JPEG Capability
Jan 31, 2019 12:36:01 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
There has been a lot written on this site concerning the limitations of JPEG. Very little has been written about the capabilities of JPEG. I have made the bold statement that it seems to me, at least, that there is a profound level of misunderstanding here around what can and cannot be done with JPEG.
Please note...I am not trying to make an argument that raw and TIFF are not valuable or even that they should not be the primary mode of image capture and storage. I now shoot all images in both JPEG and raw and post process those of special interest. But I also work to make sure that what is captured and saved in the camera provides me with the best possible starting point, which also insures that my JPEGs are ready to go if I want to share them immediately.
I've picked three images from my earlier time doing digital photography. They represent November 2006, January 2009, and September 2014. These are not offered as any sort of benchmark of excellence, but rather just as three reasonably attractive and perhaps somewhat interesting JPEG photographs. The photograph of the Alamo was made with a Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro, the other two images with a Nikon D200. None of these images have been edited.
By the way, the bit depth limitation was absolutely no problem in the photograph of Chihuly's works. There are at least 30 people in the frame with the artwork. The lack of shadow rendition in this case is a plus, not a negative.
I would be very interested to see other examples of images with which members are pleased which were captured and saved as JPEGs.
Please note...I am not trying to make an argument that raw and TIFF are not valuable or even that they should not be the primary mode of image capture and storage. I now shoot all images in both JPEG and raw and post process those of special interest. But I also work to make sure that what is captured and saved in the camera provides me with the best possible starting point, which also insures that my JPEGs are ready to go if I want to share them immediately.
I've picked three images from my earlier time doing digital photography. They represent November 2006, January 2009, and September 2014. These are not offered as any sort of benchmark of excellence, but rather just as three reasonably attractive and perhaps somewhat interesting JPEG photographs. The photograph of the Alamo was made with a Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro, the other two images with a Nikon D200. None of these images have been edited.
By the way, the bit depth limitation was absolutely no problem in the photograph of Chihuly's works. There are at least 30 people in the frame with the artwork. The lack of shadow rendition in this case is a plus, not a negative.
I would be very interested to see other examples of images with which members are pleased which were captured and saved as JPEGs.
The Alamo, San Antonio, Texas, November 2006
(Download)
Hawk, Dallas Arboretum, January 2009
(Download)
Boats, Chihuly Museum, Seattle, September 2014
(Download)
Jan 31, 2019 12:54:08 #
You may be misunderstanding the point on JPEG vs RAW or TIFF. JPEG is a format that is necessary in order to share or send photos to others through email or social media. It is also necessary when printing an image. Nobody that is knowledgeable on the format will reject JPEG as a useful format for an image. The problem with shooting images in JPEG is that you will limit the data the photo retains for post processing. A lot of photographers, including professionals, will shoot in JPEG + RAW so that they may send a photo to a client quickly before post processing.
Jan 31, 2019 12:55:48 #
Photos with Canon SX50 bridge camera in HQ burst mode (jpg only). With the far-distant eagle nest (#1) that I photographed for four summers, I found that a little bit of editing with Topaz Detail and PS Elements worked quite well. I also learned that slightly under-exposing was preferable to attempting to retrieve detail from over-exposed whites.
The message I have often preached is that people should use whatever gear they are comfortable with based on weight, cost, ease of use - and then to edit (or not!) however they wish. I recommend that hobbyists ignore the deeply technical arguments you find on UHH (some of that is just entertainment for the participants) and learn about composition, light, and exposure.
The photos on your wall are not likely to be examined pixel by pixel
The message I have often preached is that people should use whatever gear they are comfortable with based on weight, cost, ease of use - and then to edit (or not!) however they wish. I recommend that hobbyists ignore the deeply technical arguments you find on UHH (some of that is just entertainment for the participants) and learn about composition, light, and exposure.
The photos on your wall are not likely to be examined pixel by pixel
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.