[BruceBanner]

I always question the objectivity of claims and practice when someone is a brand ambassador.

---------- Post added 26-06-22 at 08:19 ----------


I don't believe in people being chosen. Working hard to become excellent and being chosen is what people are being told in schools, and popular beliefs. In reality, things rarely work that way because there are simply too many people on earth for any business to evaluate them all and select the best. Usually, only applicants get jobs (or people who manage to get themselves especially visible, presenting themselves in from of the right door), after they are hired they get paid to do what they are told to do (the marketing job can be "promote jpeg" because we have film simulation that others don't have). It's like for the election process of political leadership in democratic countries, you vote for individuals who are officially candidates and you can't vote for individuals who aren't candidates no matter how skilled and capable they are.

There is an application process to being an X ambassador (or Sony etc). But honestly you are putting way too much emphasis on thinking these people are in the brands pockets/payroll and jumping to the beat. I know ambassadors (I was even in talks with Pentax to being one myself!), there is more work for the tog involved and recently I believe the Fuji brand is now insisting on those that they have 'working' for them use only their gear and not any other brand and for some that was a restriction too far, so they left the program (like Kevin did).

Being a brand ambassador often means the following;

- You get ZERO income from it, apart from a fee perhaps for doing a talk or attending an event/launch
- You get discounts on goods
- You get to review things first before the public (sometimes, those that didn't get pissed off and leave the program (*cough Robin Wong *cough FJH etc)
- You get to provide feedback direct to designers (a feature request you have will have more serious consideration)
- You get to advertise the fact you are an ambassador
- Sometimes they stipulate you HAVE to use their logo/signature on your images (again often a bridge too far for many).

It all depends on the country too, Fuji UK might operate different to Fuji USA etc etc.

But many ambassadors are just togs like you and I. They start out in photography, get good and THEN become an ambassador (because it suits their current goals). You make it sound like the company finds someone in their payroll and makes them an ambassador and I have never ever heard that to being even remotely true. There is a mutual benefit to the working relationship (for awhile at least), that's all it is. But many leave the program due to some constraints (or their rep is an ahole in their district/area). It goes without saying that any review they do of their brand will be fairly positive, but even then they quite often stipulate their association with the brand beforehand but that the brand is not seeing the video before the public and that their thoughts are their own (and they often continue to criticize said brand product, if they do that you know you actually have found an ambassador with integrity).

But if all you do is watch 5mins here or there of some ambassador you're building up a poor representation of who that person is. Like everything in life the more you look into things the better the picture you build for yourself.

To build up a good idea of something I think its good to collect a lot of reviews. I enjoy independent reviewers like Camera Conspiracies, he'll often highlight the negs much better than a brand ambassador, but that doesn't mean the brand ambassadors are full of it or lying.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Let's imagine a photographer called Fred or Freda looking at a scene.

Now Fred/Freda might think: Okay, the range of tones in this scene all integrate to mid grey, so autoexposure can handle it no problem. And I like the look of the jpegs that my camera produces, so I'll use jpeg and autoexposure. Fred/Freda is demonstrating skill and experience.

Or Fred/Freda might think: Well, this scene needs a very wide dynamic range to capture the full range of tones. The scene is beyond the limits of my camera's autoexposure system and jpeg engine, so I'll use manual exposure and raw. Again, Fred/Freda is demonstrating skill and experience.

My reading of Eddy's video is that he's saying that having the ability to make an educated choice between raw or jpeg, auto or manual, is in itself a sign of skill and experience.

[BigMackCam]

Back on the subject of Auto and JPEG...

I think it's a perfectly valid and useful combo - when it works... and it might work 80 - 90% of the time or more in balanced natural lighting for shots where shutter speed and aperture aren't critical to the practical and creative aspects of a shot.

What happens, though, when - due to a variety of conditions - the Auto mode over- or under-exposes; sets poor white balance values due to challenging lighting or scene content (such as a preponderance of one colour throughout most of the frame); chooses too slow a shutter speed to capture motion or too fast a shutter speed such that motion is frozen too much; selects an aperture that gives too little depth of field for a landscape or too much for a flower or portrait shot?

With over- and under- exposure, highlights are blown or shadows are crushed, and the JPEG contains no additional data to allow recovery of those.

With poor white balance, insufficient data is available in the JPEG file to allow more than minor tweaks to white balance without resulting in inaccurate colours, colour banding etc.

With too slow or too fast a shutter speed, the shot is a creative failure - regardless of the file format.

With inappropriate aperture, well... judicious application of selective blurring or sharpening masks might be able to fake shallower or greater depth of field, but depending on the content of the shot that could require a lot of work or simply be impractical.

Manual or semi-automated modes vest all (or the majority) of control in the user rather than the camera. Creative success (and failure) is therefore dependent on the judgement and skill of the user rather than the camera's firmware and limitations therein. That doesn't mean every manually-controlled shot will be perfect, but at least when mistakes are made it's a lesson for the user - so even if an image is a technical or creative failure, the lesson-to-be-learned has value.

Using raw files, technical mistakes made by the user or semi-automated portions of the selected exposure mode can usually be dealt satisfactorily with in post-processing, unless they're in the extreme. Full colour data is there to support wide correctional and creative changes in white balance, gradients in tone and shadow / highlight recovery.

So, again, I think in certain circumstances Auto and JPEG can work - and they do have the advantage of usually capturing something useable in non-challenging conditions... plus, yes, they provide a shareable image right from the camera, or with very little tweaking, which may be useful to some folks. As with everything in photography, they're just tools, and they're as valid as any other. Understanding the benefits but also the limitations is key to getting the best from any tool.

I'll stick with manual or semi-automated modes and raw file format, because I prefer to have maximum control over exposure and creative shutter speed + aperture choices, and want maximum flexibility in post-processing... not because I think it makes me somehow better or more experienced than those who choose Auto + JPEG for some or all of their shooting...

[Rondec]

These are my contentions:

1. RAW is a parachute for people who don't completely trust their own abilities to get things right in camera. I know that people get all sanctimonious about it ("RAWs are the digital negative! You wouldn't burn all of your film negatives, would you?"), but if you trusted your ability to get everything right in camera you wouldn't need RAW. Most of us start shooting RAW because we are told that it is better and you can fix your mistakes and we never change off of it -- the closest we might get is shooting RAW plus jpeg.

2. Cameras are better at jpeg shooting than they used to be. Even Pentax cameras do a decent job with them. 9 times out of 10 the white balance, etc is right.

3. The biggest issues with jpegs from your camera come if you somehow produce an image that is over sharpened or over saturated. The landscape Pentax jpeg setting can give some really odd colors and it is really hard to fix in post. The same if you somehow set your camera to Bleach Bypass. You can't simply go to Lightroom and move a couple of sliders and suddenly have an image that looks "right."

4. If you do any work in post you might as well shoot RAW. The time savings with shooting jpeg have to do with not post processing, but once you go into Lightroom or your post processor of choice and delete images and crop a few others and bump contrast and vibrance on a few others, you might as well just shoot RAW. As I said earlier, the thing that takes me the longest is really figuring out which images to delete and which to keep. After that, I typically spend about 10 to 20 seconds per image. Pixel Shifted images take longer, but I am convinced it is worth it.

Most of us develop a work flow that works for us. There isn't anything right or wrong about a specific work flow -- the important thing is that you get the results you want with a minimum of frustration.

[BruceBanner]

Let's imagine a photographer called Fred or Freda looking at a scene.

Now Fred/Freda might think: Okay, the range of tones in this scene all integrate to mid grey, so autoexposure can handle it no problem. And I like the look of the jpegs that my camera produces, so I'll use jpeg and autoexposure. Fred/Freda is demonstrating skill and experience.

Or Fred/Freda might think: Well, this scene needs a very wide dynamic range to capture the full range of tones. The scene is beyond the limits of my camera's autoexposure system and jpeg engine, so I'll use manual exposure and raw. Again, Fred/Freda is demonstrating skill and experience.

My reading of Eddy's video is that he's saying that having the ability to make an educated choice between raw or jpeg, auto or manual, is in itself a sign of skill and experience.

That would be one message yeah, but not necessarily the main... (more on this below).

Back on the subject of Auto and JPEG...

I think it's a perfectly valid and useful combo - when it works... and it might work 80 - 90% of the time or more in balanced natural lighting for shots where shutter speed and aperture aren't critical to the practical and creative aspects of a shot.

What happens, though, when - due to a variety of conditions - the Auto mode over- or under-exposes; sets poor white balance values due to challenging lighting or scene content (such as a preponderance of one colour throughout most of the frame); chooses too slow a shutter speed to capture motion or too fast a shutter speed such that motion is frozen too much; selects an aperture that gives too little depth of field for a landscape or too much for a flower or portrait shot?

With over- and under- exposure, highlights are blown or shadows are crushed, and the JPEG contains no additional data to allow recovery of those.

With poor white balance, insufficient data is available in the JPEG file to allow more than minor tweaks to white balance without resulting in inaccurate colours, colour banding etc.

With too slow or too fast a shutter speed, the shot is a creative failure - regardless of the file format.

With inappropriate aperture, well... judicious application of selective blurring or sharpening masks might be able to fake shallower or greater depth of field, but depending on the content of the shot that could require a lot of work or simply be impractical.

Manual or semi-automated modes vest all (or the majority) of control in the user rather than the camera. Creative success (and failure) is therefore dependent on the judgement and skill of the user rather than the camera's firmware and limitations therein. That doesn't mean every manually-controlled shot will be perfect, but at least when mistakes are made it's a lesson for the user - so even if an image is a technical or creative failure, the lesson-to-be-learned has value.

Using raw files, technical mistakes made by the user or semi-automated portions of the selected exposure mode can usually be dealt satisfactorily with in post-processing, unless they're in the extreme. Full colour data is there to support wide correctional and creative changes in white balance, gradients in tone and shadow / highlight recovery.

So, again, I think in certain circumstances Auto and JPEG can work - and they do have the advantage of usually capturing something useable in non-challenging conditions... plus, yes, they provide a shareable image right from the camera, or with very little tweaking, which may be useful to some folks. As with everything in photography, they're just tools, and they're as valid as any other. Understanding the benefits but also the limitations is key to getting the best from any tool.

I'll stick with manual or semi-automated modes and raw file format, because I prefer to have maximum control over exposure and creative shutter speed + aperture choices, and want maximum flexibility in post-processing... not because I think it makes me somehow better or more experienced than those who choose Auto + JPEG for some or all of their shooting...

First of all, I did mention briefly in the video that 'Auto' mode doesn't wholly mean 'Auto' in a sense the photographer has zero control over things. EV bias for example can still work for many cameras in Auto mode and like I said in the video you can set things up in Auto mode so that it is bias towards shallow DoF or MTF, and things like minimum shutter speeds etc etc. Even fixed WB can be chosen on some cameras whilst still being in the 'Green Auto' mode. Not all Auto modes are equal.

These are my contentions:

1. RAW is a parachute for people who don't completely trust their own abilities to get things right in camera. I know that people get all sanctimonious about it ("RAWs are the digital negative! You wouldn't burn all of your film negatives, would you?"), but if you trusted your ability to get everything right in camera you wouldn't need RAW. Most of us start shooting RAW because we are told that it is better and you can fix your mistakes and we never change off of it -- the closest we might get is shooting RAW plus jpeg.

2. Cameras are better at jpeg shooting than they used to be. Even Pentax cameras do a decent job with them. 9 times out of 10 the white balance, etc is right.

3. The biggest issues with jpegs from your camera come if you somehow produce an image that is over sharpened or over saturated. The landscape Pentax jpeg setting can give some really odd colors and it is really hard to fix in post. The same if you somehow set your camera to Bleach Bypass. You can't simply go to Lightroom and move a couple of sliders and suddenly have an image that looks "right."

4. If you do any work in post you might as well shoot RAW. The time savings with shooting jpeg have to do with not post processing, but once you go into Lightroom or your post processor of choice and delete images and crop a few others and bump contrast and vibrance on a few others, you might as well just shoot RAW. As I said earlier, the thing that takes me the longest is really figuring out which images to delete and which to keep. After that, I typically spend about 10 to 20 seconds per image. Pixel Shifted images take longer, but I am convinced it is worth it.

Most of us develop a work flow that works for us. There isn't anything right or wrong about a specific work flow -- the important thing is that you get the results you want with a minimum of frustration.

I think perhaps the core message I tried to make somewhat failed judging from the comments in this thread. This was not a video about Jpg being better than RAW, or that Auto mode is valid. There are countless genres of photography where Auto would be a bad choice (and Jpg)! Let's see how great an Astro shot someone gets in Auto vs Bulb (and enabling Astro mode)! OF COURSE Auto and Jpgs are not always the best choice, that is not what any of this was about.

This really was about the Dunning-Kruger effect, a confession of sorts in how in the last 2-3yrs I have had my eyes opened to the fact that Auto and Jpg have their merits, not just for amateurs and noobs but even at a professional level.
When I started my journey 5yrs or so with a K-50 I did enough basic research to know the difference between RAW and Jpg, and how Auto differed to Av, TAv, Sv, Manual and Bulb. I shot RAW from the get go, I never used Auto and started in Manual>TAv>Av/Tv etc. Still in 2-3yrs I did not see the point in full Auto.
Fast forward a few years, a different brand camera, a different experience, some learning of how others shoot and my world turned upside down. Now I was seeing people produce astonishing results from Jpgs (images I presumed had such a heavy rendered look that they must have seen some LR/PS treatment), and of course the power of Auto and why its actually in some instances (arguably) the best mode to use (at least for some professionals).

This really was about me thinking I knew quite a lot about the topic of photography, to the point that if someone said they shot Auto or preferred Jpgs then I would have some solid preconceptions about where they are on their journey as a photographer, their skill level and likely their output. Now... now I no longer make that connection, it's simply not enough information to ascertain if that person is a highly successful professional or someone in the infancy of their photography. And that... that I find really interesting and thought worth making a video about.

[BigMackCam]

This really was about the Dunning-Kruger effect, a confession of sorts in how in the last 2-3yrs I have had my eyes opened to the fact that Auto and Jpg have their merits, not just for amateurs and noobs but even at a professional level.
When I started my journey 5yrs or so with a K-50 I did enough basic research to know the difference between RAW and Jpg, and how Auto differed to Av, TAv, Sv, Manual and Bulb. I shot RAW from the get go, I never used Auto and started in Manual>TAv>Av/Tv etc. Still in 2-3yrs I did not see the point in full Auto.
Fast forward a few years, a different brand camera, a different experience, some learning of how others shoot and my world turned upside down. Now I was seeing people produce astonishing results from Jpgs (images I presumed had such a heavy rendered look that they must have seen some LR/PS treatment), and of course the power of Auto and why its actually in some instances (arguably) the best mode to use (at least for some professionals).

I try not to judge other folks' methods, and I try to remain open to different and/or new ideas. I say try, because there are occasions where I so want to guide folks towards what I feel are better approaches to certain aspects - and I don't always manage to hold my tongue

I remember some time back, Eddy, trying to convince you that you really ought to be using a calibrated and profiled display, and being kind of horrified you weren't - especially with paid wedding and event photography gigs... and I really did think you were missing out on something important by not doing so. These days, I've eased off a fair bit... You'd find me a lot more accepting and less likely to judge your workflow or anyone else's now. I might mention why I find display profiling beneficial, but I wouldn't push it if you weren't open to it. We all have to find what works for us individually.. but being open-minded to what others are doing certainly can pay dividends. It's the same with this Auto and/or JPEG thing.

While I'm keen to learn new methods and benefit from different ideas, it's fair to say I wasn't always so open-minded... and even currently, I wouldn't typically consider using Auto or JPEG unless those are the only options open to me - for instance, on some compact cameras... but since I'm quite happy to use them if that's all that's available, this discussion - even if it was intended to focus on the Dunning-Kruger Effect (which I'm pretty sure I don't suffer from ) - might make me explore Auto and JPEG more in future, in certain specific circumstances or use-cases

[BruceBanner]

I try not to judge other folks' methods, and I try to remain open to different and/or new ideas. I say try, because there are occasions where I so want to guide folks towards what I feel are better approaches to certain aspects - and I don't always manage to hold my tongue

I remember some time back, Eddy, trying to convince you that you really ought to be using a calibrated and profiled display, and being kind of horrified you weren't - especially with paid wedding and event photography gigs... and I really did think you were missing out on something important by not doing so. These days, I've eased off a fair bit... You'd find me a lot more accepting and less likely to judge your workflow or anyone else's now. I might mention why I find display profiling beneficial, but I wouldn't push it if you weren't open to it. We all have to find what works for us... but being open-minded to what others are doing certainly can pay dividends. It's the same with this Auto and/or JPEG thing.

While I'm keen to learn new methods and benefit from different ideas, it's fair to say I wasn't always so open-minded... and even currently, I wouldn't typically consider using Auto or JPEG unless those are the only options open to me - for instance, on some compact cameras... but since I'm quite happy to use them if that's all that's available, this discussion - even if it was intended to focus on the Dunning-Kruger Effect (which I'm pretty sure I don't suffer from ) - might make me explore Auto and JPEG more in future, in certain specific circumstances or use-cases

Slight tangent but you'll actually find calibrated monitors in 2022 more trouble than their worth, here's why. Wedding and event work typically revolve around the digital realm. Brides/grooms want to show off the images on social media, event worked shared on websites. Guess what... no client has a calibrated monitor so of the times I edit on a profiled monitor it ends up looking nothing like my intention on a digital device. Hand those images over to clients and you just get headaches as what they're seeing is not what you're seeing.

These days I edit on a calibrated monitor (but I do not do enough calibration frequently enough, tut tut). But most of the time I will not base the image success on the calibrated monitor, I check how things are looking on multiple screens around the home, my Legion 15 laptop monitor, my phone, my wifes phone, kids tablet etc. When I am seeing the results of my work look decent on 3-4 other screens then I have a better idea that this edit is more likely what the client will see when I hand over the images and really that's the end of my job. Printing they do, not I (but many do not print, they are too lazy and like the rest of us content with staring at their images on a tiny phone screen... <sigh>.

So I think calibration is important but its also industry/genre specific and tied heavily into the printing process. Even then, when it comes to printing yer still soft proofing, running test sheets and adjusting the edit further based on what you're seeing and holding in your hands. I've ran into more issues working on a calibrated monitor vs steering one of my monitor profiles towards a base device output. Sad but true.

Funny thing is, in all the time I have produced work on uncalibrated screens, not one... not ONE person ever made a comment about this skin tone being off, or too contrasty, underexposed or whatever. No one really sees the edit the way the editor does, but I think if you can produce work that falls within the general ballpark of what you're seeing (to the rest of the digital community) then you're not doing too bad at all. It's actually quite easy to see those that clearly have their monitors being really funky, they become repeat offenders, it goes beyond 'style' and you can start to see things that they must be seeing the edit very differently to the rest of us.

End of tangent.

[BigMackCam]

Slight tangent but you'll actually find calibrated monitors in 2022 more trouble than their worth, here's why. Wedding and event work typically revolve around the digital realm. Brides/grooms want to show off the images on social media, event worked shared on websites. Guess what... no client has a calibrated monitor so of the times I edit on a profiled monitor it ends up looking nothing like my intention on a digital device. Hand those images over to clients and you just get headaches as what they're seeing is not what you're seeing.

These days I edit on a calibrated monitor (but I do not do enough calibration frequently enough, tut tut). But most of the time I will not base the image success on the calibrated monitor, I check how things are looking on multiple screens around the home, my Legion 15 laptop monitor, my phone, my wifes phone, kids tablet etc. When I am seeing the results of my work look decent on 3-4 other screens then I have a better idea that this edit is more likely what the client will see when I hand over the images and really that's the end of my job. Printing they do, not I (but many do not print, they are too lazy and like the rest of us content with staring at their images on a tiny phone screen... <sigh>.

So I think calibration is important but its also industry/genre specific and tied heavily into the printing process. Even then, when it comes to printing yer still soft proofing, running test sheets and adjusting the edit further based on what you're seeing and holding in your hands. I've ran into more issues working on a calibrated monitor vs steering one of my monitor profiles towards a base device output. Sad but true.

Funny thing is, in all the time I have produced work on uncalibrated screens, not one... not ONE person ever made a comment about this skin tone being off, or too contrasty, underexposed or whatever. No one really sees the edit the way the editor does, but I think if you can produce work that falls within the general ballpark of what you're seeing (to the rest of the digital community) then you're not doing too bad at all. It's actually quite easy to see those that clearly have their monitors being really funky, they become repeat offenders, it goes beyond 'style' and you can start to see things that they must be seeing the edit very differently to the rest of us.

End of tangent.

We're kind of back to our previous discussion on this Eddy. Suffice to say, what you're doing works for you - and that's all that matters really

See? I told you I'd eased off a bit

[biz-engineer]

I think it's a perfectly valid and useful combo - when it works... and it might work 80 - 90% of the time

I use OOC JPEGs only for quick image preview. For printing @ A1, I can hardly use OOC Jpegs because the camera sharpening process is too basic as it creates sharpening halos that can't be reversed in post. Raw files up-scale much better than Jpegs, plus better CA correction and better sharpening. And for instance, pixel shift exposures are much better converted outside of the camera, as the Jpeg engine of the camera is optimized for speed & file size and not for details. But I'm sure if all you do it post images on instagram, then camera Jpegs are just fine out of the box.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I use OOC JPEGs only for quick image preview. For printing @ A1, I can hardly use OOC Jpegs because the camera sharpening process is too basic as it creates sharpening halos that can't be reversed in post. Raw files up-scale much better than Jpegs, plus better CA correction and better sharpening. And for instance, pixel shift exposures are much better converted outside of the camera, as the Jpeg engine of the camera is optimized for speed & file size and not for details. But I'm sure if all you do it post images on instagram, then camera Jpegs are just fine out of the box.

I've been out showing some visitors around Dartmoor today, so I shot jpegs in full auto and uploaded them to facebook as soon as I got home for everyone to enjoy.

That's because an intelligent, skilled, experienced photographer uses the best options for the particular task at hand. Someone who thinks that they've got a one size fits all solution that they have to use in every possible situation is suffering from. . . well. . . the Dunning-Kreuger effect. And if you are serious about your assertion that all photograpers should always use an A1 print as their reference standard, then yep. . . Dunning-Kreuger it is.

[BigMackCam]

I use OOC JPEGs only for quick image preview. For printing @ A1, I can hardly use OOC Jpegs because the camera sharpening process is too basic as it creates sharpening halos that can't be reversed in post. Raw files up-scale much better than Jpegs, plus better CA correction and better sharpening. And for instance, pixel shift exposures are much better converted outside of the camera, as the Jpeg engine of the camera is optimized for speed & file size and not for details. But I'm sure if all you do it post images on instagram, then camera Jpegs are just fine out of the box.

I have several cameras that only shoot JPEG, such as the Panasonic DMC-FZ62 I bought from my Dad - a cracking little bridge camera with a decent lens and all sorts of useful capabilities, but no facility to shoot raw. My standard settings for that camera are to set noise reduction and sharpening to the lowest possible settings, then I deal with those aspects in post-processing. Baked-in loss of detail from noise reduction and halos / artefacts from sharpening are impossible to deal with after the fact. I get good results from JPEG-only cameras using this approach... then again, like most photographers, I don't print @ A1. Neither do I (or will I ever) post to Instagram

[StiffLegged]

Sometimes I think the Dunning-Kruger is everywhere, like people posting in this thread and not even taking the time to watch the damn video

Like it's more important to have their say about something/anything (be heard!) and with that bring their own assumptions to the actual topic matter which they won't take 10mins to investigate properly... good lord..

Tell you what, I'll just leave clickbaity titled videos, posted here without a single comment, to the birds. I wouldn't want to upset anyone by this any more.

Phooey.

[BigMackCam]

Tell you what, I'll just leave clickbaity titled videos, posted here without a single comment, to the birds. I wouldn't want to upset anyone by this any more.

I tend not to watch many YouTube photography videos and other off-site content referenced in forum threads (no offence intended to Eddy, I just don't) - but, like most members here, I can't resist a good, constructive discussion and debate on an interesting subject such as this, once others have chimed in Some context to posted videos, or better still a "TL;DW" ("didn't watch") summary - getting the basic points across and making viewing of the video preferred-but-optional rather than essential - would help avoid discussions going off in directions unwanted or unintended by the OP... and it would add valuable, searchable content to the forums without detracting from the video. Kind of a win-win for everyone

Just my two cents (yes, I'm a Brit, but I'm sure I have some US coinage in a drawer somewhere )...

[BruceBanner]

Tell you what, I'll just leave clickbaity titled videos, posted here without a single comment, to the birds. I wouldn't want to upset anyone by this any more.

Phooey.

Haha, you've not upset anyone (or me), I just find it odd is all, to weigh in on a thread but not even take the 10mins to watch the content to which the thread pertains. Would you skip the OP on every thread? Or if the thread has an external link to an article you wouldn't take the 5-10mins to click and read up on that before giving your 2 cents? I just don't get that kind of mentality is all, I don't think I could easily contribute to a conversation if I didn't at least educate myself to what it is we're all talking about. And I really don't think the video is at all containing a click bait title, do you?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I use OOC JPEGs only for quick image preview. For printing @ A1, I can hardly use OOC Jpegs because the camera sharpening process is too basic as it creates sharpening halos that can't be reversed in post. Raw files up-scale much better than Jpegs, plus better CA correction and better sharpening. And for instance, pixel shift exposures are much better converted outside of the camera, as the Jpeg engine of the camera is optimized for speed & file size and not for details. But I'm sure if all you do it post images on instagram, then camera Jpegs are just fine out of the box.

The very simple and basic reason why I most of the time I use raw and keep raw files is this

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

The wire frame is the Adobe srgb container and all of the color data points that fall outside of the wire frame is data that cannot be stored within that container. This video only represents the colors found in the limited color selection in a Color Checker SG target

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Here is an image that I was able to print and all the data points of color was able to be printed with my rather older printer. All of the colors found outside of the wireframe is what is lost in the cameras jepg container