Quality of in-camera jpeg production, D850 (Page 2): I firmly believe that what we "see" is a coordination/link between brain and eye.... When I had cataracts, I didn't realize they...

goofybruce

gvarner wrote:

Quality is judgmental. One man's truth is another man's folly.

I firmly believe that what we "see" is a coordination/link between brain and eye.... When I had cataracts, I didn't realize they affected my color perception since there was a screen/filter over my eyes that the brain just accepted.

I realized that the morning I was in my bathroom and was able to take the pad off the first eye that was done. I actually had "white" walls in that room, not the pale yellow that I perceived.

So, rather than go to some "formula" in editing, I edit to what looks good to my eye. Same with cropping a photo to get the "right balance."

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

goofybruce wrote:

I firmly believe that what we "see" is a... (show quote)

My experience with cataracts was slightly different.

I had a white wall in my bathroom. It looked white to me. When I got my first cataract removed the wall looked white through the new lens and yellow through the old lens. By the end of the week the color perception difference between eyes had faded and both eyes saw the wall as white or almost white.

The color perception is in the brain, not the eye, and the brain learns to adjust, so the perception changed over that week.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

DaveyDitzer wrote:

I recently went on a deliberate landscape "shoot" with the intention of generating a large print on the order of 24x30. I often shoot both jpeg and RAW which gives me an opportunity to review in jpeg and then PP a RAW image. On this occasion when I compared the in-camera jpeg images with the best I could do post processing the RAW file, I could not do much better than the jpeg produced by my D850. Have any of you experienced this outcome?

I'm one of those Neanderthals that shoots jpeg only. Yes, with a D850!!! And have had NO regrets with my results. I have had canvas prints up to 24X30 made from my lowly jpegs that are spectacular! And that's not just my opinion. I've said before, in these hallowed UHH pages, that I'm a photographer. NOT a computer graphics bubba. And always will be!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. RAW is one of the true wonders of modern digital photography. Many times while editing my RAW files, I begin to see my connection to the fabric of the universe.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

Again I may in the minority and some may scoff but I am more than satisfied with the jpg's my D 850 produces. I have printed up to 13x19 with no problems. Although I am retired I don't want to spend all my time tweaking my pics to what I think they should be. I might lighten some shadows or minor PP but all that major work after taking the picture is not for me.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

DirtFarmer wrote:

There's a difference in luminosity between the shots. Took the downloaded shots and animated a blink test. Not sure what the first image is. 400441 is the second image (in camera?), 402950 is the third image (raw? not sure how this is extracted -- embedded preview?), 404010 is the fourth image. Had to reduce the image size to get it to fit into UHH. To see the animation, click on the download link.

Got it. Thank you.
My images in order were: jpeg in-camera processed, jpeg from RAW and RAW. All had to be downsized to fit the UHH requirements for downloading. The RAW files were upwards of 80 mp and the jpegs from RAW PPD were ca. 25-30mp. The RAW were opened in my PS 2020 program which then only saves in jpeg or other large files (TIFF). Yes, they're noisy. I was trying to stop the water droplets at shutter speeds up to 1/8000.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Linda From Maine wrote:

Trying to edit raw from a bridge camera back in 2014 - 2016, I could not achieve the quality of my in-camera SX50 jpg's of small subjects shot at great distances.

These days I shoot and edit raw only (with an Olympus), often in challenging lighting conditions but usually large subjects much closer than a baby eagle in a nest across the river. My results are far superior to the occasional jpg I might compare.

DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU

.

Yep, Olympus JPEG’s are better than the others but I can still do better with raw.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Yep, Olympus JPEG’s are better than the others but I can still do better with raw.

Oops, way too late to clarify that the SX50 was made by Canon.

I've never shot exclusively jpg with my Olympus, except for one online challenge having to do with camera features. That was a painful week

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Got it. Thank you.
My images in order were: jpeg in-camera processed, jpeg from RAW and RAW. All had to be downsized to fit the UHH requirements for downloading. The RAW files were upwards of 80 mp and the jpegs from RAW PPD were ca. 25-30mp. The RAW were opened in my PS 2020 program which then only saves in jpeg or other large files (TIFF). Yes, they're noisy. I was trying to stop the water droplets at shutter speeds up to 1/8000.

Interesting that the in-camera jpeg was a bit darker than the jpeg extracted from the raw file (and the processed raw file). It actually looks like the water in the brighter shots was blown out a bit.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. RAW gives a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging to a worldwide community of photographers, all dedicated to maximizing the pixel resolution of their cameras.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Linda From Maine wrote:

Oops, way too late to clarify that the SX50 was made by Canon.

I've never shot exclusively jpg with my Olympus, except for one online challenge having to do with camera features. That was a painful week

I know. I was just saying that Olympus does superior JPEG’s I can still do better shooting raw and editing.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I know. I was just saying that Olympus does superior JPEG’s I can still do better shooting raw and editing.

LOL, glad we got that straightened out.

Time to go take pictures!

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I shoot both RAW (NEF) and .jpg. I agree that the .jpg can give you a baseline of what the camera thinks is an optimal capture. However, I too have salvaged some pretty crappy shots (usually lighting) and turned them into useable photos. I learned about RAW from this character when he first started his channel. Cheers to Jared for carrying the RAW banner for so many years. Mr. CHG_CANON is right under Jared on UHH for pushing RAW. Bless them both.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. We see the world not through our viewfinder, but in the output of our software. In this sense, the purpose of RAW is an act of the imagination.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

starlifter wrote:

Again I may in the minority and some may scoff but I am more than satisfied with the jpg's my D 850 produces. I have printed up to 13x19 with no problems. Although I am retired I don't want to spend all my time tweaking my pics to what I think they should be. I might lighten some shadows or minor PP but all that major work after taking the picture is not for me.