quenepas Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Greetings to all. I’d like your comments on the quality of JPEG today. I’ve been using digital cameras since 2001 and there is no doubt that image quality makes a quantum leap year after year. I started shooting RAW about 9 years ago and with post-processing, one has total control of the outcome one desires. I generally set the cameras on RAW/Fine and save both RAW and JPEG on my memory cards. I alternate between a Nikon D-850 and a Fujifilm XT-3. Lately, I’ve been carrying more often the Fuji — maybe because of portability. Most shots are about nature and landscape — there’s a county park behind my house and I go for a brisk 4-mile walk just about every morning, with the Fuji in tow, and stop whenever something catches my eye. I post most of the photos on Instagram and Facebook. I generally go through all the JPEG shots to see which are “keepers’ and what I should discard. Then, work the RAW files with PS, LR Classic and/or Luminar 4. Well, this past Sunday I worked some RAW files and compared my finished product with the original JPEG file out of the Fujifilm XT-3. Honestly, in some cases, I can’t say that my “worked” RAW file converted-product was that much better than the original out-of-camera JPEG. Of course, not in every case. In some photos, I wanted a certain effect and used the tools that LR Classic offers — e.g., dodge and burn, etc. But my thoughts are that in many cases, in the interest of saving time, I could go with an out-of-camera JPEG file to Instagram and Facebook (possibly with minor adjustments). I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this and the current state of out-of-camera JPEG image quality. Thanks, Val

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I think that’s a fair assessment. Most cameras are capable of creating excellent jpegs, especially if you’re just posting to social media. I personally just shoot raw because I like taking complete control of the final product. As I’ve entered competitions to get better critiques to improve my work I just find starting with raw I’m better able to deal with things I might not have noticed before.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

No doubt an experienced photographer can produce a decent JPEG file SOOC sometimes and no doubt so modern cameras offer significant controls to do such. My understanding is that Fuji is one such mfr. which is completely understandable considering they were an awesome film company. Given my desire for a singular workflow, I shoot only RAW using Lr/Ps for all post processing. Some files get very minimal processing when good conditions are present and I do use a lot of presets as starting points. Best of luck.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

JPEGs haven't changed their algorithm that I know of. The state of JPEGs is the same. They always did look damn good for a compressed file.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Your D850 offers significant capability to adjust how it captures and stores JPEGs...and one of the options provides for extremely minimal compression. Your Image Control options in the shooting menu offer significant control over sharpness, saturation, contrast, and other parameters. With some thought and attention, it is possible to capture wonderful images if your exposure is correct, and proper selection of metering mode can take care of that. The only thing built in to the JPEG system that cannot be overcome is the limitation to 8 bits of depth...but HDR options can overcome that. at least to a degree. The back monitor is so much better than previous ones that it is also much easier to evaluate images as well.

I've gone the other way...I do more post processing, rather than less. But I still don't find it to be particularly fun. So I save both JPEG and raw images and have LightRoom set to use my "As Shot" settings as the starting point for my editing. Saves tons of work and time.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I teach photography to cruise ship passengers as their ships stop in Juneau. (no ships this summer of course) After fifteen years of this I have concluded that most people should be shooting jpegs. They look good and most are only seen on a phone or computer screen. If you only share on screen and only need 'pretty good', jpeg is for you. Many UHHers want 'great' and print and sell. Thats where you need the raw files. If you don't print and don't sell, todays jpegs are just fine. As an aside, if you don't need quick turn around, it is quick and easy to make jpegs from your raw in any editing program. I don't share anything on facebook (or anywhere) that I have not tuned up and put my vision into, no matter how mundane the subject.
...Cam

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Modern cameras produce excellent final output images but with some critical caveats.

I also shoot mostly with my Fuji cameras and Fuji has devoted considerable effort to making both excellent output JPEGs as well as offering a wide range of choice to moderate those images. You can spend a very long time exploring all of the various film simulation and tone adjustment options in your Fuji camera that provide nearly an unlimited variety of possible outcomes.

The critical caveats. Even given the wide range of current control options in a camera like your XT-3 the camera JPEG is always a one-size-fits-all solution. In other words your camera will apply a gamma correction tone curve to your image. Will it be a best fit to your lighting condition? Would more than one curve be better? Would a slightly different curve be better?

You note shooting raw + JPEG. If you're at all interested in those JPEGs then you're exposing to get good JPEGs. Caveat: Most modern cameras hedge the exposures that create good JPEGs. In other words they tune their camera's metering systems and JPEG processors to steer pretty clear of the clipping threshold of the sensor. Sounds like a good thing but in the case of your XT-3 Fuji is hedging that bet by nearly 1/2 of your sensor's recording capacity. Short and simple: If you expose to get a good JPEG your raw file is under-utilizing the sensor by a substantial amount. It may not matter much and then again depends on what you like to shoot.

To do a really good job with those JPEGs you need to pay some attention to what you're doing up front -- set highlight tone, set shadow tone, pick a film sim, get the right WB -- seriously get the right WB! Life can pass you by while you're thinking about that stuff. Shooting raw I only have to nail the exposure.

So yes, excellent JPEGs from modern cameras, but given the caveats I will always produce a better final image from a raw capture and I'm better prepared to get that raw capture under pressure.

Joe

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It’s not about the algorithm. It’s about about the processing that’s done in camera to the raw data to create the jpeg. Those processes are improved with just about every new model.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

So you are talking about the cameras juicing up their sharpening and saturation in the file? A lot of that always was there and going on. The JPEG compression formula though hasn't changed to my knowledge. Maybe I misunderstood.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yes, if the cameras were simply converting the raw data to a jpeg it would make for pretty dull images. Even at the “standard” setting there’s a good amount of things like white balance, saturation, sharpening, possibly some denoise going on. Then you have settings like “vivid” or Nikon’s Active-D lighting. Even most P&S cameras have several “scene” settings for things like landscape, portrait and macro that will affect the processing. The algorithm that compressed the jpeg comes after all that.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Every one of these parameters is controllable BY ME in every Nikon camera that I am currently using. There is nothing mysterious or authoritarian about it. I also have a new option in my newest cameras for very minimal compression...40 or 50%. It is essentially lossless. I do not know which of the processing software choices also support this option, but as long as I make no changes, there is no loss. And if there is concern beyond that, many of the newest cameras offer an option to capture and save as uncompressed TIFF.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Above average results for scenes of average contrast.

Great results with high contrast still remains mostly unattainable, unless you are shooting Fuji.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No, not 40 or 50% and certainly not lossless. I have the same function in my Z7. I just pointed in out the door and took a photo with the JPEG setting at fine* (the option you're referring to). The raw file converts to an 8 bit TIFF uncompressed at 130mb. The JPEG fine* is 28.8mb. That's 78% compression. Lossless compression is possible but lossless compression of photographic data doesn't yield real high compression rates. I compressed that 130mb TIFF as much as possible with no loss and got it down to 65.9mb.

JPEG doesn't do a first run lossless compression and then come back and add in lossy compression. The algorithm's compression is all lossy. So your Nikon is applying 78% lossy compression for those JPEG fine* files. JPEG works well and those images look good, but they're most certainly lossy compressed JPEGs.

Don't know what you're talking about here.

Joe

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

My results are not the same as yours. File size for any image will be dependent on the contents. And encoding is not the same as compression. I get JPEGs of about that size from my D500. BUT...if you get the image like you want it and do no further editing, it doesn't matter. People can open that saved file as presented until the cows come home with no further loss. AND...I'm not saying that JPEGs are suitable for every application. But raw files are a waste for many applications.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

They will be the same if you use the same model camera that I used. I used a Nikon Z7. Any Z7 can be expected to behave the same way.

That's correct. If you point the camera up at an empty blue sky you'll get increased compression. That's why I pointed my camera out my back door. I also deliberately pointed it down to reduce the sky so the content was photographically dense (yard, plants, and garden) and would resist easy compression.

And so what? In what way is that distinction in any way pertinent?

Why are you saying this? People can open any JPEG created ever by any camera or software application until the cows come home 100 times a day for ten years if you like with no further loss. Do you have some odd notion that a JPEG can sustain loss by the process of opening and displaying it?

Further loss -- damage -- occurs to all JPEGs if they are edited. Nothing can be done to prevent that damage from occurring. Editing changes made to the JPEG interact with the JPEG compression grid and create harmful artifacts in the image.

Joe