptionally great. so why to shoot raw?
Many potential reasons, in addition to those already mentioned in this thread, vignetting correction, CA correction and geometric aberration correction are generally more effective when applied during RAW conversion rather than post conversion.

It really boils down to your needs and what you are prepared to tolerate. There is always RAW+, best of both worlds?
02-14-2010, 01:53 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,845
Aside from all the other points mentioned here, another deciding factor that may sometimes be relevant to choosing JPG vs RAW is how fast you need/want your camera to perform on a particular shoot.

If you are shooting sports or something similar and want to achieve the highest possible frames per second shooting speeds out of your K-x, shooting JPG (with lens & CA correction, and bracketing etc disabled) will usually be faster than shooting RAW, mainly because when shooting JPG the frame buffer will fill less quickly, and the camera will also have to transfer less data to disk, which is usually a relatively slow process.

RAW data is still fed into the K-x's internal JPG engine of course in order to create the JPG, but once the image is saved the RAW data just goes into the bit bucket, rather than creating extra I/O work for the camera. The result is faster shooting performance.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, jpg, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Selecting RAW, but adds a jpg 41ants Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-09-2010 09:51 AM
Jpg vs. RAW darthku Post Your Photos! 13 10-01-2008 03:06 PM
Fireworks, RAW or jpg? Psyfalcon Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-05-2007 08:27 PM
ist DS, RAW or JPG? jdmidwest Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 9 06-01-2007 09:17 PM
RAW+JPG... why? slip Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 04-24-2007 11:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top