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

I don't know of any cameras that generate lossless jpg. I am not an expert here so it could be possible.
The main problem is that the jpg uses an 8-bit color profile. The raw file uses 10, 12, or 14 bits depending on the camera.
Those extra bits are why many prefer to use raw data for editing rather than jpg, since each bit represents a factor of 2 in available data.

bleirer

Lightroom combined with Photoshop as it is in the creative cloud subscription is pretty unbeatable, but the learning curve can be steep and full mastery is unobtainable (ommmm).

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

You are right somewhat until the differences between JPEG and RAW in Lightroom. In raw there are more adjustments for white balusters as shot, Auto, daylight, cloudy, shaved, tungsten, fluorescent, flash, and Custom semicolon along with the temperature slider and the tent slider take a temperature slider goes from 2000 to 50000 and the tent goes from -152 + 150. Under the jpeg side there is a shot, Auto, & Custom semicolon along with the two same two sliders -102 + 100 in the temperature + -102 + 100 + 2/10 this is a lot different then the wrong side of it. but I had forgotten about it because I found that I couldn't make jpegs look better than they were coming out of the camera anyway so I stopped shooting jpeg can I shoot raw only because if I want what came out of the camera I can click on auto from the raw so I can get the same thing.this is on Lightroom that I'm talking about, and I don't know about other programs. But I'm sure the difference is because the data is not in the jpeg, therefore you don't have the adjustment capability so they don't give them to you, they only give you what you can use. Jmho.....

I made that statement before on this show and people said something like I must be good or something, because I stated that I can make jpeg look better, and I'm not the only one, I know you can do it also, bebecause the camera doesn't do a good job it does an okay job but it doesn't do what we can do with more stuff available in

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - what I can do with a JPG in Affinity for WB (or in PhotoPlus) has always seemed sufficient to me, but I see the extra data in a RAW provided by the increased dynamic range as the big bonus (when and if needed). For me it seems better to shoot RAW plus JPG than to bracket if there is a possibility of later needing that extra range. However, I am usually happy with the JPG my camera can provide, and get satisfaction from setting it appropriately. On occasion I have edited a RAW and thought I had an improved picture, then compared the JPG with the developed and edited RAW a couple of weeks later and changed my mind.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG

FWIW, DNG is a lossless JPEG format. Do you know of any cameras that produce DNGs? The artic le also mentions that some cameras' compressed Raw images are also lossless JPEGs.

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

Dynamic range is one area where the raw file will definitely do better than the jpg.
A jpg will probably work just fine in post if it is well exposed.

I shoot raw only because it forces me to put my images into a conversion program. I use Lightroom, so by shooting raw only all my images are in my DAM. At my age I need all the help I can get finding things and the DAM makes that process simple.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

RGG

True, but needs qualification. The Joint Photographers Expert Group has a JPEG standard for lossless DNG files up to 16 bits. But the 16 bit lossless Adobe DNG standard with sidecar provision for RAW editors should not be confused with the compressed 8 bit image files that come out of cameras and RAW converters for printing and sharing.

No cameras have a DNG option AFAIK. Pretty sure this is a big disappointment at Adobe.

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

I believe I have heard that Pentax offers a camera that puts out dng. I don't have one so this is hearsay from someone with limited memory capacity.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Pentax and Hasselblad both use DNG natively.

Many photographers using other brands use a raw to DNG to everything else workflow, starting with Adobe's DNG Converter. I'm not one of them, but folks swear by it for various reasons.

bleirer

I believe but don't know for sure that if you want to make a camera profile using a color passport card you have to convert to dng first.

RGG

Thanks for the reply. Good to know about Pentax and Hasselblad. I'm sure Adobe is pleased. :)

I've been swearing by the Adobe (LR) DNG converter for almost 10 years. Have not sworn *at* it yet, but always prepared to! :)

Bob

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Does anyone know which cameras other than Pentax or Hasselblad use DNG as the format of their losslessly compressed raw format? I know that Oly has been compressing their raw image files since the E3, but do not know if it is a DNG.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Don't overlook the fact that compression comes in two basic flavors — lossy and lossless. LZW and Zip are two lossless models. JPEG is lossy.

Compressed raw files generally use lossless compression. The expanded file is the same as the original data.

Here's an article that goes into some depth on the topic:

https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-compressed-raw#why-compress-raw-files