Quality of in-camera jpeg production, D850 (Page 4): :sm24:...

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

DirtFarmer wrote:

Until proven wrong to their own satisfaction.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

DaveyDitzer wrote:

n the usual suspects in about two pages. But remember, this is a hobby for most of us. Something for fun.

Perhaps post a few pics to see if your shots really don’t need fixin’???

Attached are: in-camera jpeg, RAW, and one post processed. All saved to ca. 10mp file size.
I hope I've done this correctly.[/quote]

They all look the same to me.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

bdk wrote:

My editing is usually much better than any JPG image. I say if you are going to shoot JPG, why bother spending big bucks on a good camera when a $100 camera will do for you.
Want to fail the camera course I took???? shoot JPG and dont use a tripod on field excursions and you failed.

Or skip the "camera" course and walk your own trail! Then, if you fail, it will all be on you!
I get ALL the good juice out of my big buck cameras shooting jpegs! And I don't use a tripod!

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Attached are: in-camera jpeg, RAW, and one post processed. All saved to ca. 10mp file size.
I hope I've done this correctly.

Well you’re not gonna see much difference if you don’t do much to process it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

larryepage wrote:

... it rendered as interesting texture...

"Interesting texture". Must be an acquired taste.

The good news is that "overprocessed" can be avoided. In fact that's one of the most basic lessons when learning how to post process properly.

tcthome Loc: NJ

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?

delete

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I was under the impression that the compression algorithms involved in jpg production were absolutely standardized.

That means that what we really are discussing is the camera's combination of settings chosen to apply. Nikon (the one brand im really familiar with) labels these as picture controls.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Orphoto wrote:

I was under the impression that the compression algorithms involved in jpg production were absolutely standardized.

That means that what we really are discussing is the camera's combination of settings chosen to apply. Nikon (the one brand im really familiar with) labels these as picture controls.

It's a tad more than that. The picture controls adjust the saturation, contrast, and sharpening. There's also the WB - white balance and Noise Processing that are baked-into the JPEG by the camera's processor chip. Then, there's the pixel resolution of the sensor. The pixel resolution comes over to the full-sized JPEGs, although the bit depth of the D850 (either 12- or 14-bit) is 'compressed' by the camera's unique processing into the 8-bit format of the JPEG.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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?

It's RAW or nothing, MHO.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Retired CPO wrote:

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!

Me too! I find I always have a little correction I can add but I never have shot raw

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The unprocessed image is not worth sharing ...

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

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.

Another brother from another mother, D850 and I downsize to med size jpeg, my pics are exquisite

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Shooting RAW is a pathway to photography success that some consider to be unnatural.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

CHG_CANON wrote:

Shooting RAW is a pathway to photography success that some consider to be unnatural.

I agree that shooting RAW is the only way to shoot.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

imagemeister wrote:

LOL ! - and I AGREE with "what the camera could create"

I do not understand why when someone says JPEG it is assumed it is SOTC - I shoot ONLY JPEG - but I DO PP tweak everything in Elements 9 - and I do stay @ ISO 1600 and under - so any of my problems are minor.

Guys with the RAW T-shirts often compare edited Raw to unedited jpg. Fact is, most of the time, almost all the time, you and your camera take jpgs quite well, and you can 99% of the time edit the jpg to as good or superior to what you get with RAW.

Very little about RAW helps with the most common photography problems, which with todays camera's you have to try to screw up enough that raw is required. RAW is the LAST thing that makes for a good picture. A skilled editor can take a B&W jpg photo and colorize to very high standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

The most common problems with photography are in composition (pole sticking out of Aunt Janes head, crooked horizon, face shadows, ugly sky, etc. These are all easily fixed in a jpg editor. Even minor (actually pretty major) exposure and color issues can be fixed with a jpg editor.

If you are so anal retentive you need RAW to perfect your photo's then by all means, go for it. I have to laugh when old folks here thought their walls were yellow when in fact they were white. EVERYONES eyes are different, screens are different, printers different view points different and since the difference from edited RAW to edited JPG is close to imperceptible to most everyone, it is amusing that some insist RAW is the ONLY way to go and editing is only useful if done on a RAW image.

If you are a person who pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession then RAW would be a good choice. Good luck and occasionally you might end up with a better outcome than if you just shot JPG to begin with. And, unless you have superb artistic skills, you will more often end up with less than the edited jpg would have provided to you.